Today the Supreme Court will hear Carson v. Makin. The plaintiffs seek to force Maine into subsidizing the religious indoctrination of children in the name of "religious liberty." If successful, Mainers will be financing Christian schools like these. slate.com/news-and-polit…
The plaintiffs argue that Maine "discriminates on the basis of religion" by declining to spend taxpayer dollars on Christian education that includes hateful propaganda about religious minorities and LGBTQ people. The Supreme Court will likely agree. slate.com/news-and-polit…
As a result, Mainers who vehemently disagree with fundamentalist Christian values will be compelled to underwrite schools that inculcate these values in children. Muslims, Jews, atheists, liberal Christians, LGBTQ people: Their rights just don't matter. slate.com/news-and-polit…
If the Supreme Court rules against Maine, it could blow up a core component of America's public education system—the notion that state-funded schools should teach students how to engage in diverse and pluralistic self-governance.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court allows Texas abortion providers to sue the state's "executive licensing officials" to block S.B. 8, the state's six-week abortion ban. The federal lawsuit can proceed. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
Separately, the Supreme Court dismisses (as improvidently granted) the Justice Department's challenge to S.B. 8 on behalf of the United States. Only Sotomayor dissents. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
The Supreme Court divides 4–1–4:
Gorsuch, Alito, Barrett, Kavanaugh: Providers can sue executive licensing officials.
Thomas: Providers can't sue at all.
Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan: Providers can sue licensing officials, the TX AG, and state court clerks.
Jeffrey Bossert Clark's lawyer writes that "based on our research," the Jan. 6 committee lacks authority to issue depositions. He says the committee is improperly constituted because, among other things, Liz Cheney is no longer a real Republican. docs.house.gov/meetings/IJ/IJ…
Reminder: Clark plotted a coup with Trump to use the Justice Department to overturn the election. slate.com/news-and-polit…
His lawyer says he won't testify about the failed DOJ coup and slams the Jan. 6 committee as a "political monolith" with no legal power to depose him.
Clark's chief objection is that the Jan. 6 investigation is "not being conducted in true bipartisan fashion," alleging that Republicans' "ostensible counsel" did not "push back" enough against Democrats. For evidence, he cites a Mollie Hemingway article in the Federalist.
Sotomayor says the sponsors of Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban said "we're doing it because we have new justices."
She asks: "Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?"
Chief Justice Roberts suggests that the bright-line rule established in Roe and Casey—no total abortion bans before fetal viability—was completely arbitrary. It sounds to me like he is ready to abolish the viability line.
After Sotomayor suggests that overturning Roe would imperil other precedents protecting contraception and gay rights, Barrett asks if the court could overrule Roe in a way that preserves those precedents. Sounds like she's preemptively saying: Roe is dead, but those are safe.
This is Trump Judge Terry Doughty's second nationwide injunction against a Biden administration policy. He previously blocked Biden's attempt to pause new oil and gas leases on public lands.
The non-delegation has gone from a moribund theory to ubiquitous cudgel against Joe Biden in roughly two years. Trump judges barely even really explain their reasoning anymore—they just scream "non-delegation doctrine" and issue a nationwide injunction. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
Has anyone checked in with the conservative commentators who railed against nationwide injunctions under Trump?
This dissent from Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump nominee, is pretty shocking. In addition to repeatedly dismissing the threat of mass shootings, he accuses his colleagues of failing to empathize with gun-owners because they're protected by U.S. marshals. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opin…
VanDyke's dismissive reference to security for his colleagues' " upper-middleclass home[s]" is especially startling in light of the attack on Judge Esther Salas just last year. Her husband and son were shot to death—due, in part, to lack of security. npr.org/2020/11/20/936…
VanDyke also mocks Judge Andrew Hurwitz for pointing out that a fellow judge was killed in a mass shooting, writing that Hurwitz's "personal anecdotes" and "exaggeration of risks" demonstrates that he cannot analyze the Second Amendment in an "objective and detached manner."
RBG. You've heard her amazing life story. You've seen her face on everything. But what do you know about her jurisprudence, her writing, and her legal legacy? I'm partnering with @chapter_HQ to teach a four-week course on Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the justice. getchapter.app/@mjs/rbg
When talking to law students and non-lawyers alike, I get more questions about RBG than any other justice, hands down. So many people know her as a celebrity but haven't had the opportunity to read—and understand—her opinions. I've designed my course to help change that.
Lots of people think they need a JD to understand the Supreme Court. That's not true! I'll delve into RBG's work as an advocate, as well as her landmark opinions and dissents, with an interactive approach so everyone can grasp the material. I'll also answer questions one-on-one.