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
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…
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.
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…
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.