Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON (AP) — A unanimous Supreme Court made it easier Thursday to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn’t get a job and then was demoted because she is straight.

The justices’ decision affects lawsuits in 20 states and the District of Columbia where, until now, courts had set a higher bar when members of a majority group, including those who are white and heterosexual, sue for discrimination under federal law.

The court ruled in an appeal from Marlean Ames, who has worked for the Ohio Department of Youth Services for more than 20 years.

Ames contends she was passed over for a promotion and then demoted because she is heterosexual. Both the job she sought and the one she had held were given to LGBTQ people.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars sex discrimination in the workplace. A trial court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Ames……..

Supreme Court makes it easier to claim 'reverse discrimination' in employment, in a case from Ohio

A unanimous Supreme Court has made it easier to bring lawsuits over so-called reverse discrimination, siding with an Ohio woman who claims she didn’t get a job and then was demoted because she is straight.

apnews.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Supreme Court shuts down Mexico’s lawsuit against American gunmakers | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court on Thursday tossed out a lawsuit from the Mexican government that alleged American gun manufacturers should be held responsible for cartel violence on the Southwest border, a decision that shields the companies from a suit that had claimed billions in damages.

www.cnn.com

 

[MT15]

Ruling about the rights of parents to seek medical treatment for transgender kids. Spoiler, it takes away parents’ and kids’ rights to cede them to religious fanatics. ACB trying to make it much worse.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act’s preventive health care coverage requirements on Friday, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects some 150 million Americans.

The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama’s signature law, often referred to as Obamacare.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court’s majority. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch.

The plaintiffs said the process is unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts tasked with recommending which services are covered is not Senate approved.

President Donald Trump’s administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been a critic of his Democratic predecessor’s law. The Justice Department said board members don’t need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary.…….

Supreme Court preserves key part of Obamacare coverage requirements

The Supreme Court has preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act’s preventive health care coverage requirements, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects 150 million Americans.

apnews.com

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Radical Extremist Court.

 

[zztop]

Supreme Court curbs injunctions that blocked Trump's birthright citizenship plan

The Trump administration wants to end automatic birthright citizenship as enshrined in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

share.google

 

[SaintRob]

I don't like the ruling because it may cause LGBTQ children to closet themselves if they think they're going to be ridiculed or persecuted, which could lead to self harm. The use of these storybooks can teach inclusion, acceptance, and self worth. At the same time, I can't disagree with parents who want to decide what is taught to their kids. Tough one.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don't like the ruling because it may cause LGBTQ children to closet themselves if they think they're going to be ridiculed or persecuted, which could lead to self harm. The use of these storybooks can teach inclusion, acceptance, and self worth. At the same time, I can't disagree with parents who want to decide what is taught to their kids. Tough one.

Easy one, really. Don't like it? Pull your kids and put them in private school. Teach them all manner of bigotry at home. Just stop doing shirt to ostracize members of an already-marginalized group.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

How should Barrett feel about this piece about her jurisprudence?

 

[MT15]

She should feel disrespected and looked down upon. However she just so casually disrespected Justice Jackson for no good reason, so she can go pound sand.

 

[LA 2 L.A.]

She should feel disrespected and looked down upon. However she just so casually disrespected Justice Jackson for no good reason, so she can go pound sand.

I think the 6 Trump supporters on this Supreme Court will be looked back on in the same way that the majority justices who ruled "separate but equal" was constitutional in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision are looked back on, and I think it will be in the near future.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

She should feel disrespected and looked down upon. However she just so casually disrespected Justice Jackson for no good reason, so she can go pound sand.

If you're talking about Barret's juvenile swipe in the CASA opinion, it just showed that she has some sort of role ambiguity when dealing with the other women on the court. Each one of them brings vastly more experience and academic credentials to the court than she does. Jackson's concurring dissent was extremely thorough and well cited, Barrett resorted to hyperbole.

 

[MT15]

This lady does a really good job of putting these judicial decisions into perspective.

She basically says that there are over 20 state AGs who have been meeting weekly for months now, and are committed to stopping Trump’s EO’s which are often unconstitutional. They have already submitted an amended complaint on the birthright citizenship EO.

And while it’s true that his illegal and unconstitutional EO’s are going to be harder to stop now, his DOJ is going to have to defend many, many more complaints now as well. And as she diplomatically puts it - his AG office isn’t exactly overstaffed and isn’t exactly staffed with excellent lawyers either.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Ever since Donald Trump returned to power, he has carried out an unprecedented assault against the country’s rule of law.

But we can be thankful that one group of people – federal district court judges – have bravely stood up to him and his many illegal actions.

His excesses include gutting federal agencies, deporting immigrants without due process, firing thousands of federal workers despite their legal protections, and ordering an end to birthright citizenship.

Intent on upholding the constitution and rule of law, district court judges have issued more than 190 orders blocking or temporarily pausing Trump actions they considered illegal.

Their decisions have slowed the US president’s wrecking ball as it demolishes federal agencies, devastates foreign aid, decimates scientific research and demoralizes government employees.

Those of us who held out hope that the supreme court, as rightwing as it has become, would join the district courts and stand up to Trump had our hopes dashed in a big way last week.

The six hard-right justices delivered a major victory to Trump as they rolled over like puppies and ruled that district court judges can no longer, except in very limited circumstances, issue nationwide injunctions to halt Trump’s illegalities.

In the 6-3 decision, the justices ruled that when district judges are convinced that a presidential action is illegal, they can issue injunctions that only cover the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit – they can only issue nationwide injunctions if they conclude that such action is the only way to assure complete relief to the plaintiffs. (The court wrote that plaintiffs might still be able to win broad injunctions by bringing class actions.)

That case, Trump v Casa, involved Trump’s executive order that prohibited birthright citizenship – despite the 14th amendment’s language specifically guaranteeing it.

In that case, Trump challenged district court judges’ nationwide injunctions upholding birthright citizenship – three district court judges had found Trump’s order to be unconstitutional and issued nationwide injunctions.

In the Casa case, the justices limited their ruling to the validity of nationwide injunctions, without ruling on the constitutionality of Trump’s ban on birthright citizenship.

In a stinging dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the court’s supermajority of “complicity” with Trump’s efforts to make a “solemn mockery of our Constitution”.

With Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joining her dissent, Sotomayor wrote that “by stripping federal courts” of their extensive injunctive powers, the supreme court “kneecaps the Judiciary’s authority to stop the Executive from enforcing even the most unconstitutional policies”.

There are two big problems with the Casa decision. First, it gives a red light to what has been the most effective check on Trump’s illegalities and authoritarian power grab.

Second, the ruling gives a gleaming green light to Trump to speed ahead with more illegal actions, knowing that district court judges will be far less able to crack down effectively on his lawless acts.

For the liberal justices and many Trump critics, a huge concern is that when a district court judge now finds a Trump policy to be unlawful, the judge can enjoin it only for the plaintiffs in the case.

Meanwhile Trump can continue imposing that policy in the 49 other states. In her separate dissent, Jackson wrote: “The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.”………..

The supreme court is cracking down on judges – and letting Trump run wild | Steven Greenhouse

The justices’ decision limiting judicial injunctions gives a red light to the most effective check on the president’s power grab

www.theguardian.com

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a federal prison inmate cannot sue corrections officers for an alleged assault in which he was punched, kicked and had his face slammed into a wall.

The loss for inmate Andrew Fields is the latest setback for plaintiffs seeking to hold federal officials accountable for constitutional violations.

Although the Supreme Court allowed such claims in a 1971 ruling called Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, it has since changed course and made it almost impossible to do so in most situations.

The unsigned ruling, which had no dissents, said that if Fields' claim was allowed to move forward, it "could have negative systemic consequences for prison officials." Fields has other ways of vindicating his rights, the court added.

"Forbidding courts from redressing a constitutional violation is wrong, and it is especially dangerous in this day and age to immunize federal executive officials from accountability for their actions," Fields' lawyer, Danny Zemel, said in a statement.

A lawyer for the officers did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.

Fields, 53, had sought to bring a "Bivens claim" arising from the 2021 incident at a federal prison in Lee County, Virginia. He is now at a different prison in Florida.

The facts are disputed, with officers saying he initially assaulted them, which he denies.

Fields, serving a lengthy sentence for drugs and gun offenses, alleges that the incident began when he went to lunch without bringing a required movement pass.

While being moved to a special housing unit, Fields says officers punched him in the face and stomped on him.

Then, once he was secured in the unit and restrained, the officers shoved his face into the wall, slammed a security shield into his back, and again punched him and kneed him in the groin, he alleges.

A federal judge threw out Fields' lawsuit, which he filed without the help of a lawyer. But in a 2024 ruling, the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it, saying he could bring a claim under the Constitution's 8th Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment in the prison context.

The Supreme Court has over several decades shown a reluctance to allow Bivens claims.

In the most recent decision, the court in 2022 said Border Patrol agents could not be sued.

In the 12 months after that ruling, lower courts cited it 228 times in a variety of cases against all kinds of federal officials, an NBC News investigation found. In 195 of those cases, constitutional claims were dismissed.

Congress has never enacted legislation that would specifically allow federal officials to be sued individually for constitutional violations, even though it allows similar claims to be brought against state and local officials.............

Supreme Court rules prison inmate can't sue federal officers for alleged assault

The decision further undermines people's ability to sue federal officials for constitutional violations, which the Supreme Court first recognized in 1971.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[MT15]

OpEd.