Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
@mjs_DC
Jul 1, 2021 • 11 tweets • 6 min read • Read on X
Scrolly
The Supreme Court's FIRST opinion of the day is in Brnovich, the Voting Rights Act case. It's a 6–3 decision with Alito writing the majority. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The Supreme Court holds that neither of Arizona's challenged voting restrictions violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The Supreme Court weakens, *but does not eradicate,* the Voting Rights Act's "results test"—which gauges the impact of voting restrictions on minorities—in cases (like this one) that involve "vote denial" rather than "vote dilution." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Kagan, dissenting: "What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten—in order to weaken—a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses." She repeatedly calls today's decision "tragic." supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Kagan, dissenting: "The majority fears that the statute Congress wrote is too 'radical'—that it will invalidate too many state voting laws. So the majority writes its own set of rules, limiting Section 2 from multiple directions."
Here is her kicker: supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
In the Supreme Court's second and final opinion of the day, Americans for Prosperity, the majority holds that California's donor disclosure law is FACIALLY INVALID under the First Amendment. 6–3 decision, all three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Chief Justice Roberts' opinion for the court in Americans for Prosperity is VERY broad. He rejects the possibility of narrower, as-applied challenges and holds that California's donor disclosure law is unconstitutional on its face. A huge decision. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Yes, Roberts' decision imperils campaign finance disclosure laws. No other way to read it. He applies a very stringent standard to all "disclosure regimes." This is what democracy advocates feared the conservative majority would do in this case. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
As Sotomayor notes in dissent: "Today’s analysis marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a bull’s-eye." Not just California's donor disclosure law—all disclosure requirements. Including those relating to elections and campaign finance. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
Sotomayor calls out the conservative majority for
jettisoning precedent, saying today's court "apparently has a different view of its role," one that is "wholly inconsistent with the Court’s precedents and our Court’s long-held view ..."
supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
The Supreme Court closes out its term with two gut punches to democracy. Americans for Prosperity is as bad as it could possibly be. Brnovich is not the worst-case scenario, but it is still very, very bad. The Voting Rights Act is in grave peril at SCOTUS. Both 6–3 decisions.

• • •

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

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Oct 31
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.
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Oct 25
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.

18 states + D.C. count these ballots. This decision would shred those laws. s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2525…
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…
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Jul 2
NEW: The Supreme Court sends a whopping EIGHT Second Amendment cases back to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of its decision in Rahimi.

Much more in today's giant orders list: supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
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…
Image
Read 12 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Jul 1
🚨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…
Image
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson, closes: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent." supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Image
Read 6 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Jul 1
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.
Image
Image
Read 4 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Jul 1
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…
Image
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…
Image
Read 7 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(