Justices Shadowbox Over Long-Running, Hot-Button Debates | What Yesterday’s Decision About Unanimous Juries Tells Us About SCOTUS
April 21, 2020
ICYMI
|The Supreme Court took a number of actions yesterday including handing down a decision that defendants can’t be convicted of serious crimes under the Constitution unless jurors are unanimous. Jess Bravin with The Wall Street Journal reports that the decision overturns laws in two states and calls “thousands of verdicts into question.” JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH wrote the opinion of the court, while JUSTICES ALITO, KAGAN, and CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS all dissented.
THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT
|Monday’s decision regarding unanimity will have immediate consequences in Louisiana and Oregon where laws were overturned, but it will also certainly have an impact on cases still to come. Nina Totenberg with NPR writes, “Altogether the majority, concurring and dissenting opinions totaled a whopping 86 pages and reflected an important subtext — divergent views about when the court should follow its usual rule of adhering to precedent and when it should not. It’s important because, the new ultra-conservative court majority has very different views than the courts of the last 75 years on topics as diverse as abortion, voting rights, federal regulation and the clash between religious views and generally applicable laws.”
SPILL THE TEA
|Mark Joseph Stern with Slate says the SCOTUS decision yesterday regarding unanimous juries is weirder than it looks. Because even though the vote was 6-3, the court actually splintered 3-1-1-1-3 “on thorny disputes over precedent, constitutional interpretation, the Bill of Rights’ protections for noncitizens, and the contemporary relevance of a law’s racist roots.” Stern says the outcome of the case actually demonstrates that SCOTUS is as divided as ever, with justices using the case “to shadowbox over long-running debates, including abortion, giving every court watcher some tea leaves to obsess over.”
YOUR MESS IS MINE
|SCOTUS yesterday also handed down a decision that makes it harder for Montana landowners to secure additional cleanup of a toxic waste site. Ruling 7-2, justices said that the EPA has to take the lead on Superfund cleanups, and that states can’t take actions on their own. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS wrote for the majority and said that without EPA input, administrative chaos could lead to even more environmental issues.
POD DU JOUR
|Today’s The Daily podcast from The New York Times focuses on the Supreme Court and some of the decisions justices have handed down amid the ongoing pandemic. ADAM LIPTAK joins the pod for the discussion.