AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
3 worst supreme court decisions8/2/2023 ![]() And the Court’s Republican majority dismantled two decisions protecting criminal defendants who were convicted or sentenced without adequate defense counsel, most likely condemning an innocent man to die in the process. It all but neutralized another half-century-old precedent permitting federal law enforcement officers who violate the Constitution to be sued. It also overruled a seminal 1971 decision prohibiting the government from advancing one religious belief at the expense of others. Wade, permitting states to ban abortions without having to resort to SB 8-style chicanery. In its just-completed term, the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Jackson, moreover, was only the beginning of a Rumspringa of conservative excess led by the Court’s Republican-appointed majority. But to spite abortion, the conservative majority was willing to open the door to them. Realistically, the Court is unlikely to allow these sorts of attacks. Perhaps a state wants to make it illegal to own a gun, or maybe it wants to allow bounty hunters to sue any Black family that sends its child to a predominantly white school - and the federal judiciary will simply stand back and let it happen. ![]() If you apply the logic from Jackson more broadly, any state could pass a law unleashing such litigious bounty hunters upon people who exercise any constitutional right. ![]() The Court allowed that law to take effect, even though abortion was still considered a constitutional right at the time. Jackson involved Texas’s anti-abortion law SB 8, which allowed “any person” who is not employed by the state to sue anyone they suspect of performing an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy, and to collect a bounty of at least $10,000 from that abortion provider. Last December, for example, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that fundamentally alters the Union - giving states sweeping authority to restrict their residents’ constitutional rights.Īt least, that’s what happened if you take the Court’s 5-4 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. The family alleges the tech giant aided ISIS when its algorithms recommended and amplified the group's extremist videos Google denies the claim.Ī separate but related case involving Twitter asks the justices to decide whether the platform can be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorism, even if its services were not used directly in connection with a specific terrorist act.The highest Court in the most powerful nation in the world appears to have decided that it only needs to follow the law when it feels like it. In an emotional case, the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, the only American killed in the 2015 Paris terror attacks, will ask the justices to end immunity for social media companies and greenlight their lawsuit against YouTube parent company Google. The high court next month will also take up a fast-tracked challenge to President Biden’s plan to cancel federal student loan debt for up to 40 million Americans under emergency authority invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic. "Is it the state legislature alone? Can they violate the state constitution to do so? Who gets to decide that? Those are huge questions," said ABC News legal contributor and former Justice Department attorney Sarah Isgur of the election case, Moore v. And as 2024 looms, the court will rule on a major election law case over who decides when, where and how we can vote. On immigration, they'll rule on President Joe Biden's deportation plan and a dispute over Title 42, as migrants continue to flood the southern border. The court is also set to rule on whether some American businesses can deny service to LGBTQ people under the First Amendment. Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images, FILE
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |