JUDICIARY WORKING GROUP, WHAT’S THE UPDATE? | Why Liberals Should Applaud Federalism This Week | Too Much Cake Case Not Enough Cake
May 16, 2018
TODAY IN HISTORY
|On this day in 1988, the Supreme Court ruled in California v. Greenwood that police could search discarded garbage without a search warrant.
KEEPING TABS
|Last week, House Judiciary leaders joined their Senate counterparts in urging the judiciary to move forward on their efforts to reform the third branch so that employees are better protected from sexual misconduct. In a letter sent late last week, the House Judiciary Committee requested an update on the judiciary working group’s progress with these reforms, calling for a bi-partisan staff hearing. But Fix the Court says keeping internal tabs isn’t enough. Executive Director GABE ROTH said in a statement this week, “Since the working group was formed in January, Republicans and Democrats in both houses have advocated for thoughtful and appropriate fixes to the endemic problem of inappropriate conduct in the third branch. But why is Congress requesting a private briefing? The judiciary’s constituency comprises all Americans, and the public deserves an open hearing on how the courts plan to eliminate harassment from its ranks.”
YOU CAN BET ON THIS
|Richard Wolf with USA Today says we should expect the Supreme Court’s decision to allow states to authorize sports betting to also empower states on a whole host of other issues from drugs to guns to immigration to taxes. Wolf reports, “The proof is in the reasoning. The justices ruled that under the 10th Amendment, the federal government cannot tell states such as New Jersey what to do with their own laws, which is what the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act did. The same justification can be applied to many current and future battles between the federal and state governments, experts say.”
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
|David Savage with the Los Angeles Times echoes the role the sports betting decision is likely to play, noting that while the decision was backed mostly by conservative justices, it will probably give a boost to California and other liberal states that are defying the Trump administration when it comes to things like immigration enforcement. “At issue on both fronts — sports betting and immigration — is whether Washington can require states to accept a federal policy, or instead, whether they are free to go their own way.” And Monday’s SCOTUS ruling puts independence squarely in the laps of the states.
HIP HIP HOORAY
|Liberals should be putting their hands together with three cheers for federalism this week. Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern explains in his latest why JUSTICE ALITO’S “fantastic” opinion striking down the federal ban on sports betting is good news for liberals in the era of Trump. He notes that while yes, the ruling will eventually usher billions of dollars into the markets of dozens of states, “its most immediate impact will be to remind TRUMP and SESSIONS that they can’t always boss blue states around.”
LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY
|“In PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S former life as a casino owner, he might have cheered Monday’s ruling from the Supreme Court that struck down a federal law that barred every state but Nevada from allowing betting on most sporting events. But the Trump administration opposed the outcome reached by the high court at least in part because it could signal trouble in its legal fight against so-called sanctuary states and cities.” That’s the Associated Press reporting on the direct link between the sports betting base and the administration’s effort to punish local governments resisting Trump’s immigration policies.
LAWYERING 101
|Garrett Epps writes in The Atlantic about this week’s Supreme Court decision that found lawyers can’t override the instructions of their clients when he or she wants to maintain innocence. Epps notes, “The client, not the lawyer, is the center of a case: A lawyer offers advice, and decides on trial strategy, but in the end, the key decisions are the client’s, not the lawyer’s, to make. In a criminal case, those key decisions are whether to plead guilty, whether to seek a jury trial, whether to testify, and, if convicted, whether to appeal.” Epps thinks such decisions are too important to be left to anyone but the client. “As a very fine criminal-defense lawyer I knew used to say to his clients, ‘When this case is done, it’s going to be a file in my office—but it’s going to be your life.'”
JUST LET THEM EAT CAKE
|I’m of the opinion that while there has been a lot of talk this term about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, there hasn’t been enough talk about cake itself. Andrea Strong with Eater explains what a decision in the First Amendment case could mean for the food industry. She says that a win in favor of the Colorado baker could create a dangerously slippery slope by allowing those in the service industry to withhold their services for any number of discriminatory reasons.
OTHER NEWS
States Eye New Revenues After Supreme Court Backs Legal Sports Betting
NPR“Now that the Supreme Court says it’s OK, states are free to legalize betting on sports if they want to. As a once under-the-table economy moves into the open, it creates some large business opportunities — and the potential for millions in new tax revenues. But first comes the nitty-gritty part: writing the rules for how sports fans can bet on their favorite games — the legal age, where people can bet, licensing requirements, software standards for mobile apps, and money laundering safeguards.”
Supreme Court Bypasses New Claim About Gun Rights
Constitution Daily“Continuing its pattern of refusing to clarify the gun rights that are protected by the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has turned aside a claim that gun merchants have their own constitutional right to sell firearms. An appeal in a California case was the first to ask the Justices to expand the Amendment to protect the seller side of gun transactions.”