BREAKING at SCOTUS: North Carolina Republicans file emergency application challenging NC state supreme court ruling against gerrymandered congressional map
The NC court found the map to violate the NC state constitution. Ordinarily that is the end of the story. But as @rickhasen suggested, this brazen run to SCOTUS is an attempt to nullify that ruling based on a view that state legislatures alone may determine how elections operate
It’s a long shot but not a gigantic stretch given what several justices have written. I teamed up with @tribelaw to explain the independent state legislature doctrine bostonglobe.com/2020/11/01/opi…
UPDATE: The court has called for a response by Wednesday, March 2 at 5 PM
The request will be docketed as 21A455
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There’s a big messy case about the power of the EPA coming to SCOTUS on Monday that risks being overshadowed by the abortion, guns, voting rights, religion &c cases — but it’s v much worth your attention
(mini thread)
The case is West Virginia v. EPA. It regards the scope of the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act.
It also might signal the Court’s view on how much latitude federal agencies in general have to issue regulations in the public interest — from regulating pesticides to issuing rules for workplace safety.
NEW at SCOTUS: a 6-3 decision in Unicolors, Inc v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP—a fairly technical copyright case. Breyer writes for the majority; Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissent
These may not be apposite in Elenis, as flowers, hairdos & photography do not involve what the 10th c saw as "pure speech" of website words & design. The question here is less messy—no "is cake speech?" It's flat-out whether certain views can exempt people from public-acc. laws.
To be clear: the 10th circuit ruled against the website designer EVEN THOUGH it acknowledged her work involves "pure speech".
That's because, Judge Briscoe found, Colorado's law passes strict scrutiny. It has a compelling interest in protecting LGBT people from discrimination in the marketplace.
BREAKING AT SCOTUS: in a blow to voting rights, justices vote 5-4 to PERMIT Alabama to use a gerrymandered congressional map that dilutes voting influence of African Americans. A major victory for Republicans.
Chief Justice Roberts dissents, along with the three liberal justices.
Justice Kagan ends her dissent, joined by Breyer and Sotomayor, reiterating themes she has voiced before: the illegitimacy of resolving such crucial questions on the shadow docket, and the anti-democratic results of permitting racial gerrymanders.
The “of students” part is pretty ambiguous. Is it only illegal to teach natural selection if you have creationist kids in your particular classroom? Do you need to poll your students at the beginning of the semester to find out what their religious beliefs are?
What if you have religious students whose fundamental tenet is “help the poor”? Is it illegal to teach Herbert Spencer?
NEW at SCOTUS: Alabama files emergency application in race & redistricting dispute over new state's new congressional map.
As COVID-related litigation dissipates, this is likely the first of a wave of post-redistricting map-drawing disputes the justices will have to navigate.
First page. Will post full application in a minute.