NEW: Per Supreme Court spokeswoman: "Three individuals were arrested by Supreme Court Police, at approximately 9:30 a.m. this morning, in violation of Building Regulation Two: https://t.co/cLUfXSWrEw. The individuals will be transported to the MPD’s Central Cell Block." @fox5dc https://t.co/6MSeBZBstG
— Katie Barlow (@katieleebarlow) June 21, 2022
The morning of the last opinion day, a little remarked [there was not even a separate article in SCOTUSBlog] protest occurred at the Supreme Court. From what I can tell, at least one woman (maybe more) handcuffed herself to the fence (still in place) in front of SCOTUS until the handcuffs were soon cut off. This was a form of abortion rights protest. To those who heard about it.
As we wait to see if this legislation passes (so far the Senate side seems safe), the Supreme Court handed down the expected 6-3 gun decision out of New York. Birthday boy, Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote the opinion, joined in full by the conservatives. Alito concurred to be annoyed at Breyer's dissent. Kavanaugh (with Roberts) to remind that they still accept various regulations (what ones? remains to be seen, including determining if ones presumptively okay have some other problem). And, Barrett to briefly note an academic point of some methodology importance.
The devil is in the details. This blog is one place where gun details are helpfully provided. Jake Charles on Twitter flagged how the majority confused things by its methodology, which focuses on "history" and rejected a popular court of appeals two step process (the first to determine if a regulation is basically of 2A concern at all). The general tenor of the majority seems to put a lot of gun regulations into doubt though some will highlight Roberts/Kavanugh. But, they concurred in full.
(One spin is to note the licensing scheme struck down is only in seven states. But, they are very populous ones. And, who is to know if the others do not have some poison pill aspect? Once gun regulations, even in public places -- Heller emphasized the home -- are looked at more suspiciously, there is more of a chance something will be deemed suspicious.)
My general sentiment is that gun regulation is harder now with more stuff in doubt. What about the pending national bill? It would seem okay, but who knows? Is the "red flag" law regime historically acceptable? I would be somewhat surprised if the law (knock on wood) does not somehow eventually become a Supreme Court case. And, if the justices do not find something wrong with the eighty page bill.
[My current state senator, Sen. Gillibrand, and councilwoman were all very upset; Sen. Biaggi continued her "expand the Court" mantra.]
Let me add here that I accept there is some sort of constitutional right to own a firearm and some sort of right to carry one outside the home. It's a "liberty" of some sort. New York does not deny this. Online, a few find this horrible for me to grant, perhaps citing the "militia" language of the 2A.
This is foolhardy, without going into the confusing about the history. (One sneered at the idea a black person in 1870 was accepted to have a right to have and carry. Come the fuck on.) The general public accepts some sort of basic right to firearms. The issue is what sort of regulations are acceptable. You can speak to the choir there all you want, but that is the basic core. And, making it harder for yourself is not a great idea.
===
Death Penalty: There were other opinions. Kagan wrote the majority and dissenting opinions in two of them. A mild surprise actually also involves guns.
The opinion involves the current execution regime where a person who alleges an execution procedure is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual has to cite an available alternative. Here, the option suggested is the firing squad, even though Georgia would have to pass new legislation for it to be available there. The method, however, is available in four states. It is not some fantastical alternative. That is enough.
Roberts and Kavanaugh went along with the liberals while Barrett led the dissenters (the whole thing took 22 pages, two decisions/headnotes). To be clear, the person still has an uphill battle, only getting the chance to make the claim. The Supreme Court's current majority still is clearly not supportive of finding some procedure illegitimate on the merits, never doing so yet.
Miranda: As expected, Alito v. Kagan (usual split), the Supreme Court made it harder to get relief when a violation of Miranda v. Arizona occurs. You still can keep a statement obtained via a violation of the typical warnings out of the trial, but often you will not have a trial. For instance, someone who pleas guilty who waives such challenges.
[Someone said online this opinion basically made Miranda voluntary and I pushed back. I was partially wrong in that the general tone (note author) basically sent the message that Miranda isn't worth much. This can at the very least encourage a weak application. Note also that apparently exclusionary rules aren't necessary to enforce constitutional rights, but that doesn't mean other means of enforcement will be honored.]
Voting Litigation: A partisan split is present in North Carolina, like in various states, and the first opinion (8-1, Gorsuch v. Sotomayor) allows legislative leaders the chance to intervene in the litigation (here involving voting id laws).
Rick Hasen at first blush on Twitter suggests he thinks the ruling is reasonable (he's the election guy). And, Kagan and Breyer's involvement suggests that might be right. Also, in some other case, a Democrat might benefit from this approach.