Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
@mjs_DC
Jun 27 • 6 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
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.

This sounds technical but it's huge. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
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…
Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mjs_DC

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Jun 28
🚨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…
Read 6 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Jun 28
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…
Image
Read 5 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Jun 26
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.

Big win for the Biden administration. Another loss for the 5th Circuit. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…
Image
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…
Image
Read 7 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Jun 21
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…
Image
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.
Read 10 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Jun 21
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…

Image
Image
Read 5 tweets
Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture
Jun 13
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…
A petition for §10(j) relief serves a straightforward, but significant purpose: “to preserve the NLRB’s remedial power while the Board resolves an unfair labor practice charge.” Miller, 19 F. 3d, at 452. Today, the majority casts a district court’s decision regarding a §10(j) request as one that invokes the full sweep of a court’s traditional equitable discretion—without regard for the Board’s authority or the statutory scheme that authorizes courts to issue such interim relief in the first place. In doing so, “the Court unnecessarily and casually substitutes the chancellor’s clumsy foot fo...
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…
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(