The Supreme Court's third (but not last) decision is SEC v. Jarkesy. By a 6–3 vote, the court holds that when the SEC seeks civil penalties, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in federal court.
SCOTUS' decision is Jarkesy may well hobble many federal agencies' ability to bring meaningful enforcement actions against wrongdoers. Not just the SEC. Neither the executive branch nor the judiciary have the time or resources to try all these cases before a jury. Nowhere close.
Today's decision in Jarkesy could kneecap enforcement by the FCC, the FTC, the NLRB, the Department of Labor, and more—it goes WAY beyond the SEC. This is a massive blow to the federal government's ability to enforce regulations against lawbreakers. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Congress would have to give a bunch of federal agencies VASTLY more money and personnel to handle all the jury trials they would need to conduct to patch the hole that SCOTUS just blew in their enforcement powers. It won't happen. This case will just let lawbreakers off the hook.
For those keeping score, this decision strikes out ANOTHER provision of the Dodd–Frank Act, which finally let the SEC impose civil penalties in administrative law proceedings. This Supreme Court really hates Dodd–Frank!
Justice Sotomayor is reading her dissent from the bench. Unfortunately we won't be able to hear it until next fall, because SCOTUS refuses to live-stream opinion hand-downs. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🚨The Supreme Court overrules Chevron deference, wiping out 40 years of precedent that required federal courts to defer to expert opinions of federal agencies. All three liberals dissent. This is a HUGE decision. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's reversal of Chevron constitutes a major transfer of power from the executive branch to the judiciary, stripping federal agencies of significant discretion to interpret and enforce ambiguous regulations. Hard to overstate the impact of this seismic shift.
Today's ruling is a massive blow to the "administrative state," the collection of federal agencies that enforce laws involving the environment, food and drug safety, workers' rights, education, civil liberties, energy policy—the list is nearly endless. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's first decision is Grants Pass. By a 6–3 vote, the court holds that penalizing homeless people for sleeping outside when there is no available shelter does NOT violate the 8th Amendment. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's decision in Grants Pass wipes out significant precedent in the 9th Circuit that had protected homeless people from punishment when they slept outside due to lack of shelter. Per Gorsuch, the court holds that penalizing such people is not "cruel and unusual."
In dissent, Sotomayor says punishing people who sleep outside for lack of other options—through both civil penalties and jail time—is "unconscionable and unconstitutional," and faults the majority for spurning the "humanity and dignity of homeless people." supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's first decision of the day is Murthy v. Missouri, the social media "jawboning" case. By a 6–3 vote, the court holds that the plaintiffs lack standing.
Alito dissents, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. He calls it "one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years" and embraces the lower courts' claim that the Biden administration censored users of social media companies by promoting removal of disinformation.
Justice Barrett's opinion has sharp words for both the 5th Circuit and Trump Judge Terry Doughty, who imposed the original "sweeping" injunction. Barrett says many of Doughty's factual findings "unfortunately appear to be clearly erroneous." supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's fifth AND FINAL decision is Rahimi. By an 8–1 vote, the court upholds a federal statute that temporarily disarms individuals subjected to a domestic violence restraining order. Only Thomas dissents. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
While Roberts wrote the opinion in Rahimi, SIX justices expressed further views by writing or joining concurrences, a highly unusual number of separate concurrences. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
It is fascinating that Clarence Thomas authored Bruen two years ago—but today, he is the lone dissenter in a case purporting to apply Bruen. He says everybody else misunderstood his opinion.
Both the majority and several concurrences are attempting to narrow and refine Bruen.
The Supreme Court second decision is Department of State v. Muñoz. By a 6–3 vote, the court holds that U.S. citizens have no constitutional liberty interest in their non-citizen spouses being admitted to the country. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Justice Sotomayor, in dissent, accuses the conservative supermajority of cutting back the rights guaranteed in Obergefell—the same-sex marriage decision—and of repeating "the same fatal error" it made in Dobbs. A very ominous opinion. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Justice Sotomayor says the burden of today's decision will "fall most heavily" on same-sex couples, many of whom cannot safely reside in the non-citizen's home country. Her dissent is littered with alarm bells about Obergefell. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
The Supreme Court's third AND FINAL decision is Starbucks v. NLRB. Justice Thomas' opinion for the court is an 8–1 defeat for labor that will make it harder to halt allegedly unfair labor practices. Only KBJ dissents. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Justice Jackson accuses the majority of blessing an "aggrandizement of judicial power where Congress has so plainly limited the discretion of the courts," a persistent theme of her jurisprudence so far. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
As KBJ notes in her dissent, this decision is similar to last term's unfortunate ruling in Glacier Northwest—it significantly weakens the NLRB's authority at the expense of labor, undermining unions' ability to combat unlawful abuse from management. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…