Justices Dodge Police Liability Cases Just Before The Anniversary Of George Floyd’s Killing
May 25, 2021
WHY YOU GOTTA BE SO CRUEL
|The Supreme Court yesterday refused to hear an appeal from a death row inmate in Missouri who wants to be executed by firing squad. ERNEST JOHNSON’S lawyers told SCOTUS that if he is killed by lethal injection with the drug pentobarbital, he will suffer “excruciatingly painful” seizures. They said such an outcome would violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Johnson had a brain tumor and underwent surgery to address it, but it left him with a seizure disorder. Justices declined to overturn a lower court ruling that closed Johnson’s case without considering the question of a firing squad alternative. All three of the court’s liberal justices dissented from the decision, with JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR writing, “Missouri is now free to execute Johnson in a manner that, at this state of the litigation, we must assume will be akin to torture, given his unique medical condition.” She suggested SCOTUS “has sacrificed the Eighth Amendment’s chief concern for preventing cruel and unusual punishment.”
OVER TO YOU, CONGRESS
|Also yesterday, SCOTUS declined to hear two cases challenging legal protections for police officers. Although neither dealt directly with qualified immunity, one of the appeals questioned when people may sue federal police for damages and the other asked SCOTUS to clarify when cities can be sued for altercations involving police. John Fritze with USA Today reports, “The court’s orders came a day before the one-year anniversary of GEORGE FLOYD’S murder. His killing, which prompted nationwide protests and unrest, has also led to a debate on Capitol Hill about whether to make it easier to sue police for misconduct.”
WASTE NOT WANT NOT
|In a unanimous decision handed down Monday, the Supreme Court backed Guam’s bid to pursue payment from the U.S. government for hazardous waste dumping by the Navy at the territory’s Ordot Dump. Rachel Frazin with The Hill writes, “At issue in the case is whether a 2004 settlement between the U.S and Guam under the Clean Water Act should prevent the U.S. territory from pursuing payment under another law that deals with hazardous waste cleanup known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Monday’s ruling said Guam can pursue U.S. payments under the hazardous waste law. The court said that just because the U.S. and Guam had reached an agreement under a different environmental law, namely the Clean Water Act, that does not mean Guam can’t pursue additional payments under CERCLA.”
POD DU JOUR
|On today’s episode of The Daily presented by The New York Times, ADAM LIPTAK joins to talk about the case before SCOTUS involving a teenage girl’s rant on Snapchat. The young cheerleader didn’t make it onto the varsity squad and now her expressions of frustration on social media are the subject of a blockbuster First Amendment case at the Supreme Court.
BONUS POD
|If you’re back to podcasting (or maybe you never stopped) and want more SCOTUS content, look no further than It’s Been a Minute with Sam Sanders which features a conversation with MARK JOSEPH STERN with Slate. They discuss expected rulings from the Supreme Court, the future of the court, and “why the drama between justices can sometimes equate to a Real Housewives–style argument over dinner (with table flip).”