Image 01 Image 03

US Supreme Court Tag

It's a rough week to be a Democrat. In several decisions the Supreme Court upheld Constitutional protections again. Such a drag, those guys. It's like they don't even care about anyone's feelings! And the icing on the cake? Justice Kennedy announced his retirement. So TrumpHitler gets a second SCOTUS pick. May as well fold it up and put on a cape because WE ARE LIVING IN THE HANDMAID'S TALE.

Wednesday afternoon, Justice Kennedy announced his retirement from the Supreme Court bench, effective July 31. Appointed to the Supreme Court by President Reagan in 1988, Kennedy has largely served as the court's swing vote, but has consistently sided with free speech. Kennedy's retirement ensures the upcoming midterms will be all kinds of extra.

In another of today's SCOTUS decisions, the Court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra that a California law requiring crisis pregnancy centers (pregnancy counseling clinics usually run by pro-life Christians) to post notices that "California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women" was an unconstitutional violation of free speech. The vote was the familiar 5-4 and once again came down to the swing vote of Kennedy siding with the conservative wing, and all the liberal justices dissenting.

Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld Trump's third travel order. After two failed attempts, the administration scrapped the first two in favor of a third, which they believed would stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. Looks like they were right. The order which sought to temporarily curb immigration from states with long-standing records of sponsoring or engaging in terrorist activity was painted as anti-Muslim, based on statements Trump made during the presidential campaign.

Civil asset forfeiture is one thing that can bring together the left and right. I've documented the few times states have addressed this issue and it's made me happy that the Supreme Court will address this issue next term. Reason explained the case:
The case is Timbs v. Indiana. It arose in 2013 when a man named Tyson Timbs was arrested on drug charges and sentenced to one year on home detention and five years on probation. A few months after his arrest, the state of Indiana also moved to seize Timbs' brand new Land Rover LR2, a vehicle worth around $40,000. A state trial court rejected that civil asset forfeiture effort, however, on the grounds that it would be "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of [Timbs'] offense" and therefore in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the imposition of "excessive fines."

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling that did not split on traditional ideological lines, upheld South Dakota's ability to require that out-of-state internet sellers collect state sales tax on goods sold into South Dakota. The case involved the internet retailer Wayfair and South Dakota. The case is being misrepresented in many media reports as involving whether states can tax internet sales. They can, and that was not in issue. The issue was whether states can force internet retailers to collect the sales tax and turn those proceeds over to the state.

I'm so old, I remember when two partisan gerrymandering cases in the Supreme Court -- one from Wisconsin and one from Maryland -- were on just about everyone's list of blockbuster cases this term, including Bloomberg, Politico, and CNN, among many others. The Wisconsin case involved a very pro-Republican legislative district map that would help Republicans retain control of the state legislature, and the Maryland case involved a single very pro-Democrat congressional district.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, ruled that a Minnesota law that banned “political badge, political button, or other political insignia" at polling places on Election Day was unconstitutional. The case was brought by voters who, among other things, wanted to wear a Tea Party Patriots tee shirt (see featured image, via MVA Facebook):

In February 2011, the Obama/Holder DOJ abruptly announced it would refuse to continue defending the Defense of Marriage Act after years of arguing in Court that DOMA was constitutional. In defending DOMA for years, the DOJ was upholding an important principle, that DOJ should defend existing laws in court so long as there was any reasonable basis for doing so.

The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. From USA Today:
The verdict criticized the state's treatment of Jack Phillips' religious objections to gay marriage, ruling that a civil rights commission was biased against him. As a result, the decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, such as florists and photographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples.