Tag Archives: Supreme Court

As The Legal World Turns….

The news that a symbol supporting the January 6th insurrection had hung outside Justice Alito’s home was stunning. It was so outside everything lawyers have been taught about proper judicial behavior and ethics that anyone who has ever studied the law, or the role of the courts, was incredulous. If there was any doubt about its significance, or the dishonesty of Alito’s attempt to blame his wife, a subsequent report–with photos–shows that Christian Nationalist “Appeal to Heaven” flag, used by January 6th insurrectionists, flew for two months at Alito’s beach house.

As Robert Hubbell writes, “Alito is signaling his partisan allegiance and Christian nationalism. As I wrote yesterday, we should take him at his word. If we do not, he will continue to vote for outcomes and write opinions that are antithetical to the liberties guaranteed in the Constitution.”

It doesn’t really require legal training to understand how profoundly Alito violated norms of appropriate judicial behavior. If a local judge flew a flag supporting one side of a case over which he was currently presiding, ordinary citizens–not to mention the local bar association–would immediately demand removal of both the case and the judge.

I may feel this incredible impropriety more strongly because I approached the teaching of my policy classes through a constitutional lens. I taught my students that the Constitution and Bill of Rights constrain policy choices–that legal precedents determine the boundaries of legitimate government action. I’ve previously explained that Alito’s Dobbs decision threatened far more than reproductive rights–that it undermines a longstanding legal doctrine that draws a line between permissible and forbidden government interventions.

I’m no longer teaching, and I really don’t know how I would handle the reality that “settled” constitutional interpretations are being routinely ignored by Justices on America’s highest court, so I sympathized with the law school professors interviewed on that issue by The New York Times. As one said,

One of the primary challenges when one is teaching constitutional law is to impress upon the students that it is not simply politics by other means,” he said. “And the degree of difficulty of that proposition has never been higher.”

That difficulty was addressed by the professors interviewed by the Times. As several noted, teaching constitutional law has for many years been based on an underlying premise: 

That the Supreme Court is a legitimate institution of governance, and the nine justices, whatever their political backgrounds, care about getting the law right. They are more interested in upholding fundamental democratic principles and, perhaps most important, preserving the court’s integrity, than in imposing a partisan agenda.

The premise no longer holds today. Many in the legal world still believed in the old virtues even after Bush v. Gore, the 5-to-4 ruling that effectively decided the 2000 presidential election on what appeared to many Americans to be partisan grounds. But now, the court’s hard-right supermajority, installed in recent years through a combination of hypocrisy and sheer partisan muscle, has eviscerated any consensus.

Under the pretense of practicing so-called originalism, which claims to interpret the Constitution in line with how it was understood at the nation’s founding, these justices have moved quickly to upend decades of established precedent — from political spending to gun laws to voting rights to labor unions to abortion rights to affirmative action to the separation of church and state. Whatever rationale or methodology the justices apply in a given case, the result virtually always aligns with the policy priorities of the modern Republican Party.

And that has made it impossible for many professors to teach in the familiar way. 

The mounting concerns of legal scholars are shared on both the political left and right. Michael McConnell is an extremely conservative legal scholar who has criticized the analyses of even the cases that reach his preferred conclusions. He worries that the dishonesty and hypocrisy of these justices is undermining the respect required by the rule of law.

Professor McConnell recalled a recent exchange in one of his classes. “I said something to the effect of, ‘It’s important to assume that the people you disagree with are speaking in good faith.’ And a student raises his hand, and he asks: ‘Why? Why should we assume that people on the other side are acting in good faith?’ This was not a crazy person; this was a perfectly sober-minded, rational student. And I think the question was sincere. And I think that’s kind of shocking. I do think that some of the underlying assumptions of how a civil society operates can no longer be assumed.”

As Maya Angelou told us: When someone shows you who they are, believe them.

Alito’s breathtaking breaches of judicial behavior leave no doubt about who he is. He should be impeached.

Comments

Supreme Dysfunction

In a recent issue of The American Prospect, columnist Rick Perlstein dismissed concerns about recent polling and reminded readers that considerably more is at stake right now than the “horse race” that media disproportionately focuses on. As he says, that all-too-typical approach to political campaign coverage is increasingly irrelevant.

This year, hearing the political reporters on NPR every morning yammering on about stuff like that, it sounds like the drone of the adults in a Peanuts cartoon. It’s so far down the scale of factors determining how the world might go in 2025 that I cringe, tune out, and wait for the next story to start.

If that typical coverage is “down the scale,” what does Perlstein count as more weighty? He suggests that speculation about how many electoral votes each candidate will get is less significant than concerns about the number of people who might be willing to take up arms to “avenge” a Trump loss.

And then there’s the conventional coverage of the Trump trial. Perlstein points out that the attacks being made by Trump’s GOP sycophants–largely ignored or minimized by the media– are part of Repubicans’ ongoing assault on the rule of law. As he says, “what is actually on trial in New York? Trials themselves.”

Every time the man who once took an oath to faithfully execute America’s laws and may next year do so again acts in ways that would bring criminal sanction to any other defendant, by brazenly and deliberately intimidating witnesses in direct defiance of Judge Merchan’s orders, Donald Trump imparts a lesson to his millions of supplicants: One of the three allegedly coequal branches of constitutional governance in the United States is illegitimate, should its decisions not break Donald Trump’s way.

The attack on the rule of law has, of course, been aided and abetted by the current disaster that is the U.S. Supreme Court–a Court that has been intentionally packed with far-Right ideologues.

It is, of course, a crisis now long in the making. Six mortals with lifetime appointments, five of them named by Republican presidents who never won a popular majority, routinely abandoning even the pretense of intellectual coherence and procedural norms to press changes in how the nation is governed, so right-wing they could never stand democratic scrutiny.

For instance, by seeking to strip the power of nonpartisan experts to adjudicate highly technical regulatory questions. Or to control the split-second decisions of doctors in emergency rooms about how to keep women alive. Or to usurp judgement of municipalities and states to decide who can carry concealed weapons of war—reserving those rights instead to, in order, the 535 members of Congress, the nutjob Republican majority in the Idaho legislature, and the made-up fantasies about the beliefs of powder-wigged men from back before bullets had been invented.

Perlstein went on to describe the truly bizarre arguments that have been advanced for Presidential immunity–and the even more grotesque musings of Justice Alito– in what he called the “aptly named” case of Trump v. United States. 

So here we are.

In a very real sense, it is Trump and his cult versus the United States–at least the United States envisioned by the nation’s Founders. Not only does the MAGA movement pose an unprecedented threat to America’s democratic norms, it does so at a time when the multiple threats posed by climate change promise (at best) enormous social upheavals.

Perlstein argues that the political situation in which we find ourselves was “seeded” in Bush v. Gore, and from a legal standpoint, he may be right. But historians tell us that there has always been a portion of the American public that rejected the philosophical underpinnings of America’s constituent documents–citizens who have resisted every expansion of the civic equality and individual liberty at the heart of those instruments. Today, that resistance is most obvious in the hysterical backlash against women’s rights, “woke-ness” and efforts at racial inclusion.

Reactionaries have always been with us, but for most of our history, they’ve been on the fringes of political life. What is new–and arguably unprecedented–is that they have captured one of America’s major political parties. They have a Supreme Court majority, including two Justices who repeatedly and flagrantly violate judicial ethics. They have made no bones about their plans for 2025 and beyond, should they win in November.

Perlstein is right: treating the upcoming election as a typical horse-race ignores reality. A very dangerous reality.

Comments

Complicated–And Consequential

The virtue of America’s current battle over a woman’s right to control her own body is its clarity. Either a woman has the right to determine whether she will give birth, or the government has the right to force her to do so, irrespective of the consequences for her health and well-being.

It’s either/or. 

Other threats we face are much more subtle and complicated. Policy changes that may seem innocuous or even reasonable on the surface have the potential to undermine rules that demonstrably serve the common good. An example is the passage this year of bills in Indiana, Nebraska, and Idaho that propose to end “judicial deference.”  Judicial deference is a doctrine that requires federal or state courts to “defer” to administrative agencies’ interpretations of agency statutes and regulations. Instead, those bills require courts to apply de novo review — to examine executive agency actions without bothering to give weight to that agency’s interpretation of the statute or regulation in question.

The bills were based on model legislation: the Judicial Deference Reform Act, developed by The Goldwater Institute and the Pacific Legal Foundation. Those bills might not have been necessary, though–our radical, rogue Supreme Court, unconstrained by precedent, appears ready to junk that doctrine, called The Chevron doctrine after the long-ago footnote that established it. 

Why should we care about this arcane bit of jurisprudence? As one recent analysis explained, overturning the Chevron doctrine would allow individual judges to implement their partisan policy preferences instead of abiding by agency expertise.

Under Chevron deference, courts have been obligated for the past half-century to defer to career expert civil servants in agencies who created rules based on their statutory authority when the statutes were ambiguous or silent, as to highly specific and technical areas of regulation. Chevron deference has been used in more than 19,000 cases and is the basis on which Congress has enacted broadly worded statutes granting agencies regulatory authority for the past 40 years. Now, the Supreme Court is poised to throw the baby out with the bathwater by overturning the very authority it directed Congress and federal agencies to operate under….

The court also appeared ready to return to the Skidmore v. Swift & Co. doctrine, which preceded Chevron and, ultimately, would give federal courts more power to implement their policy preferences and ignore agency expertise. As Justice Elena Kagan aptly pointed out, Chevron replaced Skidmore because “judges [were] becoming too partisan in interpreting regulations,” which “dampens that kind of ideological division between courts.” She also reasoned that “Skidmore is not a doctrine of [judicial] humility.” Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that Chevron allows Congress to delegate policy choices to executive agencies and voiced concerns that “if we take away something like Chevron, the court will then suddenly become a policymaker.”

As the linked article notes, the conservative legal movement’s long effort to use the legal system to serve the interests of  corporate behemoths at the expense of sound policy and the broader interests of the American public seems increasingly likely to succeed.

The doctrine requires “deference”–not submission. If evidence produced at trial shows that an agency’s interpretation of a rule is unreasonable, the courts can and should overturn that interpretation. But discarding the requirement that courts should defer--not “buckle under”–is yet another blow to respect for knowledge and expertise. 

Executive branch agencies increasingly deal with matters requiring considerable subject-matter knowledge. Officials of the EPA are highly likely to know more about unsafe levels of arsenic in drinking water than a judge presiding over a case brought by a company that has been fined for exceeding that level in its discharge into a local river. Officials at the FDA have met professional standards for evaluating the safety of food and/or the efficacy of drugs. Recently, we’ve been reminded of the importance of informed FAA oversight of aircraft manufacturers like Boeing. The growing complexities of modern life–in technology, in medical science, in product safety–requires acknowledging the importance of specialized expertise.

The courts have operated under Chevron deference since 1984. That deference has not kept them from invalidating unreasonable or overbroad interpretations of statutes and regulations. It has, however, required judges (who come to the bench with a very different kind of expertise) to listen carefully to the reasons agency personnel interpret a given rule in the way that they do.

Most Americans have never heard of Chevron; in Indiana, Nebraska and Idaho, most citizens are blissfully unaware of the passage of laws discarding the doctrine.

The threat posed by overruling the doctrine is far less obvious than the threat to women’s autonomy–but that doesn’t mean this assault on expert knowledge isn’t significant.

Comments

And Then There’s The Court…

Equal Justice Under Law. That motto is both aspirational and descriptive; in four words, it summarizes the whole point of the rule of law–the founding premise of America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights. Well-paid lobbyists may influence legislation to give Group A an advantage over Group B, elected officials may listen more carefully to people who wrote big checks to their campaigns, but citizens are supposed to be able to appeal for justice to the nation’s courts, and those courts are supposed to  administer equal justice under the law.

Granted, it has never worked that seamlessly. Judges are human, with human biases and foibles. Laws are often opaque. Access to the nation’s courts requires resources–either substantial funds or representation by one of the country’s public interest law firms, like the ACLU or Lambda Legal. But for a long time, America’s courts–especially its federal courts–have been there to redress inequality and corruption and instances of fundamental unfairness.

Now, thanks in large part to Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump, the Supreme Court itself has been corrupted. Any doubts on that score were laid to rest during the Court’s eye-opening and frequently chilling hearing on Trump’s ridiculous “immunity” claims. Those claims had been summarily and properly dismissed by the lower courts, and I fully expected the Supreme Court to follow suit. After all, the Court’s unnecessary delay in addressing the claim had given Trump what most observers knew he really wanted: a delay. The appeal was a transparent effort to postpone Jack Smith’s case until after the election, and most of us who were following the case expected the Court–having given him that delay– would rule on the merits by affirming that no one is above the law.

I will leave further discussion and analysis of that oral argument to the multitude of observers who found it appalling, because I want to address other aspects of the high court’s corruption that are relevant to the widespread loss of respect for that body and to the growing calls to expand its membership.

Over the past few years, Americans have learned about the truly gob-smacking conflicts of interest, money-grubbing and pious dishonesty of Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The head of the Alliance for Justice pulled no punches:

Today, our republic is buckling under the weight of those misdeeds, as Americans no longer trust their Supreme Court to be a citadel of democracy and justice. Quite the opposite — they have come to expect the worst from our pay-for-performance judiciary. Are we really going to stand idly by and do nothing about this corruption?”

A recent article from The Intercept pointed to a lesser-known but no less troubling influence of money on the Court. The article focused on a case challenging two states’ efforts to limit social media moderation of user-posted content (which Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton equated to “censorship) then turned to the broader issue of influence.

After the Supreme Court wraps up arguments for the current term next week, it will turn to finalizing decisions in dozens of pending matters, including these social media cases plus high-stakes cases about abortion, guns, the limits of presidential immunity, and how the federal regulatory apparatus itself functions. In doing so, the justices will have a chance to review hundreds of amicus briefs.

Like the money spent on elections, the money spent on the deluge of amicus briefs each term is incredibly difficult to track. The Supreme Court’s disclosure rule for amicus briefs is quite narrow, requiring only a footnote that indicates whether there were any outside monetary contributions “intended to fund the preparation or submission” of that specific brief.

The article quoted Sarah Lipton-Lubet, president of Take Back the Court,

“It’s no secret that the many of the rich benefactors cozying up to the conservative justices are the same people who fund right-wing organizations with business before the court. But too often, stories about the Supreme Court don’t connect these dots — and as a result, they leave us with an incomplete picture.”

A reform bill authored by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse–described in the Intercept article– would be a good first step, but it is past time to consider enlarging the Court and imposing 18-year term limits on Justices, among other measures that are being considered. (When lifetime tenure was established, people didn’t live as long as they do today. Eighteen years is sufficient to accomplish the goal of lifetime terms, which was to insulate the Justices from political pressure.)

The Court has never been the unblemished guardian of liberty that we like to think, but its current, shameful partisanship and outright corruption are a new low. It’s time for a change.

Comments

Hard Cases…

As I used to tell my students, cases rarely make it to the Supreme Court unless they’re difficult–unless there are persuasive arguments on both (or several) sides of the issue or issues involved. That admonition has actually become debatable as the current Court, dominated by religious “originalists,” has accepted cases that previous Courts wouldn’t have agreed to hear, but it remains largely true.

And hard cases, as the old legal precept warns, make bad law.

Which brings me to a First Amendment Free Speech case currently pending at the U.S. Supreme Court.

The question before the Court is the constitutionality of laws passed by Florida and Texas that restrict social media giants from removing certain political or controversial posts–in other words, from moderating the content posted to their platforms. As the Washington Post reported,

During almost four hours of argument Monday, the Supreme Court justices considered whether state governments can set the rules for how social media platforms curate content in a major First Amendment case with implications for the future of free speech online.

The laws being litigated are an effort to prevent social media companies from removing “conservative” viewpoints. The laws would impose strict limits on whether and when firms can block or take down content on their platforms.
At the heart of the matter is the issue highlighted by an exchange between Justice Alito and lawyer Paul Clement.
Justice Samuel Alito pressed NetChoice — a group representing the tech industry — to define the term “content moderation,” asking whether the term was “anything more than a euphemism for censorship.” “If the government’s doing it, then content moderation might be a euphemism for censorship,” said Paul Clement, an attorney representing NetChoice. “If a private party is doing it, content moderation is a euphemism for editorial discretion.”
I’ve frequently posted about Americans’ widespread lack of civic literacy–especially about censorship and freedom of speech. It is depressing how few citizens understand that the Bill of Rights is essentially a list of things that government is forbidden to do. Government is prohibited from dictating our beliefs, censoring our communications, searching or seizing us without probable cause, etc. Those restrictions do not apply to private actors, and for many years, courts have recognized the right of newspapers and other print media to decide what they will, and will not, print, in the exercise of their Free Speech rights.
Perhaps the most important question posed by the recent First Amendment challenges to Texas and Florida’s new social media laws is whether platforms exercise a constitutionally protected right to “editorial discretion” when they moderate speech. The platform’s central challenge to both laws is that their must-carry and transparency obligations infringe on that right by interfering with the platforms’ ability to pick and choose what speech they host on their sites. It’s the same right, they argue, that newspapers exercise when they pick and choose what speech appears in their pages.
In other words, whose First Amendment rights will we protect? Or to put it another way, does the First Amendment give all of us a right to have our opinions disseminated by the social media platform of our choice? Or, to ask that in a different way, if the First Amendment protects speech, does it also protect the right of powerful social media companies to suppress the speech of some number of people who use their platforms?
The Knight Foundation argues
The First Amendment is not concerned solely—or perhaps even primarily—with the maximization of speech per se. Instead, what it protects and facilitates is the kind of information ecosystem in which free speech values can flourish. Courts have recognized that protecting the right of speech intermediaries to choose what they do and do not publish—in other words, protecting their right to editorial discretion—is a necessary means of creating that kind of environment.
Most of us have concerns about the content moderation policies of these enormously influential and powerful sites. The question before the Court is–once again–who decides? Are those who run those sites entitled to decide what appears on them, or can government control their decisions?
Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter (now ridiculous “X”) and his idiosyncratic definition of “free speech” has turned that site into a cesspool of anti-Semitism and conspiracy theories. The First Amendment currently gives him the right to make the site odious, just as Facebook has the right to remove racist and other objectionable posts. We the People decide which platforms we will patronize.
As I used to tell my students, the Bill of Rights addresses a deceptively simple question: who has the right to make this decision?
Comments