Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Social Media and the Supreme Court — Round 1

By tmess2 | Published March 18, 2024

One of the downsides of the legal system is that the final say on how laws apply to new technologies tend to fall on a group of older lawyers.  In other words, most of the votes are in the hands of people who are not on the cutting edge of technology.  This year, there will be several cases before the Supreme Court involving social media.  To put things in perspective, the four youngest justices essentially went to law school either while I was going to law school or right after I went to law school.  At the time that I was in law school, most students did not have e-mail accounts, and we were using very early versions of Word and WordPerfect as our software for writing papers and exams.  Needless to say, sites like Facebook and X were not part of our law school and college experiences.

This past week, we got the first of the social media cases for the year — actually two separate cases raising the same issue — whether a public official can block individuals from commenting on the official’s social media webpages.  When faced with novel issues, judges tend to try to fall back on existing legal doctrines even if that means forcing round pegs into square holes.  And to a some extent that is what we got in the lead case — Lindke vs. Freed in an actual unanimous opinoin written by Justice Barrett.

The basic facts of this case is that the webpage in question was the personal account of the public official.  The official had this account before running for and winning his current position.  However, he does not his public position on the account similar to how many people not their employment.  And he does use his webpage to mention what is going on with that position.  The people on the other side of this case took advantage of the comment feature of the webpage to critique what the city government was doing.  The public official deleted some comments that he thought were inappropriate or inaccurate before eventually blocking these individuals from commenting.  The people who were blocked brought a case claiming that, by blocking them, this official was violating their First Amendment rights. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , Comments Off on Social Media and the Supreme Court — Round 1

The Supreme Court’s Ballot Access “Decision”

By tmess2 | Published March 10, 2024

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 9-0/5-4 decision in Anderson vs. Trump — the Section 3 case out of Colorado.  The majority opinion was a textbook example of the problem with originalism as the three opinions attempted to divine what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment would have wanted a court looking at this issue to do.  The opinion was NOT a textualist opinion.  Instead, it was an ahistorical attempt to reason how the Congress that proposed (and the state legislatures that ratified) the amendment would have thought the rule would be for this type of case.

To understand the problem,  we first need to understand the “real” world of the 1860s.  Elections were run differently back then.  Today, every state uses a variation of the “Australian ballot.”  The essence of the Australian ballot is a pre-printed unmarked ballot containing all of the names of all of the candidates for all of the offices which the voter marks in the voting booth.  Prior to the adoption of the Australian ballot, depending on the state and location, votes were either public or involved a paper ballot.  In states with paper ballots, “party” newspapers (or the party itself) printed the party’s “ticket” — a ballot with all of the offices with only that party’s candidate for the office listed.  In other words, candidates did not file for office with the election authority prior to the election, and there was no official ballot.  Thus, even when the local party put forward an ineligible, there was no means to disqualify a candidate before that candidate won.

In this type of system, by necessity, any challenge to the eligibility of a candidate had to come after the election.  There were two ways to challenge the eligibility of candidate/office holder.  First, one of the other candidates could file an election challenge (assuming that state law permitted such a challenge).  While, in some states, this might have been a viable method  for challenging a local official, it works less well (even today) for those elected to state legislatures and federal positions.   In many states for the state legislature and for Congress, the final say on the validity of election results rests with the legislative body (either Congress or the respective state legislature).  As we saw back in 2008, even on an expedited basis, there is not enough time for an election dispute to go through the court process before the new term begins.  Not surprisingly, in the 1860s and 1870s, if a former Confederate were elected to Congress, Congress handled the matter by not seating the new member of Congress rather than state courts resolving the issue.  As there was never an ineligible person who received any electoral votes for president, there simply is no historical precedent for how Congress would have handled that issue. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , Comments Off on The Supreme Court’s Ballot Access “Decision”

Trump vs. United States — The Immunity Argument

By tmess2 | Published March 3, 2024

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear arguments in the case of Trump v. United States, regarding Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for his role in the January 6 insurrection because his actions that day were official actions.  They also announced that arguments will be held this term — on April 22.  There is a lot to unpack in this order.

Let’s start with the procedural posture of this case.  Late last year, the trial judge (sitting in the federal district court for D.C.) denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment based, in part, on his claim of absolute immunity for actions taken while President.  He then filed an “interlocutory” appeal of that ruling.  (In most cases, parties can only appeal when a case is over.  There are a limited number of circumstances in which a party can immediately appeal from a pre-trial ruling,)   The appellate court (the D.C. Circuit) expedited the appeal (even more so than is normal for interlocutory appeals).  Despite the D.C. Circuit expediting the case, the special prosecutor, In December, asked that the U.S. Supreme Court take the case without waiting for a ruling from the appellate court (something that is rarely done).    But, on December 22, the U.S. Supreme Court denied that request.

On February 6, the D.C. Circuit issued its opinion affirming the trial court.  Normally, there would be a brief period of time before the “mandate” (the formal order implementing the opinion and restoring the authority to the trial court to proceed).  But the panel that issued the opinion set a quick deadline of February 12 for Trump to get a stay of the mandate from either the full D.C. Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court.  As such, on February 12, Trump filed for a stay with the U.S. Supreme Court.  Now, in most cases, once the stay were granted, the case would proceed on a normal schedule.  On a normal schedule, Trump would then ask for rehearing from the full D.C. Circuit.  If and when the D.C. Circuit declined to rehear the case (the ruling in almost all cases), Trump would then have ninety days (plus any extensions) to ask for certioarari (the formal order taking the appeal) from the Supreme Court.  In some cases, however, when the U.S. Supreme Court issues a stay, it will also treat the stay application as a petition for certiorari.  The special prosecutor, in his response to the stay application, while arguing for the U.S. Supreme Court to deny the stay, made the alternative argument that, if the U.S. Supreme Court did grant the stay, it should exercise that power to treat the stay application as a petition for certiorari and expedite the case. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial | Also tagged , , Comments Off on Trump vs. United States — The Immunity Argument

The Trump Ballot Case and the Precedents of Nat Turner and John Brown

By tmess2 | Published January 7, 2024

On Friday, the United Staes Supreme Court decided to grant President Trump’s Petition for Certiorari in Trump vs. Anderson.  However, it took no action on the companion Petition for Certiorari filed by the Colorado Republican Party in Colorado State Republican Central Committee v. Anderson.  Before turning to the issues raised in this case, there are two things to note about the Supreme Court order granting review and the petitions filed.

First, in granting Trump’s petition, the Supreme Court implicitly recognized the necessity to resolve this issue quickly.  The briefs of Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party (and related organizations) are due on January 18, less than two weeks after the order granting review (as opposed to the usual 45 days).  The briefs of Trump’s challengers and the Colorado election official who are in the middle of this case are due thirteen days later on January 31 (along with any outside brief from individuals who want to support Democracy) with any reply briefs due five days later on February 5.  This contrast to the normal deadlines of 45 days for petitioner’s brief with respondent’s brief due 30 days later and the reply brief an additional 35 days later. Additionally, the case will be argued on February 8 which is a special setting in the middle of what would otherwise have been the Supreme Court’s winter break.

Second, the Supreme Court did not rewrite Trump’s question presented.  Typically, the question prsented in a petition for certiorari is narrowly focused on one legal issue.  For example, did the lower court err in finding that the potential for the metabolizing of blood alcohol content is an automatic exigent circumstance permitting law enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless blood draw?  If there are multiple issues in a case, the petition will present multiple questions on which the Supreme Court can pick and choose which issues will be considered at the time that the petition is granted.  For example, the Colorado Republican Party presented three issues:  1) does Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the President; 2) is Section 3 self-executing; and 3) does disqualifying a candidate violate the First Amendment rights of political parties.  By contrast, the Trump Petition, after noting the ruling (that his actions and the office of President fell within the restrictions of Section) simply asks whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred by excluding him from the ballot.  In other words, unlike the usual question which identifies a specific legal error in the ruling, the Supreme Court appears to be allowing the consideration of any potential theory on why the Colorado Supreme Court erred. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2024 Convention, Donald Trump, Elections, GOP, Judicial, Republicans, RNC | Also tagged , , , , , , , , Comments Off on The Trump Ballot Case and the Precedents of Nat Turner and John Brown

Judicial Roundup

By tmess2 | Published November 26, 2023

November has seen two big developments in the courts that are of political interest which unfortunately can be characterized as the bad and the ugly.

The bad comes to us from the Eighth Circuit.  Traditionally, the Eighth Circuit has been somewhat on the conservative side, but mostly within the mainstream of traditional conservative thought.  It’s current compositions (by appointing president) is one from Daddy Bush, five from Shrub, one from Obama, and four from Trump.  This past week, a panel of the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP vs. Arkansas Board of Apportionment.  If you could not tell from the title, this case is a challenge to redistricting in Arkansas under the Voting Rights Act.  The trial judge in the case was a Trump appointee, and, based on a theory currently making its way among the far right, the trial judge dismissed the case on the theory that only the Attorney General can bring a case under Section 2.  In an opinion written by one of the Trump appointees, the panel adopted that theory.  The Trump appointee was joined by a Shrub appointee.  The third judge (a Shrub appointee) dissented.

The basis of the theory of the majority is textualism gone amok.  Technically, there is no express provision in the Voting Rights Act saying that private individuals can challenge district lines.  And, if this were a case of first impression involving just Section 2 and Section 2 had been written today, this argument might make sense.  Currently, courts are very reluctant to infer new causes of action. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Judicial Roundup

Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 3

By tmess2 | Published September 24, 2023

In this last part of our Supreme Court preview, the topic shifts from the cases that will definitely be heard this year to the cases in the pipeline.  The U.S. Supreme Court receives around 5,000 petitions for review every year, but they only grant review in approximately 60 cases per year.  Now, some of those 5,000 petitions are clearly frivolous and have zero chance of being granted.  But, even eliminating the clearly delusional petitions, that translates into something like one petition out of seventy petitions being accepted for review.  So any discussion of what cases might get full review is very, very speculative.

Now, we know that some cases will technically be heard.  There is a very limited category of cases that have direct appeals to the U.S.  Supreme Court.  But that does not mean that the Supreme Court grants full merits briefing and argument in all of those cases.  Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court often simply issues a short opinion or order affirming the trial court decision based on the initial pleadings of the parties.  For example, we know that Alabama wants the Supreme Court to take another look at their redistricting case now that the three-judge panel has held that their second attempt at redistricting failed to remedy the previous violation.  The easy decision of the U.S. Supreme Court is to reject this effort, but they might choose to wade back into this area.

So what seems likely?  The first thing that is almost certainly the case is that the U.S. Supreme Court will take a good chunk of cases from the Fifth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit.  There are two reasons for this.  First, these circuits are just big.  The Ninth Circuit is both big geographically and in population (including the states of Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington).  The Fifth is not as big geographically but it does include Texas.  Second, both courts are somewhat politically lopsided which has made them the “go to” circuits for people who are shopping for a friendly court for an ideological case.  So the Fifth Circuit is likely to issue opinions which are too conservative even for this bunch of justices, and the Ninth Circuit is likely to issue opinions which are too liberal for this Supreme Court. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 3

Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 2

By tmess2 | Published September 17, 2023

Last week, we took a look at the cases that are set for argument in October and November.  This week, we look at the cases that have been accepted for argument, but have not yet been set for an argument date.  These cases will probably be heard in December or January.

The primary job of the Supreme Court (reflected in the criteria that it lists on its rules for what applicants need to demonstrate before the Supreme Court will accept review) is to assure that courts uniformly interpret and apply federal law.  As such, every case is important to some groups of people.  But the focus in these posts are on those cases which could have a political impact.

First on this list is Muldrow.  This case involves Title VII — the law barring discrimination based on race and gender in employment.  The issue in this case is “transfers.”  Basically, by transfer, we are talking about the reassignment of employees from one job to another job.  Generally, Title VII only applies to “adverse” actions.  As such, the issue is what type of damage/impact does the employee have to show.  At least the argument from the employer is that if the transfer is truly a lateral move with no impact on pay or promotion opportunity, then there is no discrimination.   Obviously, there are other things that impact what qualifies as a desirable job.  Here, the employer is a police department and the transfer is from a detective-type squad to a patrol squad.  Technically, the ranks are equal, but there are reasons why a detective squad is a preferred position.   Needless to say, this case could either indicate an approach to Title VII that would allow it to broadly apply to transfer decisions or an approach in which transfers to nominally equivalent positions will rarely implicate Title VII.  From a practical standpoint, there seems something wrong with an interpretation that would, for example, let an employer assign most women to a night shift and most men to a day shift on the theory that the positions are equivalent, but I would not put such a myopic view past some of the current justices. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 2

Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 1

By tmess2 | Published September 10, 2023

We are three weeks away from the First Monday in October which means that the Supreme Court will soon be back in session.  Putting to the side the continued questions about the ethical failings of certain ultra-conservative justices (who unfortunately would never be convicted by the Senate even in the unlikely event that the more ethically-challenged Republican caucus in the House would actually allow articles of impeachment to pass), that means time to look ahead to the politically-significant cases on this year’s docket.

For a brief refresher, during its annual term, the U.S. Supreme Court sits in seven argument sessions.  Each of these argument sessions lasts for two weeks.  After five of these argument sessions, the U.S. Supreme Court takes a two-week break (with longer breaks over the holidays and after the January argument session).   Typically, for ease of convenience, the sessions are referred to as the October, November, December, January, February, March, and April sessions even though some sessions will begin in one month and conclude in another month (like the November session this year which will begin on October 30).  During the argument session, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.  If one of those days is a holiday, that day is skipped.  There is no firm rule (as the Supreme Court will make adjustments if the docket requires it), but a “full” docket will have two arguments in the morning on each day.  Subject to adjustment if a third party (usually the Solicitor General if a case involves a federal statute) is permitted to argue, the party that lost below gets thirty minutes to argue and answer questions followed by thirty minutes for the party that won below followed by a brief rebuttal argument by the party that lost below.

On the Friday before the argument session, the justices meet to review pending petitions for review and to finalize any opinions to be released the following week.  There are similar conferences on the Fridays on the weeks in which there are arguments at which the justices also discuss the arguments that were heard that week and take an initial vote on those cases which is used to assign a justice to write an opinion.  On the Mondays of argument week (and the Monday after the argument week), the Supreme Court releases on order list announcing the decision on pending petitions for review.   In the early part of the term, there might be a separate list announcing the cases accepted for review on Friday to give the parties additional time to start preparing their briefs (the written arguments on the case) as the time schedule gets rather tight for completing the briefs before the oral argument.  Because of those time limits on the written briefs, the January argument session is effectively the cut-off date for a case being heard during the term.  If review is granted after January, the case is held for the following term.  Thus, the cases that we are about to discuss are those that the Supreme Court granted review on between February and June.  (On rare occasions, as it did for one case this year, the Supreme Court may add a case during its summer recess, but the norm is that — other than emergency matters — the period between July 1 and October 1 is quiet.)  The cases that they will accept (some of which may be discussed in Part III of this preview) in the next several weeks will be argued in the second half of this term. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, House of Representatives, Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 1

The Only Protected Class — White Evangelicals

By tmess2 | Published July 2, 2023

For the past several decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has been on a crusade to end the “special status” of minority groups.  While it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the Civil War Amendments and the various Civil Rights Acts were to help, first African-Americans, and then women, achieve equality, the current majority of the U.S. Supreme Court want to act as if the law requires a “color-blind” (and implicitly a “gender-blind”) approach in which any effort by the government (or private institutions) in taking steps to assure that minority and women have a chance at success will be struck down.   Simply put, African-Americans, Hispanics, and women are no longer going to benefit from a “most-favored nation” status in civil rights laws.  On the other hand, the favored group of the Republican Party (White evangelicals) are entitled to such status.

This week saw the new legal order exemplified in three opinions.

First, and most obvious, was the decision in “Students” for “Fair” Admissions, Inc, vs. President and Fellows of Harvard College.  While the outcome of the case is not surprising as an exercise in raw power by the six Republicans on the Supreme Court, the bottom line is the equal protection clause and Title VI ban any attempt to help African-Americans overcome centruries of discrimination by giving them a “plus” in consideration for spots at “selective” universities and professional schools.  The opinion does leave a limited exception in recognizing that these universities use essays as part of the admissions process and, of course, free speech would bar the government from implementing a ban on references to the racial background of the applicant in these essays.  The Supreme Court directs, however, that in considering these essays, admissions offices should solely consider how these essays reflect barriers that the applicant has overcome or other aspects of the applicant’s character.  Of course, nothing in the majority opinion bans giving a plus to “legacy” candidates even if legacy candidates will be primarily composed of wealthy whites.  The one positive aspect of these opinions is that, like with last year’s abortion decision, this decision costs Republicans their wedge issue.  For the past fifty years, affirmative action has placed minorities against those with lower levels of white privilege for the last spots in government program and kept both groups from focusing on the slots that were reserved for those with Privilege.  Whether, with affirmative action no longer around, the powers that be in the Republican Party can keep folks from taking a look at the preferences given to the children of alumni and wealth donors that take aways spots from both middle class whites and minorities who actually earned a slot at the top colleges will be a big question going forward. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial, LGBT | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on The Only Protected Class — White Evangelicals

The Mostly Dead Independent State Legislature Theory

By tmess2 | Published July 1, 2023

Two clauses of the Constitution — one for Congressional elections and one for the selection of presidential electors — give the primary responsibility for adopting the rules governing elections to state legislatures.  The problem with these two clauses is that the U.S. Constitution does not create state legislatures.  Instead, state legislatures are created by the states themselves.  Not too surprisingly, different states structure their legislatures differently — one state (Nebraska) only has a unicameral legislature, many states allow the voters to initiate and approve legislation, each state has a different number of legislative districts, and some states have unique rules on what laws can be vetoed by governors and how many votes it takes to override a veto.

Traditionally, the Supreme Court has resolved this problem by holding that the election clauses simply refer to the legislative power of the state.  Each state is free to create its own rules about the composition of the state legislature, how many votes it takes to pass legislation, and which body gets to make certain election-related decisions (including delegating the redistricting power to independent commissions).    There has been a theory floating for years on the conservative side that these clauses establish a state legislative power that is “independent” of state law and state constitutions.  While this theory keeps reemerging, this theory has repeatedly failed to be adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the last round of redistricting, several state court (including North Carolina, Ohio, and New York) invalidated redistricing maps based on state constitutional provisions related to elections.  Initially, the North Carolina courts invalidated that’s states congressional redistricting plans.   North Carolina Republicans asked for the Supreme Court to review that decision based on the independent state legislature theory arguing that the U.S. Constitution barred state courts from interfering with the state legislature’s power under the U.S. Constitution to set election laws related to federal elections even if those laws violated the state constitution. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, Judicial | Also tagged , , Comments Off on The Mostly Dead Independent State Legislature Theory