How SCOTUS Has Enabled Trump On Immigration | Justices Make Their Case For Tossing Precedent Aside
April 24, 2020
HAPPY PLANET
|The Supreme Court ruled this week rejecting arguments from the Trump administration regarding a “loophole” in the Clean Water Act. The case out of Hawaii concerned a wastewater treatment plant on Maui that used injection wells to dispose treated sewage by pumping it into groundwater about a half mile from the Pacific Ocean. Adam Liptak with The New York Times explains that in its 6-3 ruling the justices returned the case to an appeals court for reconsideration under a new standard, but “the decision was on balance a victory for environmental groups.”
CHOOSE YOUR CHOICE
|The Supreme Court yesterday also ruled in an immigration case to widen the grounds for deporting lawful immigrants with criminal records. Jess Bravin with The Wall Street Journal writes, “The court split 5-4 along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority, in interpreting a 1996 law laying out the conditions for deportation. The result means that Andre Barton, a lawful immigrant who has lived in the U.S. since childhood, faces mandatory removal to his native Jamaica.” JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH wrote for the court majority made up of his conservative colleagues, “Removal of a lawful permanent resident from the United States is a wrenching process, especially in light of the consequences for family members. Congress made a choice, however, to authorize removal of noncitizens—even lawful permanent residents—who have committed certain serious crimes.”
TRUMP'S RUBBER STAMP
|Joan Biskupic with CNN explains how the Supreme Court has gotten into the habit of enabling PRESIDENT TRUMP’S immigration agenda, from approving his Muslim travel ban to letting him move forward with border wall funding. Of course, what comes next will be the high court’s biggest test yet for how it handles the president’s immigration agenda. Biskupic writes, “The drama could flare anew as the justices are likely to soon announce a ruling on the Trump administration plan to end a program that shields from deportation undocumented immigrants who came to the US as children. The Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects participants from deportation and allows them to work in the US, covers some 700,000 young adults brought to this country without authorization.”
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of The Washington Post reacts to the high court’s splintered decision regarding jury unanimity that it handed down earlier this week. The Ed Board notes, “There appeared to be little controversy among the justices Monday about the importance of jury unanimity. As the court has had repeatedly in other cases, it is an essential part of the Sixth Amendment’s trial-by-jury guarantee. It should apply to the states with equal force under the 14th Amendment’s due-process clause. But the justices tangled over how to weigh the misjudgment in the 1972 decision against their respect for precedent and predictability in the law.”
READ BETWEEN THE LINES
|“When a fractured Supreme Court ruled this week that jury convictions for serious crimes must be unanimous, one word appeared nearly as frequently in the differing opinions offered by five justices as ‘jury.’ That word was ‘precedent.’ And lurking between the lines was another word, mentioned just twice and only in footnotes: abortion.” That’s Richard Wolf with USA Today explaining why the high court’s decision this week was just the latest indication that the conservative court is willing to undo precedent and could be coming for Roe.