U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

poetic jiggery pokery

whoa! http://www.vox.com/2016/6/27/11713644/whole-womans-health-supreme-court-choice

so happy about this

from SCOTUSblog:

"Only Thomas would have upheld the statutes. Roberts and Alito would have remanded for additional findings." This is significant bc it suggests that Roberts and Alito may be willing to regard some abortion case law as essentially settles for stare decisis purposes."

At 5-3, it at least suggests that Scalia's presence would not have made a difference.

but don't worry: Sam's picking up the slack. From his dissent:

The Court’s patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter.

hallelujah

for the decision, not the dissent

Alito's dissent shows more worry about...fire alarms:

By forgoing severability, the Court strikes down numer ous provisions that could not plausibly impose an undue burden. For example, surgical center patients must “be treated with respect, consideration, and dignity.” Tex. Admin. Code, tit. 25, §135.5(a). That’s now enjoined. Patients may not be given misleading “advertising regard­ ing the competence and/or capabilities of the organiza­ tion.” §135.5(g). Enjoined. Centers must maintain fire alarm and emergency communications systems, §§135.41(d), 135.42(e), and eliminate “[h]azards that might lead to slipping, falling, electrical shock, burns, poisoning, or other trauma,” §135.10(b). Enjoined and enjoined.

Alito's dissent shows more worry about...fire alarms:

By forgoing severability, the Court strikes down numer ous provisions that could not plausibly impose an undue burden. For example, surgical center patients must “be treated with respect, consideration, and dignity.” Tex. Admin. Code, tit. 25, §135.5(a). That’s now enjoined. Patients may not be given misleading “advertising regard­ ing the competence and/or capabilities of the organiza­ tion.” §135.5(g). Enjoined. Centers must maintain fire alarm and emergency communications systems, §§135.41(d), 135.42(e), and eliminate “[h]azards that might lead to slipping, falling, electrical shock, burns, poisoning, or other trauma,” §135.10(b). Enjoined and enjoined.

In other news, SCOTUS unanimously vacates Bob McDonnell's conviction.

Supreme Court let former VA governor McDonnell off from his corruption conviction...ugh.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/27/supreme-court-fraud-corruption-mcdonnell-virginia-governor/85886626/

The Supreme Court granted a reprieve Monday to a former Republican governor of Virginia convicted of corruption, and in doing so made it harder for prosecutors to use federal fraud statutes against public officials.

In a sweeping decision that could have an impact on politicians and prosecutors who tangle over bribery, extortion and fraud statutes, the justices unanimously sided with former governor Bob McDonnell. Once seen as a potential Republican vice presidential candidate, McDonnell was convicted in 2014 and sentenced to two years in prison for accepting luxury gifts and loans from a wealthy businessman in exchange for government favors.

It was an unlikely, but not unexpected, ruling from an eight-member court no longer dominated by conservatives in the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February. At oral argument in April, a clear majority of justices expressed concern that current laws allow prosecutors to characterize common favors as criminal acts.

"Our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. "It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecution corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this court."

In McDonnell's case, more than $175,000 in gifts he and his wife, Maureen, received were legal under Virginia law, no matter how unseemly. The issue was whether his actions — giving Jonnie Williams, the CEO of a Virginia company marketing vitamins and dietary supplements, exclusive access to government officials— constituted a quid pro quo.

When Roberts wants to define something very narrowly, he does:

“Setting up a meeting, calling another public official or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act,’ ” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the court.

Res judicata also does not preclude facial relief here. In addition to requesting as-applied relief, petitioners asked for other appropriate
relief, and their evidence and arguments convinced the District Court of the provision’s unconstitutionality across the board. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(c) provides that a “final judgment should grant the relief to which each party is entitled, even if the party has not demanded that relief in its pleadings,” and this Court has held that if the arguments and evidence show that a statutory provision is unconstitutional
on its face, an injunction prohibiting its enforcement is “proper,” Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310,
333. Pp. 10–15.

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/04/0438bce0e45bfc23421041cce5752c6dc0aa58a5239d22af7f15add0f509bb35.jpg

Court also rules 6-2 to uphold law preventing domestic abusers from getting firearms. A good Monday!

Wow, this abortion ruling is a serious pick-me-up. I always felt good about the chances of those statutes getting struck down, because they so nakedly failed rational-basis testing and wear their desire to subvert the spirit of the law on their sleeves... kinda thing that just wouldn't sit right even with justices who are lukewarm on abortion... but still.

as usual with Breyer his opinions are impossible to read without uploading a legalese app into my brain

I know HB2 is the big story but can anyone tell me why Sotomayor dissented against gun bans for people convicted of domestic violence? All the news stories just lay out Thomas' (dumb) dissent without detailing her logic.

I'm looking at her bit now but was coming to quote Thomas' dissent, which fills three pages with hypotheticals concerning The Angry Plate Thrower and The Angry Door Slammer.

well, she joined the first two parts of Thomas' dissent.

Don't forget the Texting Father!

See, this is when I miss Nino most: when he's dissenting.

he's decomposing now, which is much better imo

rip boo

https://i.embed.ly/1/display/resize?key=1e6a1a1efdb011df84894040444cdc60&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscotusmemes.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F09%2Fscalia2.gif&width=810

so does the TX abortion ruling make it more difficult for states to pass similar laws? or does it just mean that every time a state passes something like this, there will be another multi-year process for it to wind through the courts until maybe it gets struck down again?

asking as someone fairly ignorant about how SC precedents get applied to the state lawmaking process

It establishes precedent; it's the most far-reaching abortion rights case since Casey.

it means similar laws are likely to be struck down, and new laws will have to recognize it as established precedent

the anti-choice machine was prepared to start installing TRAP laws in states throughout the south/midwest if this passed through the court
curious to see how texas rebounds this on both sides of the issue

yeah the big thing is that there's a clear, applicable, and stringent precedent which limits any and all state laws restricting abortion rights. i don't know the national scene, but i can say for sure that indiana just this year passed a law placing some pretty severe restrictions on abortion access, restrictions which seem unlikely to pass the test the court established in this opinion.

yeah, I guess my question is whether this will stop states from passing similar laws or will we see more laws like this and a protracted effort to fight it out in the courts despite the ruling.

it will stop states from passing similar laws for the same reason states don't pass laws for other things that supreme court has ruled illegal - it will be instantly challenged in court and struck down at the circuit level

ok, that makes sense

LA/MS/AL, which have restrictions similar to TX, will have to be dragged kicking and screaming.

Yeah IIRC it's basically like, if some other state passes a similar law, much lower-level courts can rule it out right away like "look, this is already settled and we're busy, your law is unconstitutional, open-and-shut case" and higher courts can deny appeal pretty straightforwardly. The ruling reaffirms Casey, which was a shaky compromise ruling, by a court swinging rapidly rightwards; a different court would have used today's case as an opportunity to gut it entirely. Instead we've been told that Casey's "substantial obstacle/undue burden" language has teeth, and applies to weasely and arbitrary real-world laws. Medical-expert testimony trumps vague assertions by legislators as to the purpose and effects of abortion legislation. Huge win for common sense (invoked throughout to cut through the fog of lame counterarguments).

xpost

in other news the alabama supreme court is still claiming that obergefell is invalid, to no apparent effect.

Going over what cases they'll hear next and what they won't:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/court-to-hear-major-new-controversies-next-term/

Per the comments re the impact of yesterday's abortion decision, I think we're already starting to see it play out on two levels via cases denied review. First, to quote the ACLU's sharing it out, "The Supreme Court declines to hear a case in which a pharmacy objected on religious grounds to rules that it serve women seeking emergency contraception. This lets a favorable lower court ruling stand."

https://www.aclu.org/news/supreme-court-declines-hear-case-about-religious-pharmacy-turning-women-away

Second, and most immediately applicable in terms of yesterday's decision, Wisconsin and Mississippi were both told to pound sand in terms of laws restricting abortion providers. Lower courts had thrown them out, both states had appealed to the Supreme Court and...denied.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-wisconsin-s-appeal-of-abortion/article_ab0f94fd-aef7-5d89-9d7c-a61333857460.html

Also noteworthy that the Friedrichs/CTA case was denied review (in that they'd already split 4-4) and everything goes back to lower courts. The presumption is that the usual suspects are crossing their fingers hoping for a favorable Scalia replacement before trying again. As that's the specific case or sort of case I have a lot of vested interest in, I'll be keeping a close eye on it.

Good piece on Tony: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/what-is-on-justice-anthony-kennedys-mind/489218/

yeah that's great

good piece

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/clarence-thomas-has-his-own-constitution

last sentence is the kicker

ha -- yeah, I've read that Nino line.

hey alfred so: when the voting acts right was put in place, or the part of it that mandated extra supervision of the states that had been especially egregious & so which needed monitoring -- was this just something the SC thought of? like they saw that this was a problem & so thought of a solution - a lil council that would monitor these specific areas -- & so created? + if so is this something they had done before/have done since? when i think of opinions like the recent abortion ruling, w/ginsburg setting out this v specific guidanc to lower courts, is there ever the likelihood that this kind of thing wd go beyond just opinion & into like an actual corrective model? i feel like it's necessary + intelligent + that i have only ever heard of it this one time.

ps ty for being my personal jurisprudential yahoo answers here

the Court didn't order the extra supervision: it was in the original bill iirc.

Yes

...the Voting Rights Act. Signed on Aug. 6, 1965, it was meant to correct “a clear and simple wrong,” as Lyndon Johnson said. “Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote.” It eliminated literacy tests and other Jim Crow tactics, and — in a key provision called Section 5 — required North Carolina and six other states with histories of black disenfranchisement to submit any future change in statewide voting law, no matter how small, for approval by federal authorities in Washington. No longer would the states be able to invent clever new ways to suppress the vote. Johnson called the legislation “one of the most monumental laws in the entire history of American freedom,” and not without justification. By 1968, just three years after the Voting Rights Act became law, black registration had increased substantially across the South, to 62 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/29/magazine/voting-rights-act-dream-undone.html

RIP scalia http://amylhowe.com/2016/08/31/north-carolina-comes-one-vote-short-stay-election-law-case/

miss you Nino

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--Qzg-Ub3L--/mfxzbhxkwyzn7vyijjag.jpg

Still shaking my head at those 4 conservative justices that would have allowed the NC voting changes.