Last of the Bunch: SCOTUS Roundup
The last of the cases for this term at the Supreme Court dropped this morning. I know I told you there were 6 cases left on the docket – and there were – but we only have 5 opinions this morning. Louisiana v. Callais, a Congressional district/redistricting case will be re-argued next term.
That leaves us with the 5 cases that were decided. We’ll take at least a quick look at all of them, and a bit deeper dive into two or three.
Let’s start with the one that is likely most important to you all; Trump v. CASA, Inc. This case is not what it purports to be. You will likely have seen it called the birthright citizenship case. However, that is really just the MacGuffin. This case is about nationwide or universal injunctions and the ability of district courts to issue them.
Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion with Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh joining. Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh wrote concurrences and the three liberals dissented with Sotomayor and Jackson filing written dissents.
In her opinion Barrett says universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts.” In plain English, universal injunctions are not allowed under the law.
The Justices got a little snippy in their writings. Barrett in particular took direct aim at Jackson and her hyperbolic dissent saying “Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a “mind-numbingly technical query,”she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.” in response to Jackson’s claim that “this Court’s complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise.”…
Regardless, this ruling puts the brakes on universal injunctions going forward and that is a Good Thing™.
Moving on to the next case of interest.
Mahmoud v. Taylor is a case about parental choice in public schools. The Montgomery school district in Maryland changed a policy that had previously allowed parents to opt out of certain classroom instruction involving sexual and LGBTQ topics. A broad-based coalition of parents sued.
Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion with Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett joining. Sotomayor filed a dissent that Kagan and Jackson joined.
In his opinion Alito wrote “We reject this chilling vision of the power of the state to strip away the critical right of parents to guide the religious development of their children. Yoder and Barnette embody a very different view of religious liberty, one that comports with the fundamental values of the American people.”
This opinion is a strong victory for parental rights in this country. I expect the repercussions of this one will be felt for a long time to come. I will note that some of the opinions today represent a departure from the usual form. There seems to be more personal acrimony than is usual.
The next case we’ll look at is Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton. This is the PornHub case. Texas passed a law requiring all adult websites to verify their users ages before allowing them to access the site. The site owners sued claiming the law violated the 1st Amendment.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for the Court with Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh joining. The usual gang of idiots dissented with Kagan writing it.
Thomas held that the law in question did not trigger strict scrutiny and only needed to pass intermediate scrutiny. I realize that is a technical in-the-weeds kind of explanation, but that is the only kind there is for this case. And a lot of other SCOTUS cases for that matter. Anyway.
The upside is the Texas law passes muster and is now in effect.
I will admit to not knowing (or caring frankly) much about the last two cases.
FCC v. Consumers’ Research is a case about the FCC being able to set rates for the so-called universal service fees. The agency was sued and the 5th Circuit held the way they did it violated the underlying statutes. I think, look this shit is complicated and I’m not a con-law attorney.
Kagan wrote the opinion and Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Gorsuch wrote a dissent that Thomas and Alito joined.
Kagan’s holding is that the process while close to violating statutory authority in more than one place, did not actually violate the statute in either and therefore did not combine and push the whole thing over a statutory or constitutional bound.
All that said, I look at who wrote and joined the dissent and I have to assume the majority got it wrong. I have not had the time to read the entire dissent, but I will and then leave my impressions in the comments below.
Our final case is Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc. This case touches on the appointments clause of the Constitution. It hinges on a technical (again) point and a couple of definitional ones. The question is whether an insurance board appointed by the HHS was properly empanelled.
Kavanaugh delivered this one with Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson concurring. Thomas penned a dissent that Alito and Gorsuch joined.
Kav says the board was properly seated and that the HHS Secretary properly used his delegated powers to do so.
Again, this case isn’t one that I’ve been watching. It doesn’t have much import to the average person directly. However, given who dissented I have to wonder if it was decided correctly.
