Who's ready for SCOTUS opinions at 10?! (On this particular morning, I am not!)
Let's review what happened yesterday at SCOTUS.
First, the conservative majority held that non-U.S. citizens outside U.S. territory have no constitutional rights, calling this claim a "bedrock" principle. But it isn't!
supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…
First, the conservative majority held that non-U.S. citizens outside U.S. territory have no constitutional rights, calling this claim a "bedrock" principle. But it isn't!
supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…
Then Roberts joined the four liberals to strike down Louisiana's TRAP law, but eroded abortion rights in the process. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Finally, the conservative majority found the CFPB's structure unconstitutional and gave the president authority to fire its director at will. The decision could be catastrophic ... but it depends on how far Roberts goes next.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…
vox.com/2020/6/29/2130…
supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…
vox.com/2020/6/29/2130…
And, without issuing any opinions, SCOTUS allowed the federal death penalty to resume. Only Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor noted their dissents. Executions will move forward in the near future. nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/…
What will SCOTUS do today?
We're really overdue for an opinion in a big church-state case, Espinoza v. Montana, which could force some 30 states to fund private religious schools with taxpayer dollars. I wrote about the case here: slate.com/news-and-polit…
We're really overdue for an opinion in a big church-state case, Espinoza v. Montana, which could force some 30 states to fund private religious schools with taxpayer dollars. I wrote about the case here: slate.com/news-and-polit…
We could also get decisions on Oklahoma's tribal lands, Trump's financial records/tax returns, the contraceptive mandate, and faithless electors. But those cases were argued in May, so we might have to wait till July.
SCOTUS hasn't scheduled any July opinion days ... yet.
SCOTUS hasn't scheduled any July opinion days ... yet.
If we were in the SCOTUS courtroom right now, we'd hear the five-minute buzzer right about now, then sit quietly* as we wait for the justices to shuffle onto the bench from behind the velvet curtain.
*or talk until the Supreme Court police shush us
*or talk until the Supreme Court police shush us
SCOTUS' first decision is in the trademark case, USPTO v. Booking.com. supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…
Ginsburg writes the 8–1 decision holding that, as a general matter, you CAN trademark a generic term + .com. So while you can't trademark "booking," you CAN trademark "booking.com."
Breyer dissents.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…
Breyer dissents.
supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…
🚨By a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court's conservatives rule that Montana must fund private religious schools if it funds private secular schools. This is a massive blow to the separation of church and state, and a maximalist decision by Roberts. supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…
There are about 30 states that provide tax credits or vouchers to private schools. The Supreme Court's decision today essentially requires these states to fund RELIGIOUS schools with taxpayer dollars, as well. This is a huge decision that totally unsettles Free Exercise law.
Here is what's particularly shocking about this decision. The Montana Supreme Court struck down tax benefits for private religious AND secular schools. Now SCOTUS has ordered the state to revive tax benefits for both kinds of schools. This outcome simply makes no sense.
These two sentences, from Roberts' majority opinion, might as well repeal the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court spent years debating whether states that funded private schools were even ALLOWED to fund religious schools. Now Roberts declares that they MUST. Incredible. 
You might think: OK, then states can stop funding all private schools to avoid funding religious ones.
But it's not clear if that's allowed, either. It's exactly what Montana did here, and the Supreme Court just found it violated the Free Exercise Clause.
But it's not clear if that's allowed, either. It's exactly what Montana did here, and the Supreme Court just found it violated the Free Exercise Clause.
Let me put it this way:
After decades of debate in our communities, houses of worship, city councils, and legislatures about state funding of religious education, five lawyers in Washington, D.C. just settled the matter for the nation.
After decades of debate in our communities, houses of worship, city councils, and legislatures about state funding of religious education, five lawyers in Washington, D.C. just settled the matter for the nation.
Justice Sotomayor's dissent pulls no punches: "Today's ruling is perverse." supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…
🚨🚨🚨Gorsuch joins Thomas in declaring that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause likely allows states to establish an official religion. Not even Scalia was willing to go that far. supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…
And here is Justice Alito, with receipts from Ramos, announcing that 38 states' "Blaine Amendments," state constitutional provisions that bar state funding of religious exercise, are motivated by anti-Catholic animus and thus unconstitutional. supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf…
Today's radical Supreme Court decision bulldozes the wall separating of church of state, forcing taxpayers in nearly 30 states to subsidize private religious education—even if doing so violates their own religious beliefs. It is a stunning act of activism. slate.com/news-and-polit…
