The Chief Justice Goes Solo In First-Ever Lone Dissent | SCOTUS Rejects Last Of Trump’s Election Challenges

March 9, 2021

The Supreme Court yesterday revived a former student’s lawsuit against his college that had stopped him from spreading the Gospel on campus. The issue before justices was whether the student, CHIKE UZUEGBUNAM, could keep his civil rights case alive and seek damages even after his university agreed to his complaint, ended its speech policy, and paid for his legal fees. Robert Barnes with The Washington Post reports, “JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS said the request for nominal damages was enough to keep the suit alive, in an 8-to-1 opinion.” The lone dissenter? CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS. Apparently the first time he’s cast a lone dissenting vote in his 16-year tenure.

Nina Totenberg with NPR reports on CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS’ solo dissent in which he “bluntly accused his colleagues of a ‘radical expansion’ of the court’s jurisdiction.” Roberts argues the case is now moot writing, “The challenged restrictions no longer exist. And [the students] have not alleged actual complaints.”

CNN’s Supreme Court analyst, STEVE VLADECK spoke with Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole about yesterday’s 8-1 decision in the campus free speech case and noted, “I think the most important thing about today’s ruling is what it did not hold. For decades, civil litigants, and especially civil rights plaintiffs, have relied on the notion that alleging minimal damages is a sufficient way to get into court for claims of legal violations that may not have caused quantifiable economic injuries. The lower court’s decision in this case, had it been affirmed, would have thrown that into serious jeopardy. But today’s ruling reaffirms the viability of this approach — and keeps courthouse doors open for those whose rights were violated in a way that may not have caused monetary harm.”

Yesterday the Supreme Court also decided to turn away the last of DONALD TRUMP’S challenges to state election procedures. In a one-line order, without comment, SCOTUS rejected his appeal of lower court rulings that upheld Wisconsin’s handling of mail-in ballots.

Orion Rummler with Axios reports the Supreme Court yesterday declined to take up a case challenging the scope of qualified immunity, refusing to hear an appeal of a lawsuit brought against Cleveland police officers. “Our thought bubble, via Axios’ race and justice reporter Russell Contreras: The Supreme Court ruling won’t stop advocates who plan on pushing for states to change their qualified immunity laws for officers.”

“The COVID-19 pandemic forced federal courts to give the public more access to arguments and hearings over the past year, but it’s unclear how many of those changes will stick when courthouses fully reopen and a flood of backlogged cases is expected to hit the dockets.” That’s Todd Ruger in Roll Call noting that even SCOTUS couldn’t avoid evolving with the times and airing their arguments through live audio during the pandemic. GABE ROTH, Executive Director of Fix the Court, wondered to Ruger, “Remind me why they haven’t been doing this all along?” The question now is whether justices will keep it up once they can return to in-person arguments.