Washington – When Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett Democrats, who sat in the Supreme Court in October, were openly upset about a biased conservative court that unleashed years of precedent. abortion, Gun control And other splitting issues.
But instead of giving conservatives a series of victories, judges so far support the right-wing answer as to why many pending issues addressing some of the country’s biggest controversies have declined. doing.
From Abortion from Mississippi In a scorching controversy between Texas and California pitching Freedom of religion for gay rightsThe judge is working on some controversial issues and, assuming the court has filed a proceeding, will wait until this fall at the earliest.
“There is always a reason to kick a can,” lamented Josh Blackman, a law professor at the South Texas Law School in Houston. “These problems are protracted and exacerbated if no solution is available. That is our current situation.”
Former president Donald Trump nominated for Barrett In September, the Democratic Party warned her confirmation that the court would lean “far right” and said there would be a 6-3 split between conservatives and liberals for the first time in decades. New York Senator Chuck Schumer, a Democratic leader at the Chamber of Commerce, said Barrett’s confirmation “will change the lives and freedoms of Americans while they are in line to vote.”
But in the months since then, the court’s approach has been far less dramatic.It sided with the church and synagogue Challenging COVID-19 Limit rejected battery Appeals by Trump and his allies trying to change the outcome Of the 2020 elections. It abandoned some controversial issues left by the Trump administration and avoided others.
All but one of the 13 signed opinions issued by the court so far this year have put together the conservatives and liberals in the majority who decided the case.
Some of it may be the result of court rhythms-big, controversial cases tend to be decided near summer-and some of them relate to appeals taken or dismissed by the court. You may be doing it. Court observers Judge John Roberts He is eager to cool down and steer the courts around partisan controversies.
This looks at some of the bright red appeals waiting on the wings of the Supreme Court’s Dockett.
First abortion case?
The proceedings in dispute, which are most carefully watched in court, are Mississippi bans most abortions 15 weeks after pregnancy.
Many conservatives across generations have sought to overturn 1973 Breakthrough Roe v. Wade decision That legalized abortion nationwide, or at least scrapes it off. Some consider the Mississippi proceedings to be the first actual test of a court resolution on this issue.
However, the judge has been considering whether to hear the case for months.
“This may be the first abortion case considered by the current series of judges,” said Walter Weber, senior adviser to the Conservative American Law and Justice Center. “As Judge Byron White observed,’Every time a new judge comes to the Supreme Court, it’s another court.'”
Some speculate that the court is eager to avoid picking up such things. Controversial case for now.. Others believe that the court is preparing to decide not to appeal and that one or more of the conservative judges are busy challenging the decision. So far, the extraordinary delay is a mystery that has plagued even some of the closest observers in court.
“Your guess as to why the court hasn’t yet shown whether to hear our challenge to Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban is as good as mine,” said the Center for Reproductive Rights. Senior lawyer Hillary Schneller said. I know this is not a difficult case. This abortion ban violates nearly 50 years of Supreme Court case law claiming that the state cannot enforce a viable abortion ban. “
The court is also considering another abortion case So-called shadow docketAppeal by Last week tennessee I want to force a 48 hour wait period before an abortion is performed. It may be decided this spring.
Texas vs California
The Supreme Court is also in a dispute this quarter between the two most populous and perhaps most politically distinct states in the United States, California and Texas.The case again emphasizes the tension of the law between Freedom of religion and homosexual rights..
California approved state law in 2016 Prohibit taxpayer-funded travel To states that do not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. In Texas, foster parents and adoption agencies allow homosexual couples as parents to be rejected if they oppose gay marriage for religious reasons.Texas sued California last year, judges are considering Whether to take a case From January.
The Attorney Generals of California and Texas did not answer questions about the case, but Texas told the court that California law could have enormous economic implications.
“As this cycle of retaliation continues, the country will be divided into red and blue states. The former spends money only in the other red states and the latter spends money only in the blue states,” said a lawyer in Lone Star. Told the court.
California says it is within scope to set a policy on how taxpayers spend their money.
“The fact that California balanced these sometimes competing concerns differently from Texas does not indicate that California acted irrationally or hostile to religion,” it said in a submission last year. I told the court.
The proceedings are similar to one of the largest proceedings in court this season and may be decided this summer. In that case Philadelphia wants to ban saying that they are homosexual Discrimination by Catholic foster parents. The agency argues that homosexual couples cannot be selected as parents because they oppose gay marriage for religious reasons.
Courts have avoided the Constitutional Amendment Article 2 dispute for years, but some experts are judged by judges. Ready to pluck the gun rights case I will consider it soon. If they decide it’s the right time, they can quickly choose from several cases.
When it is struck No pistols in District of Columbia And in Chicago in 2008 and 2010, the court explicitly granted the right to own a gun for legitimate purposes such as self-defense in the house. Judges now have cases in front of them questioning whether the state could regulate the right to remove guns from home.
Two New Yorkers sought permission to carry a gun outside their home, but did not meet the state’s requirement to have a “special need for self-defense” beyond what the general public requires. Therefore, it was rejected. Their proceedings were brought to the Supreme Court in December.
Michael Jean, head of the National Rifle Association’s litigation law firm, said gun advocates are hoping the court will take the case in New York. Some judges have expressed a desire to step into this issue in a recent challenge, which could result in a six-vote vote, increasing the likelihood that conservatives will be able to marshall the majority. ..
“You are making a very wide division between the lower courts here on questions that seem to be very clear based on the text of the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” he said. “The text … says,” Keep and endure. ” A twin verb that means the twin purpose of rights. “
In other cases, we question whether people convicted of nonviolent crimes should be banned from owning guns.
They may oppose the coverage of these cases: Last month, a series of high-profile shootings in Georgia and Colorado returned Washington’s attention to the party’s debate over gun rights.
Revival of affirmative action, transgender bathroom battle
Some other controversial issues aren’t ready, but they’re on the horizon and can be a blockbuster issue in the fall. Two such cases include disputes previously heard in court.
Groups opposed to affirmative action are trying to stop racial considerations in Harvard’s admission process and insist on schools Discrimination against Asian Americans Supports black and Hispanic registration.
The Supreme Court strongly supported admissions at the University of Texas at Austin in 2016, but its opinion was written by Judge Anthony Kennedy. Full swing voting Retired person. Today’s courts are much more conservative than they were five years ago.
“This case is a kind of important individual rights dispute that the court did not hesitate to hear,” the student insisted on anti-positive behavior for fair selection. “It’s not just a university. It’s Harvard. Harvard has been at the center of the controversy over ethnic and racial admissions for almost a century.”
Also, let’s go back to the court record. The dispute over whether students can use a bathroom that matches their gender identity. The Virginia Board of Education wants the court to consider a policy of requiring students to use a bathroom or a private bathroom based on the gender assigned at birth. In 2019, the court refused to review the Pennsylvania School District policy Allow transgender students Use a bathroom that matches gender identity.
The Virginia School District in Gloucester County addresses this issue as “important to millions of students whose privacy rights are at stake, or to a corps of schools deprived of the freedom to make common sense distinctions based on gender. I criticized it.
However, the American Civil Liberties Union, which claims the other side of the case, blew up the school district for “digging heels.”
“Federal law is clear,” said Josh Brock, senior lawyer for the group. “Transgender students are protected from discrimination.”
This article was originally published in USA TODAY: Supreme Court sitting in abortion, gay rights controversy so far