SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"Hard not to read this as a veiled warning about Roe v. Wade," tweeted law professor Nicholas Bagley of the new ruling. (Photo: Phil Roeder/Flickr/cc)
Fears for Roe V. Wade After Supreme Court Issues Decision Overruling a 40-Year Precedent
"Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next," wrote Justice Breyer in dissent
May 13, 2019
The U.S. Supreme Court's liberal justices sounded alarm on Monday after the court issued a ruling overturning a four decades-old precedent.
"Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent (pdf), in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
Some observers expressed fear one of the those caes could be Roe v. Wade.
\u201cThe Supreme Court just overturned a 40-year-old precedent. Justice Breyer\u2019s warning is clear: other precedents could be next. #CourtsMatter\u201d— Planned Parenthood Action (@Planned Parenthood Action) 1557765864
\u201cEnglish translation of Justice Breyer's dissent today in Hyatt: "Roe v. Wade is doomed." #SCOTUS\u201d— Jeffrey Toobin (@Jeffrey Toobin) 1557759301
From Justice Breyer's dissent in Franchise Tax Board. Hard not to read this as a veiled warning about Roe v. Wade. https://t.co/Sgt7CxA9sm pic.twitter.com/rdVbPTTkrt
-- Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) May 13, 2019
The new decision is in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which centers on the issue of "sovereign immunity."
Per The Hill:
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's conservative justices found that a state cannot be sued by a private party in another state court system without that state's consent. The ruling overturns a previous 1979 decision that found the Constitution does not shield the states from private lawsuits in other states.
Civil rights lawyer Sasha Samberg-Champion broke down the ruling in a Twitter thread, and offered his thoughts on what it may say about the conservative court's approach to what is called "stare decisis":
This is exactly right. https://t.co/jHIXKx3DRg
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
This is the entirety of the majority's reasoning as to why it is appropriate to overturn a decades-old precedent. Consider how much of this reasoning would apply to, say, the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. pic.twitter.com/LsySFALFUw
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
There _should_ be high bar for the Court to disregard stare decisis -- something more than "we think our precedent was wrongly decided" -- or else stare decisis is meaningless. The cavalier way the Court approached that analysis here suggests that stare decisis won't matter much.
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
"No significant change in factual circumstances or evidence of unworkability warranted the Court's unusual decision to disturb this long-standing precedent," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in a statement.
"Right now," she said, "we are witnessing coordinated attacks on Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, and more across the country. The forces driving these cases are banking on a Supreme Court majority that will be willing to reopen guiding precedent and remake the law."
"This action by the Supreme Court sends a dangerous message that its precedents are fair game and that prior rulings may not be adhered to," added Clarke. "This action also suggests that it's open season when it comes to precedents that have long safeguarded civil rights and reproductive freedom in our country."
This post has been updated to correct the spelling of Justice Stephen Breyer's name.
On January 20th, it begins...
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. Our Year-End campaign is our most important fundraiser of the year. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The U.S. Supreme Court's liberal justices sounded alarm on Monday after the court issued a ruling overturning a four decades-old precedent.
"Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent (pdf), in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
Some observers expressed fear one of the those caes could be Roe v. Wade.
\u201cThe Supreme Court just overturned a 40-year-old precedent. Justice Breyer\u2019s warning is clear: other precedents could be next. #CourtsMatter\u201d— Planned Parenthood Action (@Planned Parenthood Action) 1557765864
\u201cEnglish translation of Justice Breyer's dissent today in Hyatt: "Roe v. Wade is doomed." #SCOTUS\u201d— Jeffrey Toobin (@Jeffrey Toobin) 1557759301
From Justice Breyer's dissent in Franchise Tax Board. Hard not to read this as a veiled warning about Roe v. Wade. https://t.co/Sgt7CxA9sm pic.twitter.com/rdVbPTTkrt
-- Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) May 13, 2019
The new decision is in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which centers on the issue of "sovereign immunity."
Per The Hill:
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's conservative justices found that a state cannot be sued by a private party in another state court system without that state's consent. The ruling overturns a previous 1979 decision that found the Constitution does not shield the states from private lawsuits in other states.
Civil rights lawyer Sasha Samberg-Champion broke down the ruling in a Twitter thread, and offered his thoughts on what it may say about the conservative court's approach to what is called "stare decisis":
This is exactly right. https://t.co/jHIXKx3DRg
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
This is the entirety of the majority's reasoning as to why it is appropriate to overturn a decades-old precedent. Consider how much of this reasoning would apply to, say, the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. pic.twitter.com/LsySFALFUw
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
There _should_ be high bar for the Court to disregard stare decisis -- something more than "we think our precedent was wrongly decided" -- or else stare decisis is meaningless. The cavalier way the Court approached that analysis here suggests that stare decisis won't matter much.
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
"No significant change in factual circumstances or evidence of unworkability warranted the Court's unusual decision to disturb this long-standing precedent," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in a statement.
"Right now," she said, "we are witnessing coordinated attacks on Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, and more across the country. The forces driving these cases are banking on a Supreme Court majority that will be willing to reopen guiding precedent and remake the law."
"This action by the Supreme Court sends a dangerous message that its precedents are fair game and that prior rulings may not be adhered to," added Clarke. "This action also suggests that it's open season when it comes to precedents that have long safeguarded civil rights and reproductive freedom in our country."
This post has been updated to correct the spelling of Justice Stephen Breyer's name.
The U.S. Supreme Court's liberal justices sounded alarm on Monday after the court issued a ruling overturning a four decades-old precedent.
"Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent (pdf), in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
Some observers expressed fear one of the those caes could be Roe v. Wade.
\u201cThe Supreme Court just overturned a 40-year-old precedent. Justice Breyer\u2019s warning is clear: other precedents could be next. #CourtsMatter\u201d— Planned Parenthood Action (@Planned Parenthood Action) 1557765864
\u201cEnglish translation of Justice Breyer's dissent today in Hyatt: "Roe v. Wade is doomed." #SCOTUS\u201d— Jeffrey Toobin (@Jeffrey Toobin) 1557759301
From Justice Breyer's dissent in Franchise Tax Board. Hard not to read this as a veiled warning about Roe v. Wade. https://t.co/Sgt7CxA9sm pic.twitter.com/rdVbPTTkrt
-- Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) May 13, 2019
The new decision is in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which centers on the issue of "sovereign immunity."
Per The Hill:
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's conservative justices found that a state cannot be sued by a private party in another state court system without that state's consent. The ruling overturns a previous 1979 decision that found the Constitution does not shield the states from private lawsuits in other states.
Civil rights lawyer Sasha Samberg-Champion broke down the ruling in a Twitter thread, and offered his thoughts on what it may say about the conservative court's approach to what is called "stare decisis":
This is exactly right. https://t.co/jHIXKx3DRg
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
This is the entirety of the majority's reasoning as to why it is appropriate to overturn a decades-old precedent. Consider how much of this reasoning would apply to, say, the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. pic.twitter.com/LsySFALFUw
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
There _should_ be high bar for the Court to disregard stare decisis -- something more than "we think our precedent was wrongly decided" -- or else stare decisis is meaningless. The cavalier way the Court approached that analysis here suggests that stare decisis won't matter much.
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
"No significant change in factual circumstances or evidence of unworkability warranted the Court's unusual decision to disturb this long-standing precedent," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in a statement.
"Right now," she said, "we are witnessing coordinated attacks on Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, and more across the country. The forces driving these cases are banking on a Supreme Court majority that will be willing to reopen guiding precedent and remake the law."
"This action by the Supreme Court sends a dangerous message that its precedents are fair game and that prior rulings may not be adhered to," added Clarke. "This action also suggests that it's open season when it comes to precedents that have long safeguarded civil rights and reproductive freedom in our country."
This post has been updated to correct the spelling of Justice Stephen Breyer's name.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.