SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) Roundup –Part 2 July 14, 2024
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, appointed by FDR, was quoted as saying that “denial of certiorari (the Court’s refusal to hear a case) doesn’t mean a damn.” Sure, sometimes SCOTUS won’t hear a case because it prefers to take the matter up later or because it wants some of the issues involved in this litigation discussed or hashed out further in the lower federal courts. However, IMHO, when SCOTUS refuses to hear a case, it still means something. On June 24, 2024, the current Roberts/Trump High Court rejected without comment the anti-COVID-19 vaccine appeals from anti-vaccine fanatic/independent presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. SCOTUS let stand rulings against two of Kennedy Jr.’s non-profits from Texas and New Jersey that had been rejected by federal appeals courts. Those courts had required that these vaccines be administered to children (TX) as well as to students who attended Rutgers University courses on that New Jersey campus (cnn.com, apnews.com, 6/24/24). SCOTUS, on this same date, also rejected a challenge to a 2021 Connecticut law that eliminated that state’s long -standing religious exemption requirement from childhood immunizations for schools, colleges, and day care facilities. SCOTUS aptly rejected the arguments that such requirements jeopardize the rights to medical freedom and child rearing. SCOTUS properly upheld protecting thousands of residents from getting horrible and possibly deadly diseases when such exemptions would cause a decline in school vaccination rates. SCOTUS did not want to decrease herd immunity necessary to protect the public (See
apnews.com, cnn.com, 6/24/24).
Onh June 26, 2024, SCOTUS, once again, invoked the doctrine of standing, discussed in my previous blog post. By applying standing, the High Court gave the Biden administration a major practical victory. In a 6-3 decision, the High Court paused an injunction by a three-judge New Orleans Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, composed of judges appointed by both “W” Bush and Trump. That appellate court had, with this injunction, stopped the Biden administration’s attempt to have social media companies take down posts that gave false information about the coronavirus vaccines, claims of election fraud, and misinformation on other topics (nytimes.com, Liptak, 6/26/24). SCOTUS ruled that the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana, both GOPers, lacked standing to argue that the federal government, with its action, was “attacking free speech.” In her majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the states and users who challenged the contacts by the Biden administration with social media “had not suffered the sort of direct injury that gave them standing to sue (nytimes.com, Liptak).” In Barrett’s words, “This court’s standing doctrine prevents us from exercising such general legal oversight of the other branches of government.” SCOTUS, however, did not rule on the merits of this case. While granting the Biden administration’s request to pause the injunction and putting the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in favor of the injunction on hold, SCOTUS agreed to hear this case, “Murthy v. Missouri,” in the future. Hard-line conservative Justices, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented (Liptak, nytimes.com, 6/26/24).
And the High Court decisions “keep on coming.” On June 27, 2024, SCOTUS stated that it would dismiss a case involving emergency abortions in Idaho. This action temporarily clears the way for women in that state to receive an abortion. In two joined cases, “Moyle v. United States” and “Idaho v. United States”, the issue concerned whether a federal law aimed at ensuring emergency care for any patient supersedes Idaho’s abortion ban, one of the country’s strictest. Idaho outlaws abortion with few exceptions, unless a woman’s life is in danger. Under this law, doctors who performed abortions could face prison time and loss of their licenses as well. This short unsigned 6-3 opinion, had three conservative SCOTUS judges joining the liberal wing in saying they would drop the case. This was the first time that SCOTUS was confronted with the question of statewide restrictions on abortion since the High Court eliminated the constitutional right to this procedure by overturning the right to abortion in the 1973 “Roe v. Wade” decision two years ago with its, IMHO, wrongly decided “Dobbs” decision (See nytimes.com, VanSickle, A., 6/27/24). The Court held that the Idaho case had been “improvidently granted.” Again, SCOTUS ducked or did not rule on the substance of the case. This opinion closely resembled a version that had been “inadvertently and briefly uploaded” on June 26, 2024, according to a High Court spokeswoman. This ruling is a temporary victory for the Biden administration which argued that this Gem State law conflicts with federal law and that the federal law should override it. However, as with the earlier 2024 abortion pill battle victory, the underlying question of state versus federal law in the ID case will continue to be litigated in the lower courts. In any event, with this current SCOTUS, we have to call this ruling a temporary victory.
Again, when Big Business actors are involved, generally count on this Roberts/Trump SCOTUS to give that group victories. In a 5-4 decision, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberals Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson in dissent. In this case, SCOTUS temporarily put on hold an Environmental Protection (E.P.A.) plan to curtail air pollution that drifts across state lines. This ruling is a blow to the Biden administration’s efforts to protect the environment by using federal agencies. Conservatives, remember, are obsessed with chipping away, and in fact, gutting that agency’s authority to address climate change and water pollution. In general, right-wingers do not want administrative agencies to enforce many laws (See nytimes.com, Liptak, A., 6/27/24).This decision involved the Biden administration’s “good neighbor plan” that originally applied to 23 states. Under its proposal, factories and power plants in Western and Midwestern states had to cut ozone pollution that drifts into Eastern ones. The emissions cause smog and are linked to asthma, lung disease, and premature death (nytimes.com, Liptak). The Clean Air Act allows states to devise their own plans, subject to approval by the E.P.A. In February, 2023, the E.P.A. concluded that 23 states had not produced adequate plans to comply with its revised ozone standards. The E.P.A. then issued its own plan. Three states, Ohio, Indiana, and West Virginia as well as energy and trade groups challenged the federal plan in the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. When a divided three-judge panel on that court refused to suspend the administrative rule while the litigation went forward, these states and business groups asked SCOTUS to step in. They argued that “the federal plan was already a failed experiment.” The E.P.A. responded that blocking its rule would have “severe consequences and would delay efforts to control pollution that contributes to unhealthy air, contrary to Congress’s express directives.” The four consolidated cases, including “Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency,” reached SCOTUS by way of emergency applications, which are usually disposed of in summary fashion. SCOTUS’s decision to hear arguments about whether to grant a stay was quite rare. Again, in this High Court, Big Business often gets its way, and we should not be surprised by SCOTUS’s action here.
And in another case issued on June 27, 2024, SCOTUS, once more went after another major regulatory administrative agency, this time the Securities and Exchange Commission. In this 6-3 case, divided along ideological liberal v. conservative lines, the High Court rejected that agency’s use of administrative tribunals to enforce laws against securities fraud. The S.E.C., like other regulators, brings some enforcement actions in internal tribunals rather than in federal courts. Chief Justice (CJ) Roberts, in his majority opinion wrote that “a defendant facing a fraud suit has the right to be tried by a jury of his peers before a neutral adjudicator.” In this case, “Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jaresky,” hedge fund manager George Jaresky was accused of misleading investors. In a civil enforcement proceeding before an administrative judge employed by the S.E.C.,Jaresky was ordered to pay a civil penalty of $300,000 and to give up $685,000 in what that agency said were illegal gains. The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the S.E.C. on the jury trial issue and attacked the S.E.C. for being immune from presidential oversight. It also held that Congress could not allow the S.E.C. to decide where suits should be filed. SCOTUS only discussed the jury trial issue in this case. The Fifth Circuit three-judge panel showed a lot of hostility to the power of administrative agencies in general. This past January, SCOTUS heard arguments on a key principle of administrative law, the Chevron doctrine. That doctrine requires judicial deference to administrative agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes.The survival of the Chevron doctrine, which right-wingers want to destroy, may soon be decided by this SCOTUS (nytimes.com, Liptak, 6/27/24).
Comments