Tag Archives: Supreme Court

The Day the Constitution Died

By tmess2 | Published December 12, 2021

In the law, there is a concept known as a “chilling effect.”  Put most simply, it means that the potential reach of the law intimidates people into not exercising a potential constitutional right for fear of the severity of the legal consequence if a court finds that the law is constitutional and covers your proposed activity.    The claim of a chilling effect is most often made in the context of the First Amendment when a statute covers speech or expressive conduct.  A person challenging a broad law can claim that — even if their activity could be barred by a valid law and potentially violates the law under some reasonable interpretation — the law is subject to other reasonable interpretations that would bar constitutionally protected speech.  But the concept of a chilling effect exists in other contexts too.

One remedy to preclude the chilling effect of an unconstitutional law is to allow the subjects of regulations raise “pre-enforcement” challenges to the law.  The essence of a pre-enforcement challenge is that the plaintiff: 1) has been doing X; 2) would continue doing X but for the law; 3) is unable to continue doing X because she does not know if the new law is valid; and 4) believes that the law is unconstitutional.  A pre-enforcement action can lead to a “stay” which allows effected individuals to continue with their activities until the challenge is resolved with no legal consequences.   In the absence of a pre-enforcement challenge, somebody has to be brave enough to violate the law and risk the consequences if the law is upheld.  In essence, they volunteer to be the “test” case for the statute.   While test cases are not unusual as the exact operation of any new law or rule is unclear until after a couple of cases have worked their way through the system, the consequences of being wrong in your belief about how the law should be interpreted can be devastating for the person alleged to have violated the law.

After the passage of the Bill of Rights, the next amendment adopted was the Eleventh Amendment.    Article III allows a federal court to hear a case based on “diversity” jurisdiction.  One early case involved a resident of one state to sue a different state.  Now, traditionally, a government was immune from being sued in its own court (commonly referred to as “sovereign immunity”).  The Eleventh Amendment overturned that initial case.  By its plain text, the Eleventh Amendment only eliminates diversity jurisdiction by barring a non-resident from suing a state.  For true textualists, nothing in the text of the Eleventh Amendment bars a suit filed by a resident of a state against his own government.  However, over the years, the court have created their own rules for what the Eleventh Amendment means. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on The Day the Constitution Died

A background on the issues in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health

By tmess2 | Published December 5, 2021

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Wednesday in a case involving Mississippi’s law banning pre-viability abortions after fifteen weeks.  For those not familiar with court terminology, here is a brief primer on the legal terminology that you might hear during coverage of this case.

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS & THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

The Bill of Rights contains a rather extensive list of “enumerated” rights.  It also contains a catch-all provision in the Ninth Amendment.  Both the Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment contain a due process clause which forbids the denial of liberty without due process of law.  Over the years, the courts have had to deal with the limits of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.  For example, the First Amendment expressly covers two forms of communication — oral (free speech) and written (free press).  But that leaves issues about other forms of expressive conduct (is dancing or painting speech) and whether press was limited to news or does it cover other written publications.  Similarly, there is debated about the due process clause — does it merely require appropriate proceedings (laws being properly passed, cases being properly head) before a person is deprived of their freedom (i.e. goes to prison) or does it also provide substantive protections against the passage of laws that eliminates rights. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , , Comments Off on A background on the issues in Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health

Supreme Court October Term 2021 — Part II

By tmess2 | Published September 26, 2021

Last week, we took a look at the upcoming Supreme Court Term with a focus on the cases scheduled for the October and November argument sessions.  This week, we take a look at the cases set for December and those with no argument date yet (most likely January) with some comments on pending applications.

The big case on the December docket is Hobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — the Mississippi abortion case.  Putting the media hype to the side, the technical issue is “whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.”   Roe and Casey both allow some pre-viability restrictions on abortion.  What they do not allow is a pre-viability ban on all abortions.  The real issue for this case will be how the majority tries to chip away at Roe and Casey to allow more restrictions on abortion.  My expectation is for some plurality opinion written by the Chief Justice or Justice Kavanaugh that makes it likely that the lower courts will nominally uphold Roe and strike down this statute while making it easier for states to regulate abortion in ways that will make it harder for women to get abortions in red states.

There are a couple of cases involving Medicare reimbursements.  One of these two cases involves issues of Chevron deference — the principle that, if a statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to the interpretation made by agency charged with applying the statute.  Conservatives have been chipping away at Chevron deference for many years.  The typical approach has been to use the tools of statutory construction to find that the statute is not ambiguous.  In this approach, Chevron deference is a tie-breaker at the end of the interpretive process, and you rarely get a tie at the end of the interpretive process. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court October Term 2021 — Part II

Supreme Court October Term 2021 Preview — Part I

By tmess2 | Published September 19, 2021

Once again, it’s that time of year.  Every year, the Supreme Court starts a new term on the first Monday in October.  This is the first full term for the new alignment of justices.  While one term is not enough to predict the future, it seems that we have a 2-3-1-2-1 court with Justices Thomas and Alito on the far right with the three Trump justices (it is unclear where they line up and there are some weird issues where they flip) on the right,  Chief Justice Roberts on the center-right, Justices Breyer and Kagan on the center-left and Justice Sotomayor on the left.

As noted in pervious years, the Supreme Court follows a routine during their sittings of four week cycles (a/k/a argument sessions).  In Week 1, the Supreme Court issues an “order list” on Monday , holds arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and meets in a conference on Friday.  The same thing occurs in Week 2.  In Week 3, there is an order list issued on Monday.  Finally, in Week 4, the Supreme Court meets in a conference on Friday.  At the conference, the Supreme Court reviews that weeks arguments (if any) and takes a tentative vote on each of the cases.  Based on that vote, the senior justice in the majority (either the Chief Justice or the longest serving Associate Justice) gets to decide which justice gets the opinion.  Also at the conference, the Supreme Court reviews some of the pending petitions for certiorari (the formal name for an application seeking Supreme Court review of a lower court decision).  (If a justice believes that an application potentially should be granted, it is added to the agenda for the weekly conference.  If no justice believes that an application should be granted, it is denied.)  During the first half of the term, the Supreme Court tends to announce grants of certiorari immediately after the conference to give the parties three more days to complete their written legal arguments (called briefs).   The Monday order list includes any grants not previously announced, some summary reversals (which is supposed to be limited to lower court decisions that are so clearly wrong that further argument is not needed), and, mostly, denials of certiorari.  As noted above, most cases are denied at the initial conference (and the Supreme Court website contains a feature that allows you to run a docket search on a case to see its current status).  In recent years, if the Supreme Court is interested in a case, the justices have typically “relisted” the case for a second conference to make sure that there is no procedural flaw that will prevent consideration of the main issue.  While the Supreme Court typically has a four-week cycle, the December and January sessions tend to have a six week cycle (to push the January sitting past New Year’s Day and to get the February session past the worst part of winter).   If there are opinions on argued cases, they can be announced at any time but usually are announced immediately before the Tuesday and Wednesday arguments.    The Supreme Court calendar features seven argument sessions.  After the last argument session, May and June are spent finalizing the remaining opinions from the year.  After the Supreme Court releases its last opinion, they recess for the summer.  Even during the summer recess, there are still some orders — periodic order lists addressing motions for rehearing (which are routinely denied) and miscellaneous orders on emergency application).

As noted above, during the argument sessions, there are six days set for argument (unless a holiday falls on one of those six days).  On a typical day, there are two arguments (of approximately one hour each) in the morning.  Rarely, there are additional afternoon arguments.  More often, there is only one argument on a day.  The argument docket for a month tends to be released approximately two months prior to the argument.    There are currently nine cases set for October and nine cases set for November. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court October Term 2021 Preview — Part I

The Texas Abortion Law and the Supreme Court

By tmess2 | Published September 5, 2021

As is typically the case with legal news, it is very possible to follow the main stream media and get a very inaccurate perception of what is happening in the courts.  This misreporting isn’t intentional, it’s just that most reporters are not lawyers and thus miss the details that matter.  This past week, the United States Supreme Court denied a stay application related to a new Texas statute that bars abortion after the sixth week of a pregnancy and allows private individuals to enforce that bar by filing a civil case against anybody who aided the woman in getting the abortion — with the remedy being a $10,000.00 payment from the defendant to the person bringing the case.  Given the news coverage, I have three comments.

First, most of the impact of the law will come from its nuisance value.  The actual age of a fetus is an estimate.  Barring some other method that gives a more accurate estimate, gestational age is estimated based on a woman’s last menstrual period (which assumes a regular menstrual cycle and not all women have a regular cycle).    Even the woman herself may not know the exact date of conception (unless she only had sex once since her last period).    And in the early stages of pregnancy (and most abortions occur in the first trimester), it is impossible for the average person to know the gestational age of the fetus by simply looking at the woman.  So unless the woman tells her friend who is driving her to the doctor’s office that she is ten weeks pregnant, the friend will have no idea that the gestational age is beyond six weeks.  While I haven’t read the full statute, it seems at first glance that it will be hard for plaintiffs to win.  But, particularly for abortion providers, the new statute will mean that they are regularly in court with significant legal expenses and average people might be reluctant to help their friends given the expense of defending against these claims.

Second, the empowering of private citizens to bring claims on behalf of the government is not new.  The exact way that these cases will work might have some new wrinkles, but there is an established legal procedure known as qui tam (a shortened title for a latin phrase that translate as “he who sues in this matter on behalf of the king as well as for himself”).  As the reference to the king in the translation hints, this procedure is quite old.  Usually, in the U,S., qui tam statutes involve allowing those with inside information to bring fraud claims on behalf of the government.    If certain legal requirements are met, the successful qui tam plaintiff splits the recovery with the government.  Even without the precedent of qui tam, however, it is clear that any legal claim is state action for the purpose of constitutional law which is why libel suits are restricted by the First Amendment. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , , , Comments Off on The Texas Abortion Law and the Supreme Court

A Republic if You Can Keep It

By tmess2 | Published July 4, 2021

While many American today are celebrating the anniversary of the issuance of the Declaration of Independence, the United States Supreme Court spent this week giving a green light to Republican attempts to cook the ballot box.  Forty years ago, both parties supported the Voting Rights Act.  Democrats wanted to increase minority representation in government, and Republicans realized that compliance with the Voting Rights Act made it easier for them to pack Democrats into “minority” districts and, thereby, make swing districts lean Republicans.

But drawing district lines is merely one way to reduce minority influence.  And, most importantly, district lines play no role in state-wide race.  To reduce minority influence in state-wide races, you need to keep minorities from voting.  And, while the Voting Rights Act clearly bars the blatant techniques like literacy tests which can be directed at minority voting, the question has remained about techniques which merely make it more difficult for minorities to vote.

Unfortunately, we now have a generation of Republican lawyers who have been hostile to the Voting Rights Act in the majority on the Supreme Court.  And we saw the results this week in a decision out of Arizona — Brnovich vs. Democratic National Committee.   This is not the first time that the issue of the meaning of Section 2 and the test that Congress wants the courts to use in analyzing Section 2 claims has been before the Supreme Court.  The original version of Section 2 merely barred practices which states were using to abridge the right of minority groups to vote.  After the Supreme Court interpreted that provision as only barring practices upon proof of a discriminatory intent, Congress amended Section 2 bar practices which “result” in the abridgment of the right of minorities to vote. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Elections, Judicial, Senate | Also tagged Comments Off on A Republic if You Can Keep It

Supreme Court — The Final Week (Updated)

By tmess2 | Published June 26, 2021

This past week was a busy week with the justices issuing eleven opinions which means that there are only five cases left to be decided — two of which are extremely significant.

As discussed in last week’s post, the Supreme Court tries to keep assignments to each justice balanced both within each month and as the term progresses.  That gives us a clue as to which justice could have an opinion.  But within each month, once you have identified the candidates, it is pure speculation as to which justice seems most likely to have the opinion.  And as we have already seen several times this term, trying to guess which justice will get assigned the opinion from the potential candidate will often be wrong.  For example, last week, I guessed that Chief Justice Roberts was most likely to have Brnovich (the voting rights case) from February.  While the Chief Justice did have a February opinion, it ended up being Arthex — a patent case involving the Appointments clause.  Similarly, many had the Chief Justice writing the Obamacare case from November with the Justice Alito writing Fulton, but Justice Breyer got the Obamacare case and the Chief Justice got Fulton.  

The big question is how many opinions each justice will get.   With fifty-four opinions and nine justices, each justice in theory should have six opinions.  But Justice Barrett started one month late.  Currently, Justice Thomas has seven opinions which means that, at least one justice should have five opinions).  So far, Justice Barrett has been one opinion behind the pace for the entire term (one through November, three through February).  As such it seems like Justice Barrett will end up with five opinions for the term with Justice Thomas having the extra opinion and the remaining justices having six opinions each.  The problem with that theory is that Justice Breyer had the extra opinion in October/November and Justice Thomas did not pick up the extra opinion until April.  So does Justice Breyer still have one opinion left (in which case he is due for one in the December-February period and some other justice besides Justice Barrett only has five opinions)? Or did that extra opinion migrate over the course of the term (in which case any justice with only five opinions for the term could be the justice who had the extra opinion at the end of February)? Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , Comments Off on Supreme Court — The Final Week (Updated)

Supreme Court — Two Weeks to Go

By tmess2 | Published June 20, 2021

As I noted in my post on Thursday’s decisions, we are nearing the end of the active part of the Supreme Court term.  (Technically, the term starts in October, but the Supreme Court is in recess over the summer barring any emergency case.)  While the Supreme Court does not list opinion days far in advance, they have fifteen argued cases left to decide.  Based on past practice, we are likely looking at four to six opinion days over the next two weeks to wrap everything up — likely Monday of both weeks and Thursday of this week with the other dates depending on when things are ready.

The easy part of this post is that the Supreme Court has now wrapped up October and November.  And we have most of the cases from December and January.    But this year’s docket offers several complications.  First, while the Supreme Court tries to keep each month’s opinion assignments balanced (and the term as a whole balanced), we have multiple months with fewer than nine opinions.  Second, we have several unsigned opinions from December and two opinions that covered multiple argued cases.  Third, Justice Barrett did not start until the November docket.  Based on what we know, there should be six opinions per justice (54 signed opinions for the term.)  As Justice Thomas has seven opinions, it looks like Justice Barrett will only have five opinions.

October and November had 18 cases which should have meant two opinions per justice which held true for every justice except Justice Breyer who had three opinions and Justice Barrett had one opinion which seems to reflect that Justice Breyer picked up the extra October opinion that would have gone to Justice Barrett.  (Justice Breyer may end up with seven opinions and somebody may have lost an opinion in light of Justice Thomas’s seven opinions or the court might just have altered who got the extra case as the term went along.) Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court — Two Weeks to Go

Supreme Court — Thursday Blockbusters

By tmess2 | Published June 18, 2021

Normally, at this time of the year, I am posting a look at the big cases to be decided in the last two to three weeks.  I got a little delayed this year by the redistricting posts, and  The Supreme Court beat me to the punch by releasing two of the biggest opinions of the term  — Texas vs. California and Fulton vs. Philadelphia.  

Texas is the latest, and hopefully last, round of the Republicans attempts to use the courts to accomplish what they can’t do in Congress — repeal the Affordable Care Act.  The latest theory was that, by repealing the tax penalty that is part of the individual mandate, Congress effectively repealed the entire Affordable Care Act.

Understanding the issues in the case requires a brief detour into the back history of the case and some basic things that most lawyers learn in law school (but which the dissent kindly forgets).  Before the New Deal, there were a lot of doctrines that a conservative Supreme Court used to block progressive legislation.  And, as will be discussed in the post on the remaining cases, it is important to understand that many in the Federalist Society think that the “Old Court” got it right and oppose the changes that the Supreme Court made in the 1940s to those doctrines.  One of those changes was a much broader definition of the power of the federal government to regulate economic matters under the Commerce Clause.  And when the Affordable Care Act was enacted, most thought that the individual mandate was authorized by the Commerce Clause.  And when the Republicans first challenged the individual mandate, the defense of the mandate relied, in part, on its significance in the overall scheme.  Unfortunately for the future of the Affordable Care Act, when the Supreme Court first analyzed the Affordable Care Act, the Chief Justice sided with the conservatives on the Commerce Clause issue but was willing to find that it was authorized as a tax.  When Republicans managed to repeal the tax in 2017, conservatives saw an opportunity to use that repeal to take a second run at the individual mandate and the Affordable Care Act. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Healthcare, Judicial, LGBT | Also tagged , , Comments Off on Supreme Court — Thursday Blockbusters

The Supreme Court and Elections — Post 2020 Editions

By tmess2 | Published March 7, 2021

This past argument session (the February Session) saw the last gasps of the 2020 election.  There were three very different issues on the table:  1) the Trump attempts to overturn the election for alleged failure to follow election procedures: 2) the role of state legislatures, state election officials, state courts, and federal courts in setting the rules for election; and 3) the Voting Rights Act.

On the first issue, there are apparently two cases still pending at the U.S. Supreme Court — one a Wisconsin case that will likely be turned down on the March 8 order list and the other will not be considered until later (either the March 19 or March 26 conference).  The second one is a Pennsylvania case involving the issue discussed below.  Assuming that the Wisconsin case is denied, the Supreme Court will have denied Trump’s requests for review in all of the cases involving alleged fraud in the election over the past several weeks.

The second issue is likely to arise again.  Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 gives the primary authority to set the “times, places, and manner” of congressional elections to the “legislature” of each state subject to the ability of Congress to also legislate on these issues.  Similarly, Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 gives the power to direct the “manner” of choosing electors to the “legislature” of each state.  In recent years, there has been a significant amount of litigation involving these clauses.  There are two key legal questions:  1) what is the scope of “manner”; and 2) what is the “legislature.” Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 General Election, Civil Rights, Elections, Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , , , Comments Off on The Supreme Court and Elections — Post 2020 Editions