BREAKING: By a 5–4 vote, with Roberts joining the liberals in dissent, the Supreme Court halts a lower court order that required Alabama to redraw its congressional map, which diluted Black votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
This is another major blow to the Voting Rights Act that will likely preserve Alabama's current racist gerrymander.
The Supreme Court also granted cert in this case and will issue a decision later this term—teeing up the opportunity to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act's remaining protections for racial minorities against gerrymanders that dilute their voting strength.
I should note that while the Supreme Court may calendar the case for this term, it's possible that it will kick it to next term, so I am not completely certain when a decision will come down. (Whenever it does, today's order all but ensures it will be catastrophic.)
Kagan's dissent is furious, and again criticizes the shadow docket: "Today’s decision is one more in a disconcertingly long line of cases in which this Court uses its shadow docket to signal or make changes in the law, without anything approaching full briefing and argument."
Kagan, dissenting: The court's decision today "does a disservice to Black Alabamians" who "have had their electoral power diminished—in violation of a law this Court once knew to buttress all of American democracy." supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…
Today's decision marks yet another instance in which the 6–3 majority made the difference. Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberals in denying the stay, but his vote doesn't matter: Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito, Kavanauagh, and Barrett control the court.
It is hard to overstate how lawless the Supreme Court's order is. The five ultraconservative justices broke the court's own rules to intervene with an unreasoned shadow docket decision that effectively nullifies a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. It's profoundly alarming.
With today's decision, the Supreme Court's five far-right justices have effectively rewritten the Voting Rights Act, obliterating its vital protections against racial gerrymandering—and doing it through the shadow docket.
Second, from @imillhiser, explaining how Kavanaugh's novel theory of the Purcell principle "would strip the federal judiciary of much of its power to protect voting rights" by creating new burdens on plaintiffs "that may be impossible to overcome." vox.com/2022/2/8/22922…
Reading these two excellent pieces together really drives home how insincere, duplicitous, and illogical Kavanaugh's opinion was—it's seven straight pages of bad faith dressed up in rhetoric that screams "I'm so reasonable! I'm so principled!" Don't buy it. He's lying.
The NC State Board of Elections declared in a motion that it has the "authority to police which candidates should or should not be disqualified per Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment."
The board says it can disqualify Madison Cawthorn if he "engaged in insurrection."
This filing confirms that the North Carolina State Board of Elections is prepared to investigate Madison Cawthorn and remove him from the 2022 ballot if it concludes that he facilitated the Jan. 6 attack. It's a big deal.
Predictably, the North Carolina State Board of Elections also disagrees with Cawthorn that an 1872 law granting amnesty to former Confederates somehow exonerates him, too.
THREAD: You may already know that the 5th Circuit—the most conservative appeals court in the country—downplays or rejects basic facts about the health risks of COVID in its decisions.
Here's one alarming example of how this attitude imperils lawyers before the court. (1/5)
In December, Justice Department lawyer Joshua Koppel asked the 5th Circuit if he could participate in oral arguments remotely. He did not want to travel to the courthouse in New Orleans because he has two young children who have not been vaccinated. (2/5) documentcloud.org/documents/2119…
The 5th Circuit panel—Jones, Elrod, and Oldham, all Republican—denied his request, making him travel to New Orleans.
Fast forward to arguments in January. Koppel wore a mask and kept it on when he approached the lectern.
THREAD: Thousands of gay elders who were unlawfully denied the right to marry are suddenly eligible for millions of dollars (cumulatively) in @SocialSecurity survivor's benefits. This is excellent news.
Biden's Justice Department recently settled two class action lawsuits brought by surviving partners of same-sex couples who could not marry because of an unconstitutional ban.
The government will now pay out benefits to survivors who would have married but for these bans. (2/8)
As the @nytimes reported, these payouts are substantial. One gay man whose partner died in 2014 received a $90,000 retroactive payment upfront, plus $1,800 monthly checks moving forward. Other gay elders are eligible for more, but do not know it. (3/8) nytimes.com/2022/01/23/hea…
Firing Ilya Shapiro is the coward's way out. @GeorgetownLaw knew exactly who he was when it hired him. His racist tweets were part of a longstanding pattern of bigoted trolling. The school is only backtracking because its own bad decision has blown up in its face.
These comments from @AdamSerwer, @JillFilipovic, and @HeerJeet capture my thoughts. I'll add one more: If GULC was willing to ignore Ilya's pattern of racist trolling before, it cannot credibly pretend to suddenly care now. The school knows exactly what it signed up for.
As a frenzied mob of grievance conservatives redirects attention to me, I'd like to reiterate (1) Ilya is responsible for his own words, (2) I do not make GULC's employment decisions, and (3) criticizing a public figure's behavior does not constitute an attempt to get them fired.
In 1966, LBJ nominated the first Black woman to the federal judiciary. Constance Baker Motley was a brilliant litigator who had argued 12 Supreme Court cases and represented Black defendants in the Jim Crow South.
The white men who ran the American Bar Association were hesitant to deem Motley “qualified” because she lacked “experience”—a flagrantly false claim.
In truth, they just assumed that a Black woman couldn’t possibly be as qualified as more traditional (white male) nominees.
Racist senators insisted that Motley—who helped Thurgood Marshall litigate Brown v. Board of Education—was, in modern parlance, a mediocre affirmative action pick.
Meanwhile, no one ever questioned whether white men ever got nominated because they were, you know, white men.