While we wait for a few big cases, SCOTUS again disposed of a few cases, including some cases of interest.
The biggest case was a potentially important "true threat" case involving Facebook posts that was decided on limited grounds. This allowed a 8-1 result (Alito concurred because he wanted them to do more to clarify the law -- he opened with a quote of Marbury to remind the rest saying what the law is, not what it is not, is sorta their job), more CJ Roberts minimalism. They decided the law required more intent to harm than the jury was told was required. Meanwhile, the guy is in jail because of an alleged physical assault. Some coverage skipped over this part.
Another case that had a similar vote (Alito concurred, Thomas dissented) was promoted by liberal leaning sorts as supportive of employee rights. It's not really surprising, and not just because it is a religious rights case, Scalia wrote the opinion as part of his "that's what the text says, don't make it complicated" policy [don't get me wrong; you will find exceptions] regarding when an accommodation is required for religious employees. It might be as simple as Scalia said in his opinion announcement (again, why don't you have these SCOTUS publicly available?) but the former head of the EEOC disagreed. Suggests judgment here is just that -- wiggle room where human actors have to make judgment calls.
A few will flag that religious people get special rights here (when people say LGBT, e.g., get them, no ... this is a clearer case), which is true -- religion is singled out by the 1A in both ways. Abercrombie & Fitch was found to have possibly discriminated because they didn't want to hire someone who wore a headscarf, even if it wasn't clear to them that she wore if for religious reasons. This is one of those closer calls -- they have a brand and considering certain sartorial (okay, that's not a word I use a lot) when handling employees is appropriate. They are not singling her out here. Again, religious reasons are getting special care because it is deemed so important. This very well can get complicated, especially for smaller businesses. Those sorts of things can get you some sympathy from me and we should realize anti-discrimination laws are not just painless things.
I'm not necessarily saying this is wrong, but the last link is not outrageous for being wary about the whole thing. It also raises a hypo of some employee needing contraceptives for religious reasons possibly having a religious claim themselves. The need already has been flagged as a gender equality matter. An interesting hypothetical, which in the Hobby Lobby type case would result in a clash of interests. Finally, note the discussion shows that RFRA only applies to the government, but a law like Indiana doesn't have such a limitation. The two aren't just the same.
Another case is part of a Roberts Court trend of limiting the reach of some federal criminal laws, especially when it results in expelling people from the country. It is a mild check on recent excessive laws that will get long time residents possibly deported for relatively minor crimes. Alito/Thomas also didn't join the part, this time Alito not even partially concurring. Thomas had some snarky comments in dissent. There were two other more technical cases, one perhaps notable because (by one count flagged at a SCOTUSBlog live blog) this is the first time Justice Breyer did not fully concur in the opinion of the Court. In a "what's the point" moment, three justices (including him) didn't join a footnote.
Finally, SCOTUS handed down various orders. Included was a dissent from denial by the three conservatives* and a per curiam holding in a tragic case involving a suicide in prison did not involve a violation of a right protected by clearly established law. See here and here for further discussion.
---
* This dissent (Alito dissented without opinion; Thomas/Scalia with one) might warrant a few more words. The justices were opposed to not taking a case to determine if a lower court was wrong to declare unconstitutional a measure setting forth an across the board denial of bail of those charged with "serious felony offenses" (whatever that means) who are undocumented and there is enough proof of that fact. Various quotes from past cases involving economic substantive due process claims were selectively cited to question the substantive liberty claim involved.
Nonetheless, unlike minimum wage laws or the like, bail is something expressly addressed (putting aside the 9A) by the Constitution. Furthermore, freedom from wrongful detention is a basic aspect of "liberty" and has been for quite some time. As noted by the lower court, these protections are for "persons," not just legal residents or citizens. And, the opinion is carefully argued. FN6 is particularly interesting.
Finally, Justice Thomas' idea the Supreme Court should worry about lower federal courts striking down state laws as unconstitutional is honestly not something I think he applies consistently. The docket would be expanded significantly, I would think (admit not having numbers here) if that is applied consistently given the number of cases nation-wide that must be involved here over time. Citing the Supreme Court taking a federal case, which applies to the nation as a whole, is also like the economic due process matter not on point. The aggrieved tone doesn't help.
The biggest case was a potentially important "true threat" case involving Facebook posts that was decided on limited grounds. This allowed a 8-1 result (Alito concurred because he wanted them to do more to clarify the law -- he opened with a quote of Marbury to remind the rest saying what the law is, not what it is not, is sorta their job), more CJ Roberts minimalism. They decided the law required more intent to harm than the jury was told was required. Meanwhile, the guy is in jail because of an alleged physical assault. Some coverage skipped over this part.
Another case that had a similar vote (Alito concurred, Thomas dissented) was promoted by liberal leaning sorts as supportive of employee rights. It's not really surprising, and not just because it is a religious rights case, Scalia wrote the opinion as part of his "that's what the text says, don't make it complicated" policy [don't get me wrong; you will find exceptions] regarding when an accommodation is required for religious employees. It might be as simple as Scalia said in his opinion announcement (again, why don't you have these SCOTUS publicly available?) but the former head of the EEOC disagreed. Suggests judgment here is just that -- wiggle room where human actors have to make judgment calls.
A few will flag that religious people get special rights here (when people say LGBT, e.g., get them, no ... this is a clearer case), which is true -- religion is singled out by the 1A in both ways. Abercrombie & Fitch was found to have possibly discriminated because they didn't want to hire someone who wore a headscarf, even if it wasn't clear to them that she wore if for religious reasons. This is one of those closer calls -- they have a brand and considering certain sartorial (okay, that's not a word I use a lot) when handling employees is appropriate. They are not singling her out here. Again, religious reasons are getting special care because it is deemed so important. This very well can get complicated, especially for smaller businesses. Those sorts of things can get you some sympathy from me and we should realize anti-discrimination laws are not just painless things.
I'm not necessarily saying this is wrong, but the last link is not outrageous for being wary about the whole thing. It also raises a hypo of some employee needing contraceptives for religious reasons possibly having a religious claim themselves. The need already has been flagged as a gender equality matter. An interesting hypothetical, which in the Hobby Lobby type case would result in a clash of interests. Finally, note the discussion shows that RFRA only applies to the government, but a law like Indiana doesn't have such a limitation. The two aren't just the same.
Another case is part of a Roberts Court trend of limiting the reach of some federal criminal laws, especially when it results in expelling people from the country. It is a mild check on recent excessive laws that will get long time residents possibly deported for relatively minor crimes. Alito/Thomas also didn't join the part, this time Alito not even partially concurring. Thomas had some snarky comments in dissent. There were two other more technical cases, one perhaps notable because (by one count flagged at a SCOTUSBlog live blog) this is the first time Justice Breyer did not fully concur in the opinion of the Court. In a "what's the point" moment, three justices (including him) didn't join a footnote.
Finally, SCOTUS handed down various orders. Included was a dissent from denial by the three conservatives* and a per curiam holding in a tragic case involving a suicide in prison did not involve a violation of a right protected by clearly established law. See here and here for further discussion.
---
* This dissent (Alito dissented without opinion; Thomas/Scalia with one) might warrant a few more words. The justices were opposed to not taking a case to determine if a lower court was wrong to declare unconstitutional a measure setting forth an across the board denial of bail of those charged with "serious felony offenses" (whatever that means) who are undocumented and there is enough proof of that fact. Various quotes from past cases involving economic substantive due process claims were selectively cited to question the substantive liberty claim involved.
Nonetheless, unlike minimum wage laws or the like, bail is something expressly addressed (putting aside the 9A) by the Constitution. Furthermore, freedom from wrongful detention is a basic aspect of "liberty" and has been for quite some time. As noted by the lower court, these protections are for "persons," not just legal residents or citizens. And, the opinion is carefully argued. FN6 is particularly interesting.
Finally, Justice Thomas' idea the Supreme Court should worry about lower federal courts striking down state laws as unconstitutional is honestly not something I think he applies consistently. The docket would be expanded significantly, I would think (admit not having numbers here) if that is applied consistently given the number of cases nation-wide that must be involved here over time. Citing the Supreme Court taking a federal case, which applies to the nation as a whole, is also like the economic due process matter not on point. The aggrieved tone doesn't help.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!