SCOTUS Speaks - A Non-Partisan Review

The Supreme Court of the United States has handed down recent rulings which have far reaching effects and are controversial. One group of Citizens may view the majority opinions as "results justification" while another group may view the dissents as "ideological pandering". Whatever your view, you will find the cases noteworthy.

We express no political opinion, but simply offer the opinions of SCOTUS.

As you read, we suggest you note the different standards the Justices apply in reaching their decisions.

1. Trump v. CASA - Universal Injunctions

In this case the Supreme Court held that federal courts do not have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. This means a judge in one federal district cannot issue an injunction affecting the applicability of a law throughout the rest of the country. This case was the result of federal court judges issuing universal injunctions in direct response to President Trump’s Executive Order No. 14160, which banned birthright citizenship. The Court did not address the issue of whether the executive order itself violated the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment or the Nationality Act. In effect, the Court has temporarily allowed the precedent of United States v. Wong Kim Ark to stand. In this case the Supreme Court had previously established that a person becomes a United States citizen if they are born in America regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

The dissent argues that President Trump’s executive order is inherently unconstitutional, hence why the Government asked for a partial, rather than a complete, stay. A complete stay would require a showing of the order’s constitutionality. The dissent argues that the partial stay is a dangerous attempt to subvert the power of federal court judges to prevent the Executive branch from enforcing an unconstitutional order. The majority, the dissent argues, has created another slippery slope whereby future Presidents can impose blatantly unconstitutional executive orders affecting gun rights or religious liberties and can use partial stays to be able to continue applying these orders to all non-parties in America.

2. Mahmoud v. Taylor - Parental Opt Out of Class Discussions of L.G.B.T.Q Themes

Here, the Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit of Appeals’ ruling and held that: (1) parents have the right to opt out their children in classroom discussions of books with L.G.B.T.Q. themes and (2) the parents were likely to succeed in showing that the lack of an opt-out option threatened their right to freely exercise their religion. The Court based its decision primarily on the precedent of Yoder, which established that parents have a right to “direct the religious upbringing of their children” and that such a right can be undermined by laws that threaten to undermine the religious beliefs and values that parents which to instill in their children.

Yoder allowed for Amish parents to pull their children from high school to avoid exposing them to “worldly influences.” The majority noted that its decision in Yoder was made despite Amish children not being affirmatively coerced by the law, but rather because of its impact on the Amish community. Furthermore, the majority dismissed the school’s suggestion that the books merely exposed children to differing viewpoints regarding marriage and sexuality. The majority analyzed the themes and accompanying lesson plans devised for the L.G.B.T.Q. books issued by the school board and held that such books were meant to specifically challenge hetero-normative and cis-normative views of sexuality and gender respectively. By doing so, the Court found that the school board went beyond exposing children to other’s opinions and that the board’s actions created an objective threat to the parent’s religious liberties to freely exercise their beliefs. Overall, the compulsory attendance requirement coupled with the L.G.B.T.Q. policy (without an opt-out option) substantially interfered with parents' religious liberties and thus was subject to strict scrutiny.

The dissent framed the legal issue as being the majority weaponizing religious liberties to insulate children from ideas that conflict with their parent’s religious beliefs. The dissent’s primary legal argument was the Free Exercise Clause does not require the government itself to behave in ways that an individual believes would further their individual or familial spiritual development. The dissent also took umbrage to what it considered the majority’s denials of the existence of LGBTQ people. The dissent viewed the majority’s decision as a slippery slope that could be used to remove nearly any book from a school curriculum that conflicts with any parent’s religious beliefs.

3. Medina v. Planned Parenthood - Planned Parenthood and Medicaid

The Supreme Court upheld a South Carolina statute that stripped Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding in South Carolina. The legal issue in the case is whether individuals can sue the state or federal government for violations of federal spending-power statutes. The Court reaffirmed precedent stating that individuals cannot sue their state government for violations of federal spending-power statutes, unless a statute unambiguously confers such a right.

The dissent argued for a broader interpretation of the precedent that statutes create these rights when the language or legislative history thereof are “individual-centric” that reflect an “unmistakable focus on the benefited class.”

4. US v. Skrmetti - Transgender Treatment for Minors

Here, the Court upheld a Tennessee statute, S.B. 1, which prohibits doctors from administering certain sex-transition treatments for minors. The issue in this case is whether S.B. 1 violated the Equal Protection Clase of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court determined that S.B. 1 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the statute did not involve a fundamental right, a protected class, or otherwise deserving of heightened scrutiny.

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, described how S.B. 1 imposed an age and medical use classification, a classification which has never been subject to heightened scrutiny. Furthermore, the majority rejected the idea that statutory references to sex in the heading or the practical effects of the law meant that the statute was subject to discrimination.

Justice Sotomayor penned the dissent and argued that S.B. 1 was a form of discrimination by analogizing to a hypothetical religious law. In this analogy, the hypothetical law mandated that a Christian or Jewish child could only attend the place of worship assigned to their religion (a Christian child could not attend a synagogue or vice versa). The dissent argues that if the Supreme Court could easily determine that such a law is unconstitutional, then it should be able to do the same for laws targeting transgender minors.

5. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton - Age Verification for Porn Sites

In this case, the Court upheld a Texas statute, H.B. 1181, that requires pornographic websites to verify that visitors were 18 years or older. The Court determined that the regulation was only subject to intermediate scrutiny, Texas had a valid interest in regulating minors’ access to obscene materials, and that the means of the age restriction was reasonably related to that goal. The Court reasoned that states have traditionally had the power to prevent minors from accessing obscene speech and that no person adult or child has a First Amendment right access such speech without first submitting proof of age.

The dissent argues that restrictions on pornography, a constitutionally protected form of speech for adults, are subject to strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, the government must show that the restrictions are narrowly tailored to a compelling interest. The dissent agrees that shielding children from pornography is a valid goal, but the age verification requirement is not a narrowly tailored method of achieving this goal. Furthermore, the dissent argues that the age verification requirement interferes with the right of adults to view pornography.

6. Barnes v. Felix - Police Force

The Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that in cases involving claims of excessive force by police, only the “moment of threat” could be considered in a court’s analysis. The Supreme Court established a new standard whereby courts must consider a police officer’s actions leading up to the shooting in addition to the “moment of threat” in considering claims of excessive force.

This case involved a police officer who shot the driver of a vehicle he pulled over two seconds after the suspect tried to flee the scene. The Supreme Court specified that excessive force claims are evaluated through the lens of the Fourth Amendment which requires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable and the Court relied on the “totality of the circumstances” standard. The Court noted the importance of paying attention to the stopped person’s conduct as being indicative of the nature and level of threat they post to a police officers or others. The Court concluded by holding that courts must evaluate the events immediately prior to an officer’s actions as the standard for evaluating other lawsuits involving a police officer’s alleged use of excessive force.

7. Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services - Reverse Discrimination

The Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ additional requirement for members of majority groups to pursue a claim of Title VII workplace discrimination against an employer.

This case arises from a straight woman who sued her employer alleging that she had been denied an opportunity for a promotion twice because her manager favored her lesbian and gay colleagues. The legal issue in this case was whether members of a majority group (e.g., being straight, or white, etc.) must prove that there are “background circumstances that support the suspicion that the defendant is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” when there is a lack of direct evidence of discrimination. The Supreme Court decried the additional requirement as a discriminatory towards a majority group. Also, the Court noted that Title VII disparate treatment provision made no distinction between plaintiffs based on their personal characteristics. In short, this ruling allows plaintiffs who are members of a majority group to have the same legal burden as everyone else when alleging discrimination.

8. Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos - US Gun Manufacturers and Cartel Violence

The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the First Circuit’s ruling that the Mexican government lacked standing to sue gun manufacturers because they failed to meet the statutory burden of showing a link between the manufacturers and criminal transactions.

In this case, the Mexican government sued US gun manufacturers and claimed they were liable in part for the gun-related crimes committed by members of Mexican gun cartels. The Mexican government’s argument was three-fold: the gun manufacturers sold guns to retailers who they knew would, in turn, illegally sell weapons to the cartel, failed to impose the controls on their distribution networks that would prevent illegal sales to Mexican traffickers, and knowingly created marketing materials designed to induce demand from the cartel. The gun manufacturers contended that the lawsuit should have been dismissed under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The Supreme Court disagreed with lower courts who sought to impose liability on the gun manufacturers through a legal theory of aiding and abetting. The Court declared that merchants can only become liabile if they “takes [sic] steps to ‘promote’ the resulting crime.” The standard, the Court maintained is for plaintiffs to show that the manufacturer knowingly participated in illegal sales with the intent to make such sales successful and to be “joined mind in hand” with criminals through their actions. The Court pointed to its dismissal of a case that intended to hold multiple social media companies liable for aiding and abetting ISIS as the analogue for the gun manufacturer case. The Court held that the Mexican government did not meet this standard by failing to allege, much less prove, the existence of any specific illegal transactions that were facilitated by the gun manufactures. Finally, the Court determined that its ruling in this case was in alignment with the purpose behind the PLCAA.

9. Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond - Religious Charter Schools

In this case, the Supreme Court simply affirmed the Supreme Court of Oklahoma’s holding that Oklahoma’s statute, which allowed for the funding of a religious charter school, was unconstitutional. The lack of an opinion in this case is telling and is reflective of the Court’s desire to have one less controversial precedent setting case on its docket.

_______________

Article by Ron Holmes.  Summer Law Clerk with Holmes Firm PC, Yacob Abraham, provided invaluable assistance in the development of this article.