A sleepy orders list from the Supreme Court this morning, with no new grants. Notably, though, the justices took no action on the petition for rehearing in Arlene's Flowers, the anti-gay florist case. Someone may be writing a dissent from denial of cert. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
The Supreme Court *rejected* the Becket Fund's request to participate in oral argument in Ramirez v. Collier, the case about faith advisors' access to the execution chamber. Michael McConnell had wanted to argue in favor of the Free Exercise Clause. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor…
SCOTUS turns away Boardman v. Inslee, a major union case, by a 6–3 vote.
Washington State only permits the government and unions to access personal information of in-home care providers. Anti-union activists said that rule violates the First Amendment.
Washington State only permits the government and unions to access personal information of in-home care providers. Anti-union activists said that rule violates the First Amendment.
https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1447918872699576333
Anti-union activists argued that they have a First Amendment right to access the personal information of in-home care providers so they can lobby them to quit their union. If one more justice had voted to take the case, SCOTUS might have agreed. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2…
The conservative position on disclosure laws appears to be: Mega-donors to political non-profits have a First Amendment right to shield their identity from the state, and anti-union activists have a First Amendment right to learn the identity of every in-home care provider.
I wonder if this transparent hypocrisy may have contributed to the Supreme Court's refusal to take on Boardman v. Inslee—it would look, um, really bad for the court to expand the privacy rights of Koch donors in 2021 then contract the privacy rights of in-home nurses in 2022.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
