Smith: Catch up with recent SCOTUS opinions
This is an opinion column
The United States Supreme Court issued a flurry of opinions over the last few weeks. So many impactful cases decided in such a short timeline meant that several of the Court’s decisions didn’t receive as much attention as they deserved. Several of them deserve the time and attention of Americans whether they’re lawyers or not.
Partisans and ideologues will harangue the Court for unfavorable decisions, but the reality is that the Court afforded wins to perspectives across the political continuum this term. More importantly, the votes at the Court weren’t particularly predictable even on major issues.
While this list isn’t exhaustive, it covers most of the major SCOTUS decisions making headlines over the last few weeks:
Basic Premise: The “Independent State Legislature” theory isn’t a valid interpretation of the Elections Clause of the Constitution. State legislatures are subject to state-level checks and balances when making laws which engage federal voting procedures and election results.
Quick Take: This is a win for folks who like checks and balances in government. It’s a loss for folks who want friendly legislatures to be able to act unilaterally to stack the deck in a partisan manner.
Key Opinion Quote: “The legislature acts both as a lawmaking body created and bound by its state constitution, and as the entity assigned particular authority by the Federal Constitution. Both constitutions restrain the legislature’s exercise of power.”
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
Basic Premise: Race-based college admissions policies by public schools or those who accept federal funding are unconstitutional under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
Quick Take: Affirmative action programs were living on borrowed time based on the past Supreme Court opinion in Grutter. In the zero sum land of elite college admissions, giving some candidates an advantage based on race inherently disadvantages candidates of other races. The Constitution simply doesn’t permit using race in such a manner without a compelling specific government objective such as remedying voting disenfranchisement.
Key Opinion Quote: “Most troubling of all is what the dissent must make these omissions to defend: a judiciary that picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin. While the dissent would certainly not permit university programs that discriminated against black and Latino applicants, it is perfectly willing to let the programs here continue. In its view, this Court is supposed to tell state actors when they have picked the right races to benefit. Separate but equal is ‘inherently unequal,’ said Brown. 347 U. S., at 495 (emphasis added). It depends, says the dissent.”
Basic Premise: Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer must demonstrate that the burden of granting a religious accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.
Quick Take: This is easily the most impactful case from the Supreme Court’s term, but it received relatively little attention. This is a major win for individual religious liberty and a material issue for businesses to navigate in the future.
Key Opinion Quote: An employer who fails to provide an accommodation has a defense only if the hardship is “undue,” and a hardship that is attributable to employee animosity to a particular religion, to religion in general, or to the very notion of accommodating religious practice cannot be considered “undue.”
Basic Premise: President Biden doesn’t have authority to forgive federal student loans under the HEROES Act
Quick Take: This case is a blow to executive branch authority absent clear statutory authority. For Americans who want to rein in the unaccountable regulatory state, this is a huge win. The Supreme Court also strengthened the “major questions” doctrine which essentially requires clear congressional delegation of power for economic or politically significant executive branch actions.
Key Opinion Quote: “And as we have already shown, the HEROES Act provides no authorization for the Secretary’s plan even when examined using the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation—let alone “clear congressional authorization” for such a program.”
Basic Premise: The First Amendment prohibits states from compelling businesses to engage in speech they do not believe or support.
Quick Take: This is a major victory for free expression.
Key Opinion Quote: “Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive,’ post, at 38 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.), ‘misguided, or even hurtful,’ Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.”
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
Basic Premise: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent a state from requiring an out-of-state corporation to consent to being sued in its courts as a condition of doing business in the state.
Quick Take: Trial lawyers will be at every state legislature in the next session begging legislators to enact legislation like Pennsylvania’s which explicitly allows state courts to exercise general personal jurisdiction over companies operating in the state. This will be a major battle between the trial bar and business associations across the country.
Key Opinion Quote: “The truth is, under our precedents a variety of ‘actions of the defendant’ that may seem like technicalities nonetheless can ‘amount to a legal submission to the jurisdiction of a court.’”
Basic Premise: The Supreme Court rejected Alabama’s attempt to rewrite Voting Rights Act Jurisprudence established under Gingles in favor of a race-neutral benchmark approach. The ruling has implications for other states like Louisiana which may now need to create additional majority congressional districts for racial minorities.
Quick Take: Alabama gambled that the Supreme Court would rewrite Voting Rights Act jurisprudence and lost. Unlike the affirmative action case, the Court found a specific and compelling government purpose in keeping the laws race-based remedies in place.
Key Opinion Quote: “The contention that mapmakers must be entirely “blind” to race has no footing in our §2 case law. The line that we have long drawn is between consciousness and predominance. Plaintiffs adduced at least one illustrative map that comported with our precedents. They were required to do no more to satisfy the first step of Gingles.”
Smith is a recovering political attorney with a house full of boys, two dogs, a bearded dragon, and an extremely patient wife. He’s a partner in a media company, a business strategy wonk, and a regular on talk radio. Please direct outrage or agreement to [email protected] or @DCameronSmith on Twitter.