6-3 decision-Breyer/Sotomayor/Kagan dissent: "With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent."
The quick takeaway is that *any* state may not criminalize and ban all abortions. There are no longer any requirements for any exceptions for health, death, rape, or incest. Some "trigger" laws will make that happen nearly right away.
The decision is a landmark-of the worst kind. Constitutional rights recognized and relied upon can now be eliminated.
Be careful-this paragraph is going to be quoted in the press as *see, it's only about abortion and nothing else* but--
WHY? Because Thomas's concurrence makes it plain-the Court can *also* go after the decisions on same sex marriage, birth control, and the right to sexual intimacy
The IRONY of Kavanaugh claiming modesty as the conservative supermajority dismantles Roe just because (and after the Bruen Second Amendment decision striking down NY's law)
The dissent's summary: "Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that . . . the government could not make that choice for women. The government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life: IT COULD NOT DETERMINE WHAT THE WOMAN'S FUTURE WOULD BE."
And that's the way to understand it: *The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs means that if your body can be pregnant, you now have lost control over what your future can be.*
And while Kavanaugh is *pretty sure* these aren't hard questions, the reality is that these issues are going to be litigated-and people are going to be punished as a result
Dobbs isn't just people people who are seeking abortions in jeopardy. The American criminal justice system, with its perverse incentives, will cast its net wide--think women who have miscarriages, women who *contemplate* abortion, and *every* person who might help them.
We are very likely going to look back on this moment as not just about abortion rights--which itself is momentous-but a turning point. No right protecting vulnerable groups can be taken for granted. Stare decisis isn't enough to grant that stability.
Anyway, I am terrible at tweet threads, but I hope this helped you get the gist of why Dobbs is an earthquake.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
HOLY S**T: New FTC blog post: "The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive practices. That would include the sale or use of – for example – RACIALLY BIASED ALGORITHMS" ftc.gov/news-events/bl…
Folks: the police can violate your Fourth Amendment rights sometimes if they enter your home without a warrant. But those rights aren't violated simply because the police have gathered evidence of illegal activity that happened *inside of your home* So this:
is crazypants nonsense:
this also is 1) nonsense descriptively (restrictions on gatherings are 4th Amendment violations what?) 2) nonsense practically (no one's busting into your home for this) and just all around dragging a decent Amendment in the mud.
If you're planning on teaching remotely this fall semester, you have to think about privacy, but not maybe the way your university is telling you to. This is twitter, so I'll be quick. Three dimensions: 1/5
1. Faculty->student. This is the one you've been told about. Students have privacy concerns as your zoom classroom peers into their homes, family situations. You need to think about how to balance this with have a shared classroom experience. 2/5
2. Student->student. Students need to be reminded that posting lol/funny/embarrasing/fail moments from class as snaps/instas/tweets don't just violate privacy norms but may violate student information privacy rules (internal or external). 3/5
*This is a very big deal in policing*: Berkeley, CA just became the first city in the U.S. to replace police enforcement of traffic violations with unarmed city employees. Why this matters: 1/
I'm not here to say this is bad or good, but help ppl understand the implications, which are significant. In policing, traffic enforcement is a *major* means of instrumental policing. Concretely: police stop drivers for driving 57 in a 55 zone, 2/
Failure to signal, etc. Then they may use observations during the stop to further investigate. This might include dog sniffs, questions, consent searches. A huge number of cases--including some of the most important SCOTUS Fourth Amendment cases--begin this way. 3/
There’s a small detail here, but in a post-Ferguson world we should make note of it. All officers had body cameras that were rolling. Whatever else comes from this, it’s a reminder that body cameras by themselves don’t solve problems.
You may not remember, but police body cameras were not commonplace before Ferguson. Then the Brown family called for a campaign "to ensure that every police officer working the streets in this country wears a body camera." The speed of that adoption was truly remarkable. 2/
But what happened afterward occurred in a predictable way. Everyone wanted the technology; few thought about how to deploy it, how to regulate it, how to protect against abuses, and *how it would work to further police accountability.* 3/
Florida is going to police its borders now. So, what happens from a 4th Amendment perspective when the state installs a coronavirus checkpoint? One might think about this in 2 ways. 1) every stop of a NY or LA plate is a stop supported by reasonable suspicion of a crime 1/
and the crime here is violating Florida's quarantine order, which is considered a misdemeanor. In that sense, the stop is supported by reasonable suspicion, and would be reasonable even if it turns out that the plates do not support a recent trip from those states; or 2/
2) It's a checkpoint situation (stopping a certain category of car without any claim of individualized suspicion) that is supported by a special need. The problem here is that the underlying special need is the quarantine, which is itself, a crime to violate. 3/