Hi, and welcome back to Legal Geek. This week, we review the series of major decisions we haven't yet discussed as the Supreme Court 2018 term wrapped up earlier this week with its usual flurry of notable June decisions. Lots of blockbusters to hit, and we'll do it rapid-fire style.
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of a baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same-sex couple. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion, which is ironic considering he also wrote the Obergefell decision 3 years ago that made same-sex marriage legal. However, this decision was very narrowly-tailored to the facts of this case, in that the court found the Civil Rights Commission to have purposefully targeted the baker based on his religious beliefs, which leaves open the larger constitutional questions about whether such business practices are acceptable under the law. As big as this case seemed in the news, the decision does not set much of a precedent.
In Trump v. State of Hawaii, the most recent version of the President's travel ban was challenged by Hawaii as an unconstitutional restriction on immigration based on his campaign statements from 2016 promising to shut down muslim immigration into the U.S. After the first two versions of his executive order were thrown out in court, a third version has passed the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, finding that the President has broad powers under the Immigration and Naturalization Act to make decisions based on national security such as this, but Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion where he noted just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it is right to do. So the current ban against entry from 6 primarily muslim countries stands, but with major disdain from one of the majority justices.
In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, an Illinois employee of a government agency challenged the right of a labor union to collect fair share fees from non-union members for the services labor unions provide for the benefit of all workers. A prior 1977 Supreme Court decision called Abood had allowed this practice, but the Court overruled this in a 5-4 decision based on First Amendment concerns relating to forcing non-union members to subsidize private speech they may disagree with. The conservative majority noted this would put a financial burden on unions, but decided this was OK because of the prior windfall from non-members under the old precedent.
One decision where the liberal justices on the court won the day was in Carpenter v. United States, in which Justice Roberts joined those 4 justices in a 5-4 decision prohibiting the government from accessing historical cell phone location records without a search warrant, deeming that practice violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. This privacy law decision was surprisingly not joined by Justice Gorsuch, who has often sided against the government when it comes to privacy concerns, and that makes this a pretty solid indication that the court will remain strong in protecting citizen's rights with new technologies against government intrusion.
Finally, in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a California law requiring religious pregnancy clinics to inform clients about alternative state programs for family planning services including abortions was deemed unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision. The conservative justices led by Justice Thomas ruled that this law was a violation of the First Amendment free speech rights because it regulates and targets certain speakers, rather than the speech itself. The State's argument that the law was needed to outreach to low income pregnant women was not found compelling enough to save this law.
Although these are all huge decisions by the Supreme Court, perhaps the biggest news of the week is the court's senior most justice and swing vote Anthony Kennedy is retiring immediately. We will cover his legacy and where the Court goes from here in the next couple weeks, but it is striking that this set of major end-term decision on Kennedy's final term looks a lot like the future, with a lot of conservative justice majorities with the occasional time Justice Roberts sides with the liberal justices.
In Trump v. State of Hawaii, the most recent version of the President's travel ban was challenged by Hawaii as an unconstitutional restriction on immigration based on his campaign statements from 2016 promising to shut down muslim immigration into the U.S. After the first two versions of his executive order were thrown out in court, a third version has passed the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. Justice Roberts wrote the opinion, finding that the President has broad powers under the Immigration and Naturalization Act to make decisions based on national security such as this, but Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion where he noted just because something is constitutional doesn't mean it is right to do. So the current ban against entry from 6 primarily muslim countries stands, but with major disdain from one of the majority justices.
In Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, an Illinois employee of a government agency challenged the right of a labor union to collect fair share fees from non-union members for the services labor unions provide for the benefit of all workers. A prior 1977 Supreme Court decision called Abood had allowed this practice, but the Court overruled this in a 5-4 decision based on First Amendment concerns relating to forcing non-union members to subsidize private speech they may disagree with. The conservative majority noted this would put a financial burden on unions, but decided this was OK because of the prior windfall from non-members under the old precedent.
One decision where the liberal justices on the court won the day was in Carpenter v. United States, in which Justice Roberts joined those 4 justices in a 5-4 decision prohibiting the government from accessing historical cell phone location records without a search warrant, deeming that practice violates the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. This privacy law decision was surprisingly not joined by Justice Gorsuch, who has often sided against the government when it comes to privacy concerns, and that makes this a pretty solid indication that the court will remain strong in protecting citizen's rights with new technologies against government intrusion.
Finally, in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a California law requiring religious pregnancy clinics to inform clients about alternative state programs for family planning services including abortions was deemed unconstitutional in a 5-4 decision. The conservative justices led by Justice Thomas ruled that this law was a violation of the First Amendment free speech rights because it regulates and targets certain speakers, rather than the speech itself. The State's argument that the law was needed to outreach to low income pregnant women was not found compelling enough to save this law.
Although these are all huge decisions by the Supreme Court, perhaps the biggest news of the week is the court's senior most justice and swing vote Anthony Kennedy is retiring immediately. We will cover his legacy and where the Court goes from here in the next couple weeks, but it is striking that this set of major end-term decision on Kennedy's final term looks a lot like the future, with a lot of conservative justice majorities with the occasional time Justice Roberts sides with the liberal justices.
The Bottom Line is, the Supreme Court tackled a lot of big issues in the first full term with a full roster since the long break with 8 justices when Antonin Scalia died. Now the Court will have a new make-up, but you can expect many similar issues to reach the court where the President or lawmakers continue to push boundaries to see what is constitutional. We will continue to watch to see how the Court shifts on these major issues in future segments.
----------------------------------
Do you have a question? Send it in!
Thanks for reading. Please provide feedback and legal-themed questions as segment suggestions to me on Twitter @BuckeyeFitzy
