A NEW ERA FOR SCOTUS | Three First Amendment Cases Taken Up Today | Are Courts Messing Up Politics?
November 13, 2017
IT'S A NEW DAWN, IT'S A NEW DAY, IT'S A NEW LIFE
|Welcome back from your holiday weekends! Whether you knew it or not, you woke up this morning in a new age for the United States Supreme Court. Starting today, the public for the first time will be able to access briefs and other case documents on the court’s website. Robert Barnes with The Washington Post reports on why this shift, although seemingly a little ho-hum, is an important step for SCOTUS.
CALIFORNICATION
|The justices today decided they will consider whether the state of California violates free speech guarantees by requiring private facilities—sometimes called “crisis pregnancy centers”—that counsel pregnant women against abortion to post signs telling patients that the state offers contraception services and abortion assistance. The California case promises to be high-profile and raises important free speech issues about when a state’s intent to regulate the medical profession violates constitutional protections.
WHO WHAT WEAR
|The Supreme Court agreed today to hear yet another First Amendment case which involves the question of whether a Minnesota statute that prohibits wearing political apparel in polling places in unconstitutional. Minnesota is one of at least 10 states with broad bans on political apparel at election sites, according to the challengers. A decision striking down those laws would mark a significant shift for the high court, which in 1992 upheld a Tennessee law that barred campaign materials promoting a specific candidate or party. That law didn’t mention more general political items.
WELCOME TO MY CRIB
|SCOTUS agreed today to hear a third First Amendment case brought by a Florida man who previously won a landmark ruling from the justices on whether his floating home was a house, not a boat subject to easier government seizure under laws that govern ships and boats. This time, the justices agreed to hear a case in which Fane Lozman sued after being charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest at a public meeting.
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|Over the weekend, the Editorial Board of The New York Times pleaded that the president read the Constitution, noting that although his constitutional illiteracy can sometimes be amusing, “more often it’s alarming.” The piece also includes a list of “MR. TRUMP’S depredations” against our founding documents from the last two and a half years.
TODAY IN HISTORY
|On this day in 1956, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that struck down laws calling for racial segregation on public city and state buses.
SCOTUS VIEWS
What Virginia Tells Us, And Doesn't Tell Us, About Gerrymandering
Los Angeles Times“This unexpected outcome raises the question: Can gerrymandering really be such a problem if a party’s legislative edge can virtually disappear overnight? This question is especially important at present, as the Supreme Court mulls over Gill vs. Whitford, a potentially historic case about redistricting in Wisconsin.”
The Power Of The Courts Is Messing Up Politics
The New York Times“What makes judges different today, so much so that “but the courts” conservatives were willing to forgo other important principles to attain the judiciary? Obtaining life tenure for your allies is only a worthwhile bargain if conservatives believe the courts are substantially more powerful in the long run than the elected branches are in the medium term. If that’s true, then something is constitutionally awry: Judges are affecting life in America more than elected officials.”
OTHER NEWS
High Court To Hear Appeal In Newtown School Shooting Case
The Associated Press“Lawyers are set to ask the Connecticut Supreme Court to reinstate a wrongful death lawsuit against the maker of the rifle used in the 2012 Newtown school massacre. Justices are scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday in an appeal by a survivor and relatives of nine people killed in the shooting.”