Discover and read the best of Twitter Threads about #scotus

Most recents (24)

.@washingtonpost recently criticized protesters for showing up at Brett Kavanaugh's home. I remember this action by @peterstaley at the home of Jesse Helms in the 90s. For some politics is a polite game. Others of us are fighting for our lives. 1/
Here is the Post editorial. 2/…
You know how hard it is to influence decisions in politics if you don't have money and power? 3/
Read 17 tweets
#BREAKING: We just filed with the U.S. Supreme Court AGAIN in our ongoing fight to block Texas’ radical ban on abortion #SB8. The plaintiffs in this case are a broad coalition of Texas abortion providers led by @WholeWomans.
➡️ What's different this time: We've asked #SCOTUS to hear the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case, which were denied by the district court—and hopefully, expedite the case.
Every day that Texas’ ban is allowed to stay in effect has severe consequences on the health and well-being of millions in the state.
Read 12 tweets
Alongside colleagues at @KaplanHecker, I'm proud to represent @GiffordsCourage at #SCOTUS in an important Second Amendment case, NYSRPA v. Bruen.

You can read our brief here:…

We make three major arguments in the brief ... 🧵
First, we emphasize that Heller recognized a right centered on self-defense—but our traditions narrowly define when people are lawfully allowed to use lethal force in self-defense.

The history of self-defense principles thus confirms important limits on Second Amendment rights.
Second, we highlight that the plaintiffs advance a startling, dangerous claim: that the Constitution mandates a substantial role for private violence and the threat of such violence in sustaining public safety.

We show the many ways in which the Constitution rejects that notion.
Read 5 tweets
NFL could be hit with punitive damages > $10B in Rams relocation lawsuit. The reasons: (1) pre-2020 MO law has a lower threshold ("reckless disregard"); (2) compensatory damages > $3B; (3) NFL = multi-billion $ corp.; and (4) PD/CD ratios OK'd in past MO cases > 5:1
The timing of this lawsuit couldn't be worse for the NFL. Prior to 2014, punitive damages were statutorily capped in Missouri. In 2020, the MO legislature passed a new law making it harder to recover PDs. This lawsuit was filed in 2017: no cap and less egregious conduct needed.
For cases filed before August 28, 2020, the standard is whether the defendant intentionally acted "either by a wanton, willful or outrageous act, or reckless disregard for an act's consequences (from which evil motive is inferred).”
Read 23 tweets
In DOJ's suit against TX challenging #SB8, Judge Pitman has scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing for Oct. 1.

He has *not* granted a TRO, so the ban remains on the books for now.

That's actually *very* savvy to me, because it stops TX from going right to the Fifth Circuit. Image
If he issued a TRO, TX could ask the 5th Cir. to review the TRO immediately (via a writ of mandamus), and to stay the TRO (and all district court proceedings) pending that review. This way, there's time to fully brief and decide the injunction request *before* the case can go up.
Update: DOJ, is asking Judge Pitman to rule on its request for a temporary restraining order *before* ruling on the preliminary injunction, and has proposed a hearing for next Tuesday (9/21).

(In other words, DOJ is pressuring the court to move faster):…
Read 5 tweets
Wondering how the new brief from abortion providers in the #SCOTUS case on Mississippi 15-week ban deals with the trans & non-binary issue? It leans heavily on arguments about the rights of women and addresses others in a footnote on p.13. Earlier: Image
The brief is available here:
As @AliceOllstein @AlexThomp & I noted last week, the #SCOTUS justices—at least the three liberals—still seem to view this at least in part as a women’s rights issue
Read 4 tweets
We’re still waiting on word from #SCOTUS in John Ramirez’s request for a stay of execution in Texas. Ramirez is due to be executed tonight. Here’s the docket:…
Here’s the underlying issue presented, a religious liberty — specifically, RLUIPA — claim, on which he is asking for a stay:
Notably, Texas AG Paxton, which opposes the stay request, is also *opposing* the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty here, which filed an amicus brief supporting Ramirez.…
Read 9 tweets
1. Now that a lot more people are paying attention to #SCOTUS's "shadow docket," here's a quick #thread on what, exactly, people *mean* when they use that term — and why, even before Wednesday's #SB8 ruling, it's been a source of increasing controversy over the past few years:
2. The term was coined by @WilliamBaude in 2015 as a catch-all for just about everything #SCOTUS does *other* than decide the big "merits" cases it hears each Term — in which it receives multiple rounds of briefing; holds oral argument; and hands down lengthy, signed opinions.
3. The "merits" docket includes only ~70 cases per Term. As @AdamSFeldman has shown, there's been a sharp decline in these cases in recent years. During its October 2019 Term, the Court handed down 53 decisions in such cases (the fewest since 1862); this Term, there were only 56.
Read 15 tweets
Whether the state is Texas or New York, and whether the right at issue is a right to obtain an abortion or to possess a gun, states shouldn't be able to pass laws that both deprive people of their constitutional rights *and* make it impossible to remedy that deprivation in court.
It's understandable that folks are fixated on how the Texas law all-but eliminates a pregnant woman's right to a pre-viability abortion. But the implications here are even bigger—threatening a fundamental restructuring of how our constitutional rights are (and are not) protected.
And I say this as someone whose views of these rights differ — in some ways radically — from those of the current #SCOTUS majority. We're still far better off in *that* system than in one in which we only have those constitutional rights that the legislature allows us to enforce.
Read 3 tweets
“The law of the land – as affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the ‘McGirt’ case – is working.”
Muscogee Nation Principal Chief David Hill’s editorial in Sept. 5 @TheOklahoman
🧵 w/link and excerpts
#Sovereignty #McGirt #PromiseNotaProblem #Oklahoma #SCOTUS
“What’s not working is the Governor and Attorney General’s fear-mongering, misdirection (bold statements on ‘McGirt,’ silence on the state’s COVID-driven healthcare crisis), and a litany of legal actions designed to overturn the ruling.” – Hill
“The ruling last year had the effect of re-affirming key elements of our tribal sovereignty that were ignored by Oklahoma for 114 years.” – Hill
Read 10 tweets
I moved to the U.S. in 2000. Over the past two decades, I have learned that many white Americans have a delusional amount of confidence in their government and its institutions.… #Texas #SCOTUS #AbortionBan
They are childishly naive in believing that institutions will save them from state power, which they think will work for rather than ever hurt them. That stubborn belief in U.S. exceptionalism undergirds the refusal to see the fascism that Trump brought.
Black, Indigenous, and people of colour have no such delusions. They do not expect institutions to protect them because they are so often hurt by those institutions.
Read 12 tweets
I had missed this, but there’s a new cert. petition from Lisa Blatt asking #SCOTUS to overrule its 1971 decision in Bivens — and make it absolutely impossible for victims of constitutional violations by federal officers to sue those officers for damages:…
Last year, in Hernández v. Mesa (in which I represented Hernández), a 5-4 majority refused to recognize a *new* Bivens claim, but only two of the Justices would’ve discarded Bivens altogether, leaving it in place for ordinary constitutional violations by law enforcement officers.
If the Court takes the additional step of overruling it, that would erase even the specter of potential liability for constitutional violations by federal officers — and, thus, the deterrent effect on which the Court had defended the doctrine for at least the last 27 years.
Read 4 tweets
🚨 At around midnight last night, the Supreme Court denied the emergency request to block #SB8, Texas’ draconian, dystopian ban on abortion. So what does that mean? We’ve got a short 🧵 for you to explain. #SCOTUS 1/8
The bottom line is that #SB8 is law—for now. Devastatingly, this means most abortion is banned in the state—for now. Abortion is banned at about 6 weeks into pregnancy, well before many people even know they’re pregnant, since it’s only 2 weeks after a missed period. 2/8
And as usual, #SB8 will most directly harm people who are already the most vulnerable. That includes LGBTQ+ people, people in rural areas, BIPOC people, and those with low incomes. This is by design, because the cruelty of this law is so clearly the point. 3/8
Read 8 tweets

There are over 30,000 State Court Judges

There are 675 Federal District Court Judges sitting in 94 different Districts

There are 13 Federal Appellate Courts with 180 Judges

And there are FIVE political hacks on the #SupremeCourt.

See the problem?
80 Million people can elect a President, 50 Senators and 222 Representatives...and 5 political appointees with bulletproof lifetime gigs get to say "NO, sorry ladies, we know better"

Time to change the system.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate NINE Supreme Court Justices. In fact, the Original Supreme Court was comprised of just 6...yes, six Justices.

It got expanded to 9 when the US had 9 Appellate Circuits. Now we have 13...which, by itself is a good reason to expand.
Read 8 tweets
I am so thoroughly lawyerbrained at this point that I actually took a breath when I saw that this was its own graf Image
for regular people with normal brains who do not obsessively follow and read #SCOTUS decisions, this roughly translates to "fuck you, Sam Alito"
Read 4 tweets
Just a reminder that back in April, the very same 5-4 #SCOTUS majority flat-out *ignored* procedural obstacles to issue an emergency injunction that blocked California's #COVID-based restrictions on in-home gatherings based upon a *new* interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause.
The ruling in Tandon v. Newsom should've been possible only if the right was "indisputably clear." It wasn't, but the Court issued an injunction anyway. Tonight, the Court refused to protect the "indisputably clear" right to an abortion because of *possible* procedural obstacles.
When you put these rulings by the same 5-4 majority side-by-side, you see much of what's wrong with the Texas decision: A Court untroubled by procedure went out of its way to expand religious liberty, but hid behind procedural Qs to refuse to enforce a right already on the books.
Read 4 tweets
Not a ruling on the merits. The #Texas #abortion providers had sought an injunction in the district court. The district court was set to hold a hearing on their request but the 5th circuit suspended the hearing until it could decide whether to hear an appeal on procedural issues.
The providers filed an emergency application with #SCOTUS requesting an injunction until these issues are resolved. The Court 5-4 (the 3 liberals + the chief dissenting) declined to intervene. So there's been no ruling on #SB8 one way or the other, but...
Read 13 tweets
It's frustrating that five #SCOTUS Justices are resting on (surmountable) procedural technicalities to allow Texas to effectively ban abortion. But it's *indefensible* that they're doing so with *full knowledge* that the law created those technicalities for *exactly this reason.*
It's not just that this ruling renders abortion a virtual dead-letter in the nation's second-largest state; it's that it overtly *rewards* the Texas legislature for its profound cynicism—and, in the process, encourages it and other red states to be equally cynical going forward.
Put another way, this was all an obvious ploy to frustrate Roe without anyone having to actually vote to overrule it.

The Justices in the majority *know that* this was such a ploy; they know that it is widely understood to be such a ploy, and they chose to reward it *anyway.*
Read 3 tweets
BREAKING: On a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court denies relief to plaintiffs challenging Texas #SB8, allowing it to remain in effect for now. Chief Justice Roberts joins the Democratic appointees in dissent.
Here is the statement from the Court, which has no author and is not listed as per curiam.
Here is Roberts’ dissent, joined by Breyer and Kagan, which focuses on the “unprecedented” type of law at issue here.
Read 12 tweets
It's no accident that #SCOTUS overturned Roe in the dead of night by passively letting a blatantly constitutional Texas abortion ban stand. The whole point is forcing a far-right agenda while avoiding alarming headlines that will hurt Republicans.…
The Roberts court has long been focused on the goal of overturning Roe while somehow evading "Roe overturned" headlines. This shady manuever accomplishes that goal. Image
It's a clever, if cowardly, manipulation, because the non-decision is just ambiguous enough that journalists can't write the "Roe dead" headlines. But for women who are having their abortions cancelled, this is an unambiguous abortion ban. Image
Read 8 tweets
If you think eliminating Abortion is the only end goal of these zealots and fanatical religious nuts slowly losing power and thrusting towards patriarchal theocracy, you haven't been paying attention. This is just the beginning. #abortion #texas #SCOTUS /1
/2 Christian Nationalists are well organized, well funded, have broad and deep roots in government at national and local level, and plan long term and they are having success Project Blitz; Jan. 6 insurrection (numerous groups and symbols there seen next)
/3 And although trump was about as non-religious as it gets, the Christian Nationalists knew they could use him to promote their agenda... Judges at all levels for example, but more importantly a continued deep intertwining of religion and government…
Read 6 tweets
It's 12:01 CDT here in Texas. #SCOTUS has not acted.

That means #SB8 — the most restrictive abortion law since Roe — is now in effect, and that virtually *all* abortions in Texas after the sixth week of pregnancy (when many women do not even *know* they're pregnant) are illegal.
Despite what some will say, this isn't the "end" of Roe.

*No* court, from the district court to #SCOTUS, has ruled on whether #SB8's substantive restriction on abortions is even constitutional.

And courts may yet put SB8 on hold — perhaps as early as later on Wednesday.
But until and unless a court blocks #SB8, it will effectively end abortions after the sixth week across Texas; and the fact that #SCOTUS is *letting that happen* is a pretty ominous harbinger of what's likely to come down the road, whether in this case, Dobbs, or another.

Read 6 tweets
It's Wednesday in DC, and an hour until midnight in Texas, when the state's #SB8 anti-abortion law will take effect absent court action. Still no word yet from #SCOTUS on the plaintiffs’ request at the Court, or from the 5th Circuit.
Here is Tuesday's thread about the last-day litigation:
This is true. We also got a *very* late order just this past year in at least one of the federal execution cases.
Read 15 tweets
At some point, it’s worth stepping back and having a broader conversation about the frequency with which #SCOTUS is deciding incredibly significant questions on incredibly tight schedules. This is now the third very different emergency in the past week—all with huge consequences.
Some of it, as I’ve written at too much length, is about the Justices’ increasing willingness to issue emergency relief (and parties taking advantage of that). But there’s a broader problem here—with rules governing timing of litigation and the creation of artificial emergencies.
Take the Texas abortion law. Yes, it goes into effect tomorrow, but it was enacted over the summer, and the lawsuit now at #SCOTUS was filed in mid-July. There are doctrinal reasons why it took this long to get to this point, but maybe those rules are part of the problem, too.
Read 4 tweets

Related hashtags

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!