Final SCOTUS Summary – Part 3 July 21, 2024
I repeat. Elections, especially presidential ones, count. Remember that Presidents get to nominate Supreme Court Justices who with lifetime appointments will stay long after Presidents have left office and even after their deaths.These SCOTUS decisions will often be on the books for decades. When Republicans win the Oval Office because Democrats wring their hands, stay home, or wrongly get persuaded by the false promises of GOP presidential nominees, “Team Red” gets to appoint right-wing ideologues to the bench. The reactionary present High Court is a perfect example of hard-right GOPers putting their strong stamp on American law because H.W. Bush, “W” Bush, and Demagogue Donald were elected.
On June 28, 2024, the hard-right, with a landmark SCOTUS decision, achieved one of their fondest legal dreams–cutting down federal administrative regulations. In two cases, “Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo,” and “Relentless v. Department of Commerce,” SCOTUS swept aside the long-standing legal precedent found in its previous opinion, “Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.”The 1984 “Chevron” decision required courts to defer to the expertise of federal administrators in carrying out laws passed by Congress. The “Chevron” opinion is one of the most cited in American law. Seventy SCOTUS decisions have relied on “Chevron”as well as 17,000 lower court cases (Liptak, A., nytimes.com, 6/28/24). So much for a “conservative” High Court not overturning precedent! They are, in effect, radical reactionaries, not conservatives. “Chevron,” of course, is far from the first precedent that the Trump/Roberts SCOTUS has overruled. Remember this same High Court overturned the long-established “Roe v Wade” right to abortion precedent as well. These anti-administrative law decisions, along conservative-liberal lines, (“Loper” 6-2 and “Relentless,” 6-3) threaten regulations in many areas, including the environment, health care, and consumer safety, which “Team Red” and their allies want. The conservative legal movement, with its think tanks, litigators, “Team Red” state and federal legislators, and sympathetic business groups have long objected to the “Chevron” ruling. They opposed “Chevron” based on a general hostility to government regulation and because of their belief that agencies should only have the power that Congress explicitly gave them. People in favor of the “Chevron” doctrine believe that it allows specialized agencies to fill gaps in ambiguous statutes to establish uniform rules in areas of expertise, a practice they say was contemplated by Congress (nytimes.com, Liptak, 6/28/24).
The two cases that overruled “Chevron” involved a 1976 law that required herring boats to carry federal observers to prevent overfishing, a serious problem. Under a 2020 regulation interpreting this law, owners of the boats were required to transport the observers as well as pay $700 a day for their oversight. Fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island sued. They argued that the 1976 law did not authorize the relevant agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, to impose this fee (Liptak). The fishermen were represented by the Cause of Action Institute which says its mission is “to limit the power of the administrative state” and the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which aims “to protect constitutional freedoms from violations of the administrative state.” Both of these groups have financial ties to foundations and advocacy organizations funded by conservative libertarian billionaire Charles Koch (nytimes.com, Liptak, 6/28/24). As a result of these two cases that overturned “Chevron,” numerous statutes interpreting issues that were decided by administrative agencies will be tossed back to Congress. Many Americans will lose benefits and protections of their rights because of the “Chevron” doctrine being overruled. Such attempts to regulate, even if they pass in the House, can easily die in the Senate via the filibuster.
And Demagogue Donald is thrilled by another SCOTUS June 28, 2024 decision.Writing for the majority, Chief Justice (CJ) Roberts sided with a member of the Trump-incited January 6, 2021 mob that stormed the Capitol. Roberts wrote that prosecutors had overstepped their power in using an obstruction law, part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to convict Joseph Fischer. That law made it a crime to “corruptly obstruct, influence or impede any official proceeding.” The official proceeding at issue here, of course, was Congress confirming Biden’s presidential win in the Electoral College. CJ Roberts read the law narrowly. He wrote that it applied only when the defendant’s actions impaired the integrity of physical evidence. Fischer, a former police officer from Pennsylvania, sent messages to his then boss about his plans for January 6. In one message, Fischer wrote that “they should storm the capital and drag all the democrates (sic) into the street and have a mob trial.” Fischer’s lawyers stated that he attended the rally on the Ellipse but was not part of the initial assault(Liptak, nytimes.com, 6/28/24).
Lower courts will now have to apply that stricter standard.They will now have to dismiss charges against many of these defendants. Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the federal election interference case against Demagogue Donald, has said that Trump’s conduct could still be a crime under even a narrow reading of the law (nytimes.com, Liptak). Attorney General Merrick Garland stated that he was “disappointed by this decision.” Garland added that the vast majority of more than 1,400 defendants charged for illegal acts on Jan. 6 “will not be affected by this decision.” Prosecutors, though upset with this ruling, believe it will not have a major impact. They have spent weeks figuring out how to deal with a range of actions to take in response, because the SCOTUS questioning of them at oral argument was hostile.Some D.C. federal judges in Washington who are handling the January 6 riot cases have already indicated that they are willing to increase the sentences defendants receive on crimes other than the obstruction count in order to make up for any loss in prison time. Remember, should Trump win in 2024, he has said he’d likely pardon some of those arrested. (Thrush, Haberman, Feuer, & Liptak, nytimes.com, 6/28/24).Trump’s comments about pardoning the rioters are another reason, among many, why we should not re-elect him and let him get away with breaking the law.
And the Trump-Roberts SCOTUS continues its super- love affair with big business. On its final decision day, July 1, 2024, along the usual 6-3 ideological lines, the High Court gave companies more time to challenge many executive administration regulations. It ruled a six-year statute of limitations for filing lawsuits begins to run when a regulation affects a company rather when it was first issued. In the “Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System arose from a challenge to a 2011 regulation of debit-card swipe fees brought by two trade associations to dismiss the case on statute of limitation grounds. Corner Post, a North Dakota truck stop and convenience store that opened for business in 2018 was added to these cases by the plaintiff. This amended suit stated that Corner Post could not have sued within the six-year period after the regulation’s issuance since it did not yet exist. The business plaintiffs argued that the six-year statute of limitation clocks should have started running when the regulation first affected the company. The lower courts dismissed Corner’s case (nytimes.com, Liptak, 7/01/24). Of course, Roberts and his radical reactionaries ruled for the plaintiffs putting 75 plus years of interpreting administrative law in danger. In her strong dissent, Biden-appointee Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, correctly wrote that the Corner decision along with the overruling of “Chevron” in this term was part of an “an assault on the power of administrative agencies.” With the conservative obsession of gutting administrative agencies that help protect the American people, millions will be hurt. However, the Trump-Roberts Court could care less and their friends in the Federalist Society are crowing with glee.
And, finally, the case everyone was watching for has come down. And what an awful opinion it was! The Trump-Roberts High Court assisted Demagogue Donald, the fellow who appointed three of these Justices, to get a “y uu ge” delay in the case against him involving his attempt to subvert the 2020 election. SCOTUS further shielded Trump quite a bit from prosecution. In its July 1, 2024 opinion, SCOTUS ruled that former and currently running for President Demagogue Donald is entitled to some immunity from prosecution. The practical effect of this case may delay “big time” the trial against him on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election. The vote was, once again, on 6-3 partisan lines (nytimes.com, Liptak, 7/01/24). And should Demagogue Donald win re-election, a better possibility after Biden’s awful June 27, 2024 debate, Trump can get his Justice Department with a “wink and a nod” to dismiss the entire case against him (See nytimes.com, Liptak, 7/01/24). Yes, Trump argued that he was entitled to absolute immunity from the charges against him. The federal appeals court in February, 2024, found Trump enjoyed NO immunity for alleged crimes he committed during his presidency to reverse the 2020 election results. In its opinion, SCOTUS rejected that appellate decision. SCOTUS, instead stated that presidents have immunity for official acts, but not all acts are official. It stated that lower courts must decide which acts are official. Although the High Court said that presidents are immune from official acts, it did not define exactly what actions are official and which are unofficial. However, SCOTUS did address a few of Demagogue Donald’s former actions:
1. Conversations between Trump and the Justice Department: The High Court called them official acts, making Donald immune from prosecution.
2. Trump allegedly pressuring VP Pence to not count certified electoral votes on January 6: Trump is presumed immune, but this issue is sent back for review to the lower courts.
3. Trump allegedly pressuring state officials to change their state’s electoral votes from Biden to Trump: SCOTUS did not answer this matter, but sent it to lower courts for review.
4. Trump allegedly inciting violence in the Jan. 6 insurrection :Not answered, but remanded, again to the lower courts for review (cnn.com, Radford, Chowdhury, et al, 7/01/24).
No wonder Demagogue Donald is overjoyed by this decision. SCOTUS gave Trump a blank check, IMHO, for, no doubt, pressuring his Justice Dept., and just about saying that he is immune from pressuring VP Pence. And certainly, it seems to most reasonable people that Nos. 3 and 4 about pressuring state officials to change their votes from Biden to Trump and inciting violence in the Jan. 6 insurrection should be “no brainers” that condemn Trump. However, not in this pro-Trump GOP alternative world SCOTUS bubble. Justices Sotomayor,. Kagan, and Jackson rightly dissented. Sotomayor called this decision “gravely misguided.” She added, “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law (nytimes.com, Liptak, 7/01/24).”
Although the Supreme Court quickly took up this case and quickly reached a decision helping Demagogue Donald (See nytimes.com), when Federal District Court Judge Chutkan and the Court of Appeals get this case tossed into their laps once again, it will take months to sort out and decide all these issues, that will certainly go past the 2024 presidential election. Again, presidential elections are important, and if Donald wins because far too many Democrats are upset about Biden’s debate performance, Trump will, once again, “get away with legal and political murder.”
Democrats, moderates, and fair-minded Republicans who believe in saving our democracy are horrified. Our base and lots of other Americans must react to this decision the same way they have reacted to the “Dobbs” case that repealed “Roe v. Wade.” They must condemn this awful decision 24/48/7 and vote accordingly to keep Donald accountable for his crimes. Former congressional GOPer Adam Kinzinger of IL said it all about this case. In his words, “the Supreme Court has stripped the guardrails of democracy.” Exactly. Conservative GOPer Kinzinger gets what is at stake. He has endorsed Biden for President (cnn.com, Radford et al, 7/01/24). Vote, vote, vote. Democracy is at stake in Campaign 2024.
Comments