This is a fantastic article on the sweeping consequences of the Washington Supreme Court's recent decision striking down the state law that had criminalized drug possession. It's great to see progressive state courts bending the arc of justice. courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/9…
It's a fascinating decision—the law punished individuals who *did not know and had no reason to know* they possessed drugs. The defendant alleged, quite plausibly, that she had borrowed a pair of jeans from a friend without realizing the coin pocket contained a tiny bag of drugs.
The Washington Supreme Court, which is the most diverse high court in the country, ruled that the state constitution's due process guarantee prohibited the legislature from criminalizing "innocent conduct—or, more accurately, nonconduct." So it struck down the entire statute.
As a result, simple possession of drugs is now legal under Washington State law. A huge number of people convicted under the voided statute will be resentenced. Some will be freed and refunded fines and fees. Criminal records will be cleared. Deportations may be stopped.
The Washington legislature will implement a new, constitutional statute criminalizing drug possession—but it cannot impose the law on prior offenders. So thousands upon thousands of people punished for simple possession under the old law will still have their convictions erased.
Just yesterday, the Washington Supreme Court also issued a decision prohibiting a mandatory sentence of life without parole for 18 and 19-year-olds. It previously barred *all* sentences of life without parole for people under 18. courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/9…
When governors appoint people with diverse perspectives, identities, and life experiences to the bench, good things happen. The world becomes a more just place. Imagine if presidents were as committed to judicial diversity as WA Gov. Jay Inslee. /end
slate.com/news-and-polit…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mjs_DC

11 Mar
Georgetown Law students with thoughts or more information about these professors’ racist conduct: my DMs are open.
Update: Dean Treanor has responded.
These racist remarks are reminiscent of one of Scalia’s most revolting comments from the bench in 2015.
Read 8 tweets
8 Mar
And here we are! Good morning, everyone!
SCOTUS takes no action on Mississippi's 15-week abortion yet. So, once again: The justices could be sitting on the case before months before agreeing to hear it (which happens occasionally), or they could've denied cert and someone is writing a dissent. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
SCOTUS takes up one new case, an interesting civil rights/4th Amendment dispute which I'll let SCOTUSblog summarize. scotusblog.com/case-files/cas…
Read 11 tweets
6 Mar
lol I guess I touched a nerve
This reminded me of my last DM to Ed, which he never responded to🤔
Folks, there’s a lesson here: Don’t DM people to call them nasty names. It makes you look like a thin-skinned bully 100% of the time.
Read 4 tweets
5 Mar
I'm not sure I'll ever get used to conservative proponents of the unitary executive theory defending agency independence and complaining about presidential termination of executive officials who wield executive powers. I thought these guys didn't believe in independent agencies!
Anyway, the EEOC is not an independent agency, though that's a common misconception. Neither its general counsel nor its commissioners are shielded by for-cause termination under any statute. Gustafson does not have a leg to stand on; this is all political posturing.
One could argue that the EEOC is "independent" in the sense that it is not under the direct control of the president, but that is because of tradition, not law. No statute bars the president from removing its general counsel or commissioners, for any reason. So this is silly.
Read 4 tweets
5 Mar
!!! Justice Breyer has revised this opinion to insert the words "with respect" before "I dissent." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
It is impossible to draw any other conclusion.
BRB combing through all the anonymous accounts who criticized me for noting the lack of "with respect" to figure out which one is Breyer
Read 4 tweets
4 Mar
Good morning! The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s) today at 10 a.m. As usual, we do not know what we'll get, so buckle up!
First opinion of the day is also Justice Amy Coney Barrett's first signed opinion of the court. It is a 7–2 decision limiting the reach of the Freedom of Information Act. Breyer and Sotomayor dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf… Image
By tradition, a new justice's first opinion is usually a unanimous one. But Barrett's first opinion draws a sharp dissent from Breyer, who closes not with the traditional "I respectfully dissent" but rather "I dissent." Might not seem like much but it signals strong disagreement.
Read 9 tweets

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/month or $30/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!

Follow Us on Twitter!