BACKING THE BAN | SCOTUS Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban | Justices Say Right Of Speech Trumps Right To Know In Crisis Pregnancy Center Case
June 26, 2018
SCOTUS BACKS THE BAN...WOW
|Today the Supreme Court upheld PRESIDENT TRUMP’S travel ban against Muslim-majority countries in a decision that has major implication for presidential power. The justices split 5-4 along ideological lines with CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS writing the majority opinion which declared the ban is “squarely within the scope of presidential authority.” The case focused on the third and now current version of Trump’s travel ban which bars almost all travelers from five mainly Muslim countries, and it adds a ban on travelers from North Korea and government officials from Venezuela. Of course, during his presidential campaign Trump had vowed to ban Muslims and was unflinching in his attacks against them on Twitter. But SCOTUS said today that his statements against Muslims did not constitute evidence of religious discrimination. However, the liberal justices saw a different side. In a rare event, two justices read from their dissents in court today — JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER and JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR.
THE LESS YOU KNOW THE BETTER?
|In another hotly anticipated decision the justices today reversed a lower-court ruling that upheld a California law requiring anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to provide information about abortion options to their clients. As Nina Totenberg with NPR points out, “The case pitted the right to know against the right of free speech. On one side, self-identified ‘crisis pregnancy centers’ that seek to prevent abortions, and on the other side the state of California, which enacted a law to ensure that these centers do not intentionally or unintentionally mislead the women who walk through their doors.” But the justices ruled 5-4 that the centers are likely to win on their First Amendment claim, so they overturned the earlier decision and sent the case back for further consideration. JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS wrote the majority opinion.
HAPPY PAPER
|On this day one year ago, the Supreme Court said PRESIDENT TRUMP could forge ahead with a limited version of his Muslim travel ban.
HAPPY WOOD
|On this day five years ago, the Supreme Court gave the nation’s legally married gay couples equal federal footing with all other married Americans and also cleared the way for same-sex marriages to resume in California.
HAPPY TIN
|On this day ten years ago, SCOTUS struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia as it affirmed, 5-4, that an individual right to gun ownership existed.
SCOTUS VIEWS
A Very Partisan Supreme Court Term
The New York Times“The court’s current term, says University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck, ‘is shaping up to be one of its most ideologically one-sided (and consistently conservative) sessions in a long time.’ What can be done about all of these attacks on voting rights? As I argued in my column yesterday, anyone who cares about these rights — Democrat, Republican or Independent — should keep pushing in the other direction at the state and local levels.”
Rigged Supreme Court Upholds Rigged Republican Electoral Maps
The Washington Post“As African American political organizers often say to African American audiences, if voting wasn’t important, Republicans wouldn’t work so hard to prevent them from doing it. And while Democrats are asking themselves whether they should avoid being rude to people who work for President Trump, the Republican majority on the Supreme Court just delivered another victory to the broad and deep GOP effort to make sure that American elections are rigged in conservatives’ favor.”
In Becerra, Conservative Christians Win With Liberal Arguments
The New York Times“Conservative Christians have significantly altered the way in which they engage in many culture war issues. The most current Supreme Court term epitomizes this fundamental shift: More and more often, conservative Christians are pitching arguments built on liberal legal doctrines — especially First Amendment precedents that emphasize broad individual rights.”
The Supreme Court Devastates Antitrust Law
The New York Times“To reach this strained conclusion, the court deployed some advanced economics that it seemed not to fully understand, nor did it apply the economics in a manner consistent with the goals of the antitrust laws. Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent mocks the majority’s economic reasoning, as will most economists, including the creators of the ‘two-sided markets’ theory on which the court relied. The court used academic citations in the worst way possible — to take a pass on reality.”
The Supreme Court Just Struck A Blow Against Mass Surveillance
The Washington Post“The Supreme Court decided Friday that cell-site location information is protected by the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures. Carpenter v. United States offers a rare bright spot in the uphill battle for digital privacy. Even more significant than the ruling is the reasoning: The Supreme Court has finally rejected the outdated idea that we voluntarily surrender our privacy simply because we own a digital device.”