And he has signaled no plans to slow down. With three of former President Donald Trump’s appointees in their 50s, the six-judge conservative majority appears poised to retain control of the court for years, if not decades, to come. “This was a revolutionary term in many ways,” said Tara Leigh Grove, a law professor at the University of Texas. “The court massively changed constitutional law in very big ways.” With the rest of his opinions issued, the court began its summer recess on Thursday and the judges will then return to the courtroom in October. Overturning Roe v. Wade and ending a nearly half-century guarantee of abortion rights had the most immediate impact, shutting down or severely restricting abortion in about a dozen states within days of the decision. By expanding gun rights and finding religious discrimination in two cases, the justices also made it harder to uphold gun control laws and reduced barriers to religion in public life. By placing significant new limits on regulatory authority, they loosened the government’s ability to fight climate change and blocked an effort by the Biden administration to vaccinate workers at large companies against COVID-19. The remarkable week in late June in which the guns, abortion, religion and environmental cases were decided at least partially obscured other notable events, some of them alarming. New Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in Thursday as the first black woman on the court. He replaced retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, who served nearly 28 years, a change that will not change the balance between liberals and conservatives on the court. The story continues In early May, the court had to deal with the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion on the abortion case. Chief Justice John Roberts almost immediately ordered an investigation, about which the court has been mum ever since. Soon after, workers surrounded the courthouse with an 8-foot-tall fence in response to safety concerns. In June, police arrested a gunman late at night near Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s home in Maryland and charged him with attempting to kill the judge. Cavanaugh is one of three Trump appointees along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett who have fortified the right side of the court. Greg Garr, who served as former President George W. Bush’s top Supreme Court lawyer, said when the court began its term in October “the biggest question was not so much where the court was going, but how fast it was going. The term answers this question quite resoundingly, which is fast.” The speed also revealed that the chief justice no longer has the control of the court he had when he was one of five, not six, conservatives, Garre said. Roberts, who favors a more gradualist approach that could reinforce perceptions of the court as a non-political institution, mostly traveled with other conservatives on the abortion issue, writing that it was not necessary to overturn Roe, which he called “ serious jolt.” the legal system. On the other hand, he was part of every other ideologically divided majority. If the past year has revealed limits to the chief justice’s influence, it has also shown the dominance of Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s longest-serving member. He wrote the gun-rights expansion decision, and the abortion case marked the culmination of his 30-year effort at the Supreme Court to get rid of Roe, which had been in effect since 1973. Abortion is just one of many areas in which Thomas is prepared to overrule court precedent. The justices buried a second of their decisions, Lemon v. Kurtzman, in ruling on a high school football coach’s right to pray at the 50-yard line after games. It’s not clear, however, that the other justices are as comfortable as Thomas in overturning past rulings. The abortion and gun cases also seemed contradictory to some critics, as the court handed states power over the most personal decisions but limited state power to regulate guns. However, one distinction the majorities made in those cases is that the Constitution specifically mentions guns, but not abortion. These decisions do not appear to be particularly popular with the public, according to polls. Polls show a sharp decline in the court’s approval rating and citizens’ trust in the court as an institution. Judges in courts in the past have acknowledged a concern about public perception. Just last September, Judge Amy Coney Barrett said, “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not made up of a bunch of partisan hacks.” who planned her quick confirmation in 2020 and was sitting on the stage near the justice. But conservatives, minus Roberts, dismissed any concern about perception on the abortion issue, said Grove, the University of Texas professor. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority that “not only are we not going to focus on it, we should not focus on it,” he said. “I’m sympathetic as an academic, but I was surprised to see it come from so much real-world justice.” Liberal judges, however, repeatedly wrote that the court’s aggressiveness in this epic term was damaging the institution. Justice Sonia Sotomayor described her colleagues as “an anxious and fledgling court.” Justice Elena Kagan, in her abortion dissent, wrote: “The Court is reversing course today for one reason only: because the makeup of this Court has changed.” In 18 rulings, at least five conservative justices joined to form the majority and the three liberals dissented, about 30 percent of all cases heard by the court in its term that began last October. Among them, the court also: — Made it harder for people to sue state and federal authorities for violations of constitutional rights. — Raised the bar for defendants who claimed their rights were being violated, ruling against a Michigan man who was bound for trial. — Limits how some death row inmates and others sentenced to long prison terms can defend claims that their lawyers did a poor job representing them. In emergency appeals, also called the court’s “shadow” case because judges often provide little or no explanation for their actions, conservatives ordered the use of congressional districts for this year’s elections in Alabama and Louisiana, even though lower federal courts have found that it likely violated the federal Voting Rights Act by reducing the power of black voters. The justices will hear arguments in the Alabama case in October, among several high-profile cases involving race or elections or both. Also, when the justices continue to hear arguments, using race as a factor in college admissions is on the table, just six years after the court reaffirmed that it is permissible. And the court will consider a controversial Republican-led challenge that would greatly increase the power of state lawmakers in federal elections, at the expense of state courts. These and cases on the intersection of LGBTQ and religious rights and another major environmental case involving development and water pollution are also likely to result in ideologically divided decisions. Khiara Bridges, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley’s law school, connected the right to vote and abortion cases. In the latter, Alito wrote in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that abortion should be decided by elected officials, not judges. “I find it incredibly disingenuous for Alito to suggest that all Dobbs is doing is returning this question to the states and that people can fight in the state over whether to protect the life of the fetus or the best interests of the pregnant woman.” , Bridges said. . “But the same court is actively involved in ensuring that states can disenfranchise citizens.” Bridges also said the results align almost perfectly with Republican policy goals. “Whatever the GOP wants, the GOP will get out of today’s court,” he said. Defenders of the court’s rulings said the criticism is meaningless because it confuses politics with the law. “Supreme Court decisions are often not about what policy should be, but who (or what level of government, or what institution) should make policy,” Princeton University political scientist Robert George tweeted. For now, there’s no sign that either the justices or the Republican and conservative interests that have fueled so many of the court’s high-profile cases intend to straighten their sails, Grove said. That’s partly because there’s no realistic prospect of judicial reforms that would limit the cases judges could hear, impose term limits or increase the size of the Supreme Court, said Grove, who served on the bipartisan Supreme Court panel. of President Joe Biden on judicial reforms.
Associated Press writer Jessica Gresko contributed to this report.
title: " Revolutionary Supreme Court Clause On Abortion Guns And More " ShowToc: true date: “2022-12-01” author: “Francis Dodimead”
And he has signaled no plans to slow down. With three of former President Donald Trump’s appointees in their 50s, the six-judge conservative majority appears poised to retain control of the court for years, if not decades, to come. “This was a revolutionary term in many ways,” said Tara Leigh Grove, a law professor at the University of Texas. “The court massively changed constitutional law in very big ways.” With the rest of his opinions issued, the court began its summer recess on Thursday and the judges will then return to the courtroom in October. Overturning Roe v. Wade and ending a nearly half-century guarantee of abortion rights had the most immediate impact, shutting down or severely restricting abortion in about a dozen states within days of the decision. By expanding gun rights and finding religious discrimination in two cases, the justices also made it harder to uphold gun control laws and reduced barriers to religion in public life. By placing significant new limits on regulatory authority, they loosened the government’s ability to fight climate change and blocked an effort by the Biden administration to vaccinate workers at large companies against COVID-19. The remarkable week in late June in which the guns, abortion, religion and environmental cases were decided at least partially obscured other notable events, some of them alarming. New Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was sworn in Thursday as the first black woman on the court. He replaced retiring Justice Stephen Breyer, who served nearly 28 years, a change that will not change the balance between liberals and conservatives on the court. In early May, the court had to deal with the unprecedented leak of a draft opinion on the abortion case. Chief Justice John Roberts almost immediately ordered an investigation, about which the court has been mum ever since. Soon after, workers surrounded the courthouse with an 8-foot-tall fence in response to safety concerns. In June, police arrested a gunman late at night near Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s home in Maryland and charged him with attempting to kill the judge. Cavanaugh is one of three Trump appointees along with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett who have fortified the right side of the court. Greg Garr, who served as former President George W. Bush’s top Supreme Court lawyer, said when the court began its term in October “the biggest question was not so much where the court was going, but how fast it was going. The term answers this question quite resoundingly, which is fast.” The speed also revealed that the chief justice no longer has the control of the court he had when he was one of five, not six, conservatives, Garre said. Roberts, who favors a more gradualist approach that could reinforce perceptions of the court as a non-political institution, mostly traveled with other conservatives on the abortion issue, writing that it was not necessary to overturn Roe, which he called “ serious jolt.” the legal system. On the other hand, he was part of every other ideologically divided majority. If the past year has revealed limits to the chief justice’s influence, it has also shown the dominance of Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s longest-serving member. He wrote the gun-rights expansion decision, and the abortion case marked the culmination of his 30-year effort at the Supreme Court to get rid of Roe, which had been in effect since 1973. Abortion is just one of many areas in which Thomas is prepared to overrule court precedent. The justices buried a second of their decisions, Lemon v. Kurtzman, in ruling on a high school football coach’s right to pray at the 50-yard line after games. It’s not clear, however, that the other justices are as comfortable as Thomas in overturning past rulings. The abortion and gun cases also seemed contradictory to some critics, as the court handed states power over the most personal decisions but limited state power to regulate guns. However, one distinction the majorities made in those cases is that the Constitution specifically mentions guns, but not abortion. These decisions do not appear to be particularly popular with the public, according to polls. Polls show a sharp decline in the court’s approval rating and citizens’ trust in the court as an institution. Judges in courts in the past have acknowledged a concern about public perception. Just last September, Judge Amy Coney Barrett said, “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not made up of a bunch of partisan hacks.” Barrett spoke at a center named for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who planned for her fast-track confirmation in 2020, and was seated on stage near the justice. But conservatives, minus Roberts, dismissed any concern about perception on the abortion issue, said Grove, the University of Texas professor. Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority that “not only are we not going to focus on it, we should not focus on it,” he said. “I’m sympathetic as an academic, but I was surprised to see it come from so much real-world justice.” Liberal judges, however, repeatedly wrote that the court’s aggressiveness in this epic term was damaging the institution. Justice Sonia Sotomayor described her colleagues as “an anxious and fledgling court.” Justice Elena Kagan, in her abortion dissent, wrote: “The Court is reversing course today for one reason only: because the makeup of this Court has changed.” In 18 rulings, at least five conservative justices joined to form the majority and the three liberals dissented, about 30 percent of all cases heard by the court in its term that began last October. Among them, the court also: — Made it harder for people to sue state and federal authorities for violations of constitutional rights. — Raised the bar for defendants who claimed their rights were being violated, ruling against a Michigan man who was bound for trial. — Limits how some death row inmates and others sentenced to long prison terms can defend claims that their lawyers did a poor job representing them. In emergency appeals, also called the court’s “shadow” case because judges often provide little or no explanation for their actions, conservatives ordered the use of congressional districts for this year’s elections in Alabama and Louisiana, even though lower federal courts have found that it likely violated the federal Voting Rights Act by reducing the power of black voters. The justices will hear arguments in the Alabama case in October, among several high-profile cases involving race or elections or both. Also, when the justices continue to hear arguments, using race as a factor in college admissions is on the table, just six years after the court reaffirmed that it is permissible. And the court will consider a controversial Republican-led challenge that would greatly increase the power of state lawmakers in federal elections, at the expense of state courts. These and cases on the intersection of LGBTQ and religious rights and another major environmental case involving development and water pollution are also likely to result in ideologically divided decisions. Khiara Bridges, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley’s law school, connected the right to vote and abortion cases. In the latter, Alito wrote in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that abortion should be decided by elected officials, not judges. “I find it incredibly disingenuous for Alito to suggest that all Dobbs is doing is returning this question to the states and that people can fight in the state over whether to protect the life of the fetus or the best interests of the pregnant woman.” , Bridges said. . “But the same court is actively involved in ensuring that states can disenfranchise citizens.” Bridges also said the results align almost perfectly with Republican policy goals. “Whatever the GOP wants, the GOP will get out of today’s court,” he said. Defenders of the court’s rulings said the criticism is meaningless because it confuses politics with the law. “Supreme Court decisions are often not about what policy should be, but who (or what level of government, or what institution) should make policy,” Princeton University political scientist Robert George tweeted. For now, there’s no sign that either the justices or the Republican and conservative interests that have fueled so many of the court’s high-profile cases intend to straighten their sails, Grove said. That’s partly because there’s no realistic prospect of judicial reforms that would limit the cases judges could hear, impose term limits or increase the size of the Supreme Court, said Grove, who served on the bipartisan Supreme Court panel. of President Joe Biden on judicial reforms.
Associated Press writer Jessica Gresko contributed to this report.
