Alito is delivering the keynote speech at this year’s Federalist Society convention. He’s using the occasion to defend the group, claiming its members face “harassment and retaliation for saying anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy.”
Alito attacks the Judicial Conference for attempting to forbid federal judges from being members of the Federalist Society, and praises the conservative judges who successfully fought the ban.
UHHH, Alito seems to be criticizing governors for issuing “sweeping restrictions” in response to COVID-19. Also criticizes progressives and New Dealers for putting too much faith in scientists and experts.
Alito says this rule by executive fiat is “where the law has been going for some time—in the direction of government by executive officials who are thought to implement policies by scientific expertise.” Suggests this is a dangerous trend.
Whoa, Alito is VERY critical of COVID restrictions and “rule by experts.”
Then he says: “in certain corners, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.”
He condemns “the protracted campaign against the Little Sisters of the Poor.” Calls it an “unrelenting attack.”
Alito now condemns Washington State for requiring pharmacies to carry Plan B, “which destroys an embryo after fertilization.”
He also criticizes the Colorado civil rights commissioner in Masterpiece Cakeshop who said “freedom of religion” can be used for discrimination.
Alito criticizes Harvard Law Prof. Mark Tushnet for this notorious blog post, and quotes from it extensively. Says “it’s not dark yet but it’s getting there,” quoting Bob Dylan. balkin.blogspot.com/2016/05/abando…
Now Alito is criticizing the Nevada governor for giving casinos a higher COVID attendance cap than churches.
He moves onto criticizing the federal judge who suspended the rule that required people to pick up abortion pills in person.
Yikes. Alito condemns Obergefell, the same-sex marriage decision, and says it has led to censorship of people who believe marriage is “a union of one man and one woman.” Says freedom of speech is “falling out of favor in some circles.”
Alito brings up a brief filed with the Supreme Court by five Democratic senators in a gun case warning that the court is becoming too political. He calls the brief “an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law.” whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…
Without saying the words “court-packing,” Alito warns about Democratic efforts to “bully” the court with threats to “restructure” it. Tells a story about a foreign judge threatened with death if he didn’t rule for the government.
Alito is done.
That was easily the most political speech I’ve ever seen delivered by a Supreme Court justice. Wow. Same-sex marriage, guns, abortion, contraception, persecution of the Federalist Society ... he really squeezed it all in there. Yikes.
Probably the strangest aspect of Alito’s speech, other than his attack on COVID restrictions, was his claim that people who oppose same-sex marriage get called “bigots” and this somehow threatens freedom of speech. But how?! Public criticism is not censorship! He knows this!
Here is Justice Alito complaining that the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision has crushed the free speech of anti-LGBTQ advocates.
And here is Justice Alito defending Masterpiece Cakeshop’s Jacks Phillips for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple. Alito notes that the couple was offered a free cake elsewhere, then supported by “celebrity chefs.”
The seamless expansion of same-day registration to so many states proves that there is no legitimate reason to cut off voter registration before Election Day, let alone a full month before. Registration deadlines are just a pretext to prevent less engaged citizens from voting.
In many states, you can walk up to the polls on Election Day, register to vote, and cast your ballot. In other states, you have to register up to a full month before Election Day. The only difference is that the first group of states wants people to vote and the second does not.
Same-day registration also protects voters against administrative errors and unlawful purges that cancel their active status shortly before an election. In Virginia, for instance, citizens wrongfully purged by Youngkin can re-register at the polls through Election Day.
NEW: A far-right panel of the 5th Circuit rules that it is *illegal* for states to count ballots that arrive shortly after Election Day but are postmarked by Election Day.
BUT: The 5th Circuit decision only applies to Mississippi, the one state within the circuit that counts ballots received after Election Day.
The 5th Circuit is trying to tee up a Supreme Court decision to strike down ballot laws in many other states, too. s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2525…
The 5th Circuit declined to issue a preliminary injunction against Mississippi's law, but declared it illegal and ordered the district court to issue an appropriate remedy. Nobody knows what that will look like! Confusion will now reign. s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2525…
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…