Immigration Inundates Supreme Court Under Trump | The High Court’s Moment Of Truth On Religion May Have Arrived
February 27, 2020
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times responds to the Supreme Court’s decision this week to deny the family of a 15-year-old boy killed by a U.S. border agent to sue that agent for damages. The Ed Board refers to the decision as “an affront to common decency and the rule of law.” They go on to argue, “But the 5-4 decision by the court’s conservative majority is more than just a denial of due process for one aggrieved family. It’s the latest sign that conservative justices seek to make it hard, if not impossible, for victims of abuse by law enforcement officers to have their day in court.”
A LOT A LOT
|“PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S three-year crackdown on immigration has led to a surge in lawsuits reaching the Supreme Court, where a rebuilt conservative majority increasingly is paying dividends for him. In the past year, the justices have let the administration deter poor immigrants, deny asylum seekers and redirect military funds to build a wall along the southern border. Federal officials’ efforts to force cooperation from states and cities could be next.” That’s Richard Wolf with USA Today reporting that immigration cases are inundating SCOTUS — six different immigration cases have been argued before the high court already this term. Two more are scheduled for next week. Wolf writes, “The glut of cases comes as the president makes his approach to immigration central to his re-election campaign. For a court that tries valiantly to avoid politics, its rulings could become fodder in that effort.”
BLURRED LINES
|Emily Bazelon with The New York Times considers how far DONALD TRUMP’S Supreme Court will go in embracing its rigid understanding of the Constitution. She notes, “The line between law and politics has always been blurry, and judges have often professed to sharpen it. Claims of unblinking fidelity to the text have increasingly become the crowning orthodoxy on the right in recent decades. Now Gorsuch and his conservative colleagues have a chance to harness that energy to transform the law.”
TOP-ED
|Linda Greenhouse with The New York Times says SCOTUS is nearing its “moment of truth on religion.” She makes note of a shift that has occurred in the court’s approach to religious freedom and writes, “As religious conservatives have come to dominate the court in the intervening decades, the court itself has made the most of statutes that were actually intended as a rebuke to its authority.”
IF IT WORKS IT WORKS
|At this week’s Democratic presidential debate, JOE BIDEN promised to put a black woman on the Supreme Court. Gillian Brockell with The Washington Post points out that although some criticized the pledge as pandering, it’s a tactic that worked for RONALD REAGAN when he promised to put a woman on the court during his 1980 presidential run.
WATCH YOUR MOUTH
|“The word ‘damn’ easily slips off the lips of many people, as it is so much a part of today’s lexicon. But in the formal environment of the U.S. Supreme Court, an advocate’s use of the word during arguments Monday resounded with some lawyers present.” Marcia Coyle with The National Law Journal covers the exchange between JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER and a lawyer representing Sudan in the case of Opati v. Republic of Sudan in which the lawyer dropped the d-word. Coyle suggests, “Shocking? Hardly. But definitely striking. Advocates at the Supreme Court tend to go to great lengths to avoid saying expletives or profanity, even in those instances where a particular word or words are central to the case.”
OTHER NEWS
Trump Supreme Court Dismisses DC Sniper's Case
CNN“The Supreme Court dismissed on Wednesday the pending case of Lee Boyd Malvo, who was convicted for his role in the serial sniper shooting spree that rocked Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia 17 years ago. Last fall, the court heard arguments in the case after a lower court ordered a new sentence for Malvo, who was 17 when the crimes were committed in 2002 and was originally sentenced to life without parole. In court, lawyers for Malvo said his sentence deserved a fresh look because the Supreme Court had issued new guidance on juvenile offenders in recent years. At the time, Virginia argued against Malvo. The one-sentence order, which was expected, comes two days after Virginia’s governor signed a bill making juvenile offenders who were sentenced to life imprisonment eligible for parole after serving 20 years. Both sides told the Supreme Court there was no reason to continue the case.”
Trump Can Withhold Millions From ‘Sanctuary’ States, Court Rules
The New York Times“The Trump administration can withhold millions of dollars from law enforcement agencies in states and cities that do not cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday. The decision, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan, was the first by an appellate court to side with the administration’s argument that it can impose conditions on the release of the money, which comes in the form of grants. Three other appeals courts have previously affirmed lower court rulings that it was unlawful for the White House to tie the grant money to state and local governments’ cooperation with the federal authorities.”
The Supreme Court Will Decide If Trump Can Fire The Head Of The CFPB. The Implications Are Enormous.
Ian Millhiser“Next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear Seila Law v. CFPB, which asks whether the president is allowed to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) at will. That question may seem minor and esoteric, but the stakes underlying Seila Law are enormous. There is an off chance that the Court could use this lawsuit to strike down the entire CFPB — a decision that would dismantle much of the infrastructure Congress built in response to the 2008 financial crisis. Meanwhile, there’s a much greater chance that the Court will use this case to fundamentally alter the balance of power between the president and the federal government’s ‘independent’ agencies.”