Justice Sotomayor Calls Out Colleagues’ Favoritism For Trump | SCOTUS To Consider Precedent Written By Scalia
February 24, 2020
YOU GOT THAT GREEN
|On Friday night, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that the Trump administration’s wealth test for immigrants could take effect while the legal challenge to the policy’s merits continue to play out. Robert Barnes with The Washington Post reports, “Critics say the rules, which the administration plans to begin enforcing Monday, replace decades of understanding and would place a burden on poor immigrants from non-English-speaking countries.”
FAVORITISM AT ITS WORST
|Mark Joseph Stern with Slate responds to the high court’s 5-4 decision allowing the wealth test to go into effect noting that while all four liberals dissented from the order, it’s SONIA SOTOMAYOR we should all be focused on. Stern writes, “What’s most remarkable about the decision is Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s withering dissent, which calls out—with startling candor—a distressing pattern: The court’s Republican appointees have a clear bias toward the Trump administration.”
DISCRIMINATION VS. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
|Today the Supreme Court said it will take up a dispute between the city of Philadelphia and a Catholic charity over the suitability of same-sex parents to provide foster care. Pete Williams with NBC News explains the case is centered on the issue of when the enforcement of laws against discrimination goes too far and potentially violates religious freedom. “The case could lead the court to reconsider its 30-year-old decision that said citing religious beliefs does not provide an exemption from general laws that apply to everyone. That decision has long been a target of conservatives, who believe it restricts religious freedom. But civil liberties groups say overturning it would blunt efforts to fight discrimination.”
A BEDROCK MODERN PRECEDENT
|Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall with The Wall Street Journal also report on the high court’s decision to take on the foster care case over discrimination of same-sex couples. They explain that the appeal asks justices to “reconsider one of its bedrock modern precedents that says constitutional protections for the free exercise of religion don’t relieve people from complying with general laws that aren’t aimed at the promotion or restriction of religion.” The precedent was written by the late JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA rejecting claims for exemption from general laws on religious grounds. Scalia wrote, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”
THE FOREST AND THE TREES
|Today the Supreme Court hears consolidated cases concerning whether the U.S. Forest Service has authority to grant the Atlantic Coast Pipeline right of way under the Appalachian Trail in the George Washington National Forest. Gregory S. Schneider and Robert Barnes with The Washington Post write, “Judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit threw out a Forest Service permit in December 2018, saying federal law prohibits any agency from allowing a pipeline on ‘lands in the National Park System.’ That includes the trail, the judges said. The pipeline’s builders, led by Dominion Energy, appealed to the high court, saying the ruling could create an impenetrable wall along the trail’s course from Georgia to Maine.”
AIN'T GONNA FLY
|“When F.B.I. agents asked Muhammad Tanvir to spy on his fellow Muslims, he turned them down. His faith, he said, did not allow him to become an informant. The agents were persistent. According to a lawsuit filed by Mr. Tanvir, they cajoled him, threatened him and finally, in 2010, applied a novel sort of pressure: They put him on the No-Fly List, barring him from boarding any planes leaving from or landing in American airports. If he cooperated, the agents said, he would be allowed to fly again.” That’s Adam Liptak with The New York Times previewing a dispute that will be heard by SCOTUS over whether Mr. Tanvir and others with similar stories can sue federal agents for violating a federal law protecting religious freedom.
AS CALIFORNIA GOES...
|“When PRESIDENT TRUMP ticks off his accomplishments since taking office, he frequently mentions his aggressive makeover of a key sector of the federal judiciary — the circuit courts of appeal, where he has appointed 51 judges to lifetime jobs in three years.” That’s Maura Dolan writing for the Los Angeles Times that few places have felt Trump’s influence on the federal judiciary more powerfully than in the 9th Circuit which covers California and eight other states. Dolan reports, “Because of Trump’s success in filling vacancies, the San Francisco-based circuit, long dominated by Democratic appointees, has suddenly shifted to the right, with an even more pronounced tilt expected in the years ahead. Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years.”
HAD TO BE SAID
|For The New York Times, Kenji Yoshino reviews “Supreme Inequality” by Adam Cohen. Yoshino explains that in his book, Cohen refutes the idea that the Supreme Court consistently looks out for vulnerable groups in society. And “while at times ponderous,” Yoshino suggests, “Cohen’s sweeping review is impressive and necessary.”
SCOTUS VIEWS
What Would Happen If Trump Refused To Leave Office?
The Atlantic“If Donald Trump is defeated in November 2020, his presidency will end on January 20, 2021. If he is reelected, then, barring other circumstances such as removal from office, his administration will terminate on the same day in 2025. In either of these scenarios, Trump would cease to be president immediately upon the expiration of his term. But what if he won’t leave the White House?”
A Conservative Judge Just Slapped The Trump Administration’s Treatment Of Poor People
POLITICO“Over the past week, federal appellate courts dealt a one-two punch to the national conservative agenda. Taken together, they stand as a rare defense of low-income Americans to get affordable health care and exercise their right to vote. While the Trump administration frequently trumpets the number of judges it has appointed to the federal bench over the past three years, these decisions are a reminder of the inherent independence of lifetime appointees to break sharply with partisan policymakers.”
It's Time For The Supreme Court To Treat All Speech Equally
The Hill“In a free society, speech at times can be annoying, obnoxious, unsettling or offensive. Panhandlers and political protesters can approach you on the street. Controversial ideas can be expressed on tee shirts, bumper stickers or license plates. And governments cannot block speech merely because it is irritating or bothersome — unless you are talking about commercial speech, in which case government bureaucrats have been given more deference to restrict speech.”
OTHER NEWS
In One State, A Holdout Juror Can’t Block A Conviction. That May Not Last.
The New York Times“The Supreme Court is weighing the constitutionality of nonunanimous verdicts, and is expected to hand down a decision as early as this month. The justices are considering a case involving a murder conviction from Louisiana, which permitted split verdicts until two years ago, when voters overturned the law. The court’s decision also is expected to decide the future of split juries in Oregon, and perhaps the fate of people already convicted with divided juries like Mr. Worley.”
Supreme Court Won't Take Up Rodney Reed Appeal
CNN“The Supreme Court said Monday it will not take up an appeal from death row inmate Rodney Reed, who is challenging his sentence based in part on the fact that Texas relied on evidence that was later proven to be scientifically invalid. Reed was sentenced to death more than 20 years ago for the assault, rape and strangling of 19-year-old Stacey Stites. But his attorneys with the Innocence Project say they have evidence that could exonerate him.”