Oh no. SCOTUS just agreed to hear a case that the conservatives could use to end the Voting Rights Act as we know it. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
Background on the case SCOTUS just took up:
The 9th Circuit struck down two Arizona voting restrictions. It ruled that both laws had a disproportionate impact on racial minorities, and that one was motivated by racist intent, all in violation of the VRA. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Republicans hope to use this case as a vehicle to shred the VRA's most potent remaining tool: The ban on voting laws with a disproportionate impact on racial minorities.
John Roberts has wanted to kill this section of the VRA since it was passed. slate.com/news-and-polit…
After SCOTUS gutted preclearance in Shelby County v. Holder, the VRA's "effects test"—which prohibits laws that have a racist effect, even if they weren't clearly motivated by racism—emerged as a somewhat effective shield against voter suppression.
Now SCOTUS may eviscerate it.
Also: SCOTUS seems likely to use this case to establish an unrealistically high standard to prove racist intent when lawmakers suppress minority votes.
If a voter suppression law's racist effects don't matter, and it's impossible to prove racist intent ... the VRA will be dead.
The Supreme Court just raised the stakes.
If a 6–3 conservative majority decides this case, it will, in all likelihood, effectively repeal the remnants of the Voting Rights Act.
Congress can either add justices or say goodbye to the most important civil rights law in history.
I have dreaded a frontal attack on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act for so many years. Now it is here, under the worst possible circumstances, with a looming 6–3 SCOTUS majority ready to rip the remainder of the law to shreds. This is really bad news. It's frankly terrifying.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Supreme Court also sends NINE Chevron cases back down to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of Loper Bright. The disruption officially begins: supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
The Supreme Court vacates an 8th Circuit decision that had granted North Dakota lawmakers a "legislative privilege" from discovery in an important Native redistricting case, agreeing with the plaintiffs that the dispute has become moot. (KBJ dissents.) supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
🚨The Supreme Court rules that President Trump has "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution for all "official acts" he took while in office. The vote is 6–3 with all three liberals dissenting. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Sotomayor, dissenting: Today's decision shields presidents from prosecution "for criminal and treasonous acts" and "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law." supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's second decision is NetChoice. Justice Kagan's complicated opinion for the court remands both cases to the appeals courts for the proper analysis of a First Amendment facial challenge, which, she says, they flunked the first time. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
HOWEVER: Kagan's opinion for the court holds that content moderation IS "expressively activity" and that social media platforms ARE protected by the First Amendment, no matter their size, from state intrusion. That's a major holding. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Kagan says social media platforms engage in protected speech when moderating content posted by third parties, and Texas' alleged interest in interfering with that practice amounts to the "suppression of free expression, and it is not valid" under the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court's first decision is Corner Post. By a 6–3 vote, the majority allows plaintiffs to challenge an agency action LONG after it has been finalized. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
This article explains why today's outcome in Corner Post will be so destabilizing to the administrative state—it means that agency actions are never really safe from legal assault, even decades after they're finalized. It's a really big deal. americanprogress.org/article/corner…
In her dissent, Justice Jackson urges Congress to enact a new law to "forestall the coming chaos" created by today's decision, reimposing the statute of limitations that had, until now, prevented new plaintiffs from endlessly challenging regulations. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
🚨The Supreme Court overrules Chevron deference, wiping out 40 years of precedent that required federal courts to defer to expert opinions of federal agencies. All three liberals dissent. This is a HUGE decision. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's reversal of Chevron constitutes a major transfer of power from the executive branch to the judiciary, stripping federal agencies of significant discretion to interpret and enforce ambiguous regulations. Hard to overstate the impact of this seismic shift.
Today's ruling is a massive blow to the "administrative state," the collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers' rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy—the list is nearly endless. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's first decision is Grants Pass. By a 6–3 vote, the court holds that penalizing homeless people for sleeping outside when there is no available shelter does NOT violate the 8th Amendment. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's decision in Grants Pass wipes out significant precedent in the 9th Circuit that had protected homeless people from punishment when they slept outside due to lack of shelter. Per Gorsuch, the court holds that penalizing such people is not "cruel and unusual."
In dissent, Sotomayor says punishing people who sleep outside for lack of other options—through both civil penalties and jail time—is "unconscionable and unconstitutional," and faults the majority for spurning the "humanity and dignity of homeless people." supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…