SCOTUS October Term Round Up
I told you that the October term for SCOTUS had started, but I did not cover any of the cases of interest. Well, my usual source is back up, so here we go.
Four cases were argued yesterday. Only one is of interest to me. The case is styled Chiles v Salazar and the question is whether Colorado’s law banning “conversion therapy” for minors by licensed mental health professionals violates the First Amendment, specifically the Free Speech Clause, by regulating conversations based on their content and viewpoints. Based on the snippets of the transcript/audio recording I’ve seen, the majority of the Court seems to think the law is unconstitutional. Even Elena Kagan seemed skeptical. “I have this feeling that’s a different kind of case,” she said. “That seems like viewpoint discrimination in the way we would normally understand viewpoint discrimination,”.
Today sees three cases being argued before the Supremes. Of the three, two are interesting. The first interesting case is called Bost v Illinois Board of Elections. The question the Court is considering is whether a federal candidate has legal standing to challenge state election procedures in federal court. The basis of the case is really a matter of standing, but it has the potential to upend a lot of dumb state voting laws.
The other case of interest on the docket today is called Barrett v US and asks whether separate sentencing for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j) are enjoined by the double jeopardy clause. The plaintiff in this case, Dwayne Barrett, is a scumbag. He was convicted – and sentenced – for violations of 924 (c) and (j). Those two statutes concern the use/possession of firearms in the commission of felonies. I do not doubt he deserves all the sentence he deserves, however, if the feds are charge stacking in violation of the law and the Constitution he should win this case.
Of the 4 cases left after today’s oral arguments, two are of interest. Both of them are set for oral argument on the last day of argument for October, the 15th.
Case v Montana asks whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. I looked into the background of the case and it looks to me to be a situation where the cops arrived only to make a bad situation much worse. Trevor Case was having mental issues and his ex called the cops. They entered the house without probable cause, exigent circumstances or a warrant, shot Trevor in the abdomen and then charged him with assault on an officer.
The other case set for the 15th is Louisiana v Callais. That is the Voting Rights Act case. The question before the Court is Whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. This case could end racial gerrymandering across the country. It could also deal a serious blow to some of the aspects of the VRA.
