Madsplaining: A Busy Week for SCOTUS
Cases impacting free speech,unborn life and the administrative state
The Justices of the Supreme Court of the U.S.A have been very busy as they wrap up their current term and last week saw a number of important cases decided.
In Loper Bright v Raimondo, the Court ruled 6-3 in favor herring fishermen required to pay for government inspectors who track their fish intake. In doing so, a precedent known as the “Chevron deference” was overruled. This means courts should “no longer give deference to regulators' interpretations on ambiguous rules, ending 40-plus years of enforcement uncertainties.”
Critics of the decision say it undermines the ability of experts at federal agencies to determine practical applications of government regulations. Concerns were raised especially in regard to environmental policies. But those who welcomed the ruling say it is a good step to loosening the grip of the administrative state and sends a message to Congress that it needs to be more proactive in actually passing laws.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy was another 6-3 decision with sharp dissent among the Justices. The majority maintain that the SEC’s in-house system for trying securities law infringement violates defendants’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.
Two cases regarding abortion law in Idaho in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States were dismissed and returned to lower courts. The Court ruled that an earlier ban on emergency abortions was “improvidently” granted, meaning abortions may be performed where the mother’s life is in danger. In dissenting against the decision, Justice Samuel Alito said the court “has simply lost the will to decide the easy but emotional and highly politicized question that the case presents.”
In the free speech case known Murthy v. Missouri the Court ruled 6-3 to throw out a lawsuit seeking to limit government meddling in social media censorship. The majority sided with the Biden administration, concluding that the plaintiffs (two states and several individuals) did not have legal standing. While the opinion has left the door open for further similar cases, it set a high bar for what passes as proof of coercion, rather than just run-of-the-mill moderation that social media platforms deploy all the time.
Justice Alito who penned a fiery dissent called this one of the “most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.” He slammed the Court’s conclusion saying there was “voluminous” evidence for government coercion on social media platforms to censor speech it did not like. “The Court, however, shirks that duty [to protect free speech] and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think….If a coercive campaign is carried out with enough sophistication, it may get by. That is not a message this Court should send.”
U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan said he would push for legislation that would bolster protections for citizens against government-sponsored censorship, particularly in light of the upcoming presidential election.
Fischer v. United States limited the scope of what it means to obstruct an official proceeding . A January 6th defendant had some charges against him thrown out, with the majority saying the government must prove “that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity of records, documents or other objects used in an official proceeding.” The charge of obstruction has been added in the case of some January 6th-ers, resulting in prison sentences of several years especially those who entered the Capitol building.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court blocked a bankruptcy deal arranged for Purdue Pharma. The company sought a deal which “shielded members of the Sackler family, who previously controlled Purdue Pharma, and their numerous associates from future liability in opioid lawsuits.” The company faces a $6 billion settlement with families of opioid overdose victims.
And finally, the Court has agreed to take up a case about whether states can ban transgender procedures for children. Lower courts have been applying the opinion written by Justice Gorsuch in Bostock v. Clayton County to muddy the water when it comes to what is meant by discrimination “according to sex”. It will be heard later in the year and is set to be a landmark case.
Breaking! The Court has ruled on Presidential Immunity.. I’ll write it up soon..
