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
neil gorsuch
Supreme Court Denies Biden Administration's Request to Reinstate Expanded Title IX Rule
In a 5-4 ruling—with Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the liberals in dissent—the court delayed Biden's expansion of Title IX protections to include gender identity and sexual orientation.
Aug 16, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday denied the Biden administration's emergency request to reinstate parts of its updated Department of Education Title IX rule expanding the definition of "discrimination on the basis of sex" to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy status.
The nation's highest court ruled 5-4—with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joining liberal colleagues Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent—that the Biden administration "has not provided this court a sufficient basis to disturb the lower courts' interim conclusions that the three provisions found likely to be unlawful are intertwined with and affect other provisions of the rule."
Republican attorneys general in more than two dozen states pushed courts to block the Biden administration's updated Title IX rule, which was set to take effect on August 1. The new rule has been on hold pending the outcome of litigation.
In her dissent, Sotomayor wrote: "A majority of this court leaves in place preliminary injunctions that bar the government from enforcing the entire rule—including provisions that bear no apparent relationship to respondents' alleged injuries. Those injunctions are overbroad."
While conservatives welcomed the ruling, LGBTQ+ advocates expressed disappointment.
"All young people deserve to show up to school and get an education without facing the threat of discrimination and bigotry. But five cruel justices on the Supreme Court just put countless LGBTQ+ students' health, safety, and lives in jeopardy," said Sarah Lipton-Lubet, president of the advocacy group Take Back the Court.
"The hateful right-wing movement with which these justices align themselves constantly invokes 'protecting children' as a false justification for their extremist agenda," Lipton-Lubet added. "But protecting children means keeping them safe from homophobic and transphobic violence; from gun violence; from attacks on equitable education; and from environmental destruction that threatens their futures. This court has failed them time and time again."
The Biden administration's effort to expand Title IX protections came amid a wave of anti-LGBTQ+ laws enacted in Republican-controlled states in recent years.
More than two dozen states have passed laws banning or restricting gender-affirming healthcare including puberty-blocking drugs, hormone therapy, and surgery for minors. At least 11 states have also passed laws banning transgender students from using school restrooms and other facilities consistent with their gender identity, and 25 states have banned transgender girls from competing on female scholastic sports teams.
Responding to Friday's decision, an Education Department spokesperson said that "while we do not agree with this ruling, the department stands by the final Title IX regulations released in April 2024, and we will continue to defend those rules in the expedited litigation in the lower courts."
Friday's ruling is not the last word on the Biden administration's Title IX rule, as the decision merely delays the issue pending further litigation that could ultimately be revisited by the Supreme Court in the future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Arrogant Supreme Court Is Now the Enemy Within
Americans know the Supreme Court’s anti-democratic agenda when they see it. Americans know a judicial power grab when they see it. Americans know a king when they see one. Tell me, America, do you like what you see?
Jul 05, 2024
Former President Richard Nixon used a ridiculous line to rationalize his misconduct: “If the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.”
On July 1, 2024, Nixon’s outrageous position became the law of the land.
But that is only the most recent illustration of how former President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court is remaking America. The justices comprising the court’s six-member conservative supermajority are foisting their personal vision for the country on citizens who largely disagree with that vision. Trump appointed three of them.
Trump asserts that, if reelected, he’ll be “dictator for a day.” The Supreme Court’s ruling makes him comparable to a king—a law unto himself—for an entire four-year term.
Two years ago, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationwas a harbinger. The Court’s six conservatives overruled the landmark 50-year-old precedent, Roe v. Wade, and obliterated a woman’s right to abortion—a right that the vast majority of Americans across the political spectrum support.
Dobbs was only the beginning.
The Court Abandons Stare Decisis
The conservatives justices’ agenda requires violating the bedrock principle of stare decisis.
Justice Elena Kagan explained, “Adherence to precedent is ‘a foundation stone of the rule of law...’ Stare decisis ‘promotes the even-handed, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles.’ It enables people to order their lives in reliance on judicial decisions. And it ‘contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process,’ by ensuring that those decisions are founded in the law, and not in the ‘personal preferences’ of judges.” [Citations omitted.]
Already at a historic low, the court’s perceived integrity continues to suffer self-inflicted wounds at the hands of its conservative members. They are imposing their personal preferences on the entire nation.
In the waning days of the court’s 2023-2024 term, some of the most draconian—and dangerous—emerged from the shadows.
The Court Guts the SEC and Imperils Other Federal Agencies
On June 27, 2024, the Court’s conservative block (Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, John Roberts, and Clarence Thomas) issued SEC v. Jarkesy. The ruling bars the Security and Exchange Commission from adjudicating civil fraud actions itself before an administrative law judge. Instead, the SEC must now file all such actions in federal court where a defendant can request a jury trial, thereby crippling the agency’s enforcement capabilities.
On behalf of the court’s three dissenting liberals (Ketanji Brown Jackson, Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor), Justice Sotomayor wrote, “Congress has enacted countless new statutes in the past 50 years that have empowered federal agencies to impose civil penalties for statutory violations… Similarly, there are, at the very least, more than two dozen agencies that can impose civil penalties in administrative proceedings… The constitutionality of hundreds of statutes may now be in peril, and dozens of agencies could be stripped of their power to enforce laws enacted by Congress.”
Justice Sotomayor added, “Today’s ruling is part of a disconcerting trend: When it comes to the separation of powers, this court tells the American public and its coordinate branches that it knows best… Make no mistake: Today’s decision is a power grab.”
The Court Kills the Climate
Also on June 27, 2024, in Ohio v. EPA, five of the Court’s conservatives blocked the Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to protect “downwind” states from the air pollution that “upwind” states generated.
From 1981-1983, Justice Gorsuch’s mother, Anne, had led the EPA during the Reagan administration. Repeatedly, she clashed with environmentalists and congressional investigators challenging her management of the agency. In 1983, the White House forced her to resign.
In her 1986 memoir, Anne Gorsuch wrote that her rocky tenure and unceremonious departure distressed her son, Neil, who was 15 years old at the time:
“You should never have resigned,” he told her. “You didn’t do anything wrong. You only did what the president ordered. Why are you quitting? You raised me not to be a quitter. Why are you a quitter?”
Forty years later, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion in Ohio v. EPA.
The Court “Grasps for Power”
The following day, on June 28, the conservative block struck again in Loper Bright Enterprises, v. Raimondo, overruling a 40-year-old precedent, Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council.
Back in 1984, conservatives had scored a big victory when a unanimous Supreme Court first issued the Chevron ruling. It required that courts defer to administrative agencies that filled in gaps or resolved ambiguities in Congress’ regulatory statutes.
At the time, business leaders cheered the decision because President Ronald Reagan’s EPA (under Anne Gorsuch) had loosened air pollution emission regulations. To preserve that loosening, the affected businesses wanted courts to respect the EPA’s scientific and technical expertise. The Court agreed, observing, “Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of the government.” The latter point meant that judges weren’t accountable to the electorate, whereas agency administrators served at the pleasure of an elected president.
But in the years that followed, businesses chafed at agency regulation. Along with the conservative legal movement, business leaders reversed course and attacked Chevron unsuccessfully—until Trump’s appointment of Barrett gave the conservatives a supermajority on the Supreme Court.
In dissent, Justice Kagan observed that Chevron “served as a cornerstone of administrative law, allocating responsibility for statutory construction between courts and agencies… [It] has formed the backdrop against which Congress, courts, and agencies—as well as regulated parties and the public—all have operated for decades. It has been applied in thousands of judicial decisions. It has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds—to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest.”
Under Chevron, Justice Kagan added, the Supreme Court itself “has upheld an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute at least 70 times. Lower courts have applied the Chevron framework on thousands upon thousands of occasions... Chevron was cited in more than 18,000 federal-court decisions.” [Citations omitted.]
“A longstanding precedent at the crux of administrative governance thus falls victim to a bald assertion of judicial authority,” Justice Kagan concluded. “The majority disdains restraint, and grasps for power.”
The Court Helps Trump Avoid Accountability
The conservative block saved its worst for last—the court's July 1, 2024 ruling in Trump v. U.S. If democracy dies in America, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in the case will have been a key contributor.
“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” Roberts wrote on the final day of the court’s term. “At least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity.”
Writing for the three dissenting liberal members, Justice Sotomayor declared, “Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law… [O]ur Constitution does not shield a former president from answering for criminal and treasonous acts,…”
Trump asserts that, if reelected, he’ll be “dictator for a day.” The Supreme Court’s ruling makes him comparable to a king—a law unto himself—for an entire four-year term.
“I Know It When I See It”
In discussing a pornography case, Justice Potter Stewart once remarked, “I know it when I see it.”
Americans know the Supreme Court’s anti-democratic agenda when they see it.
Americans know a judicial power grab when they see it.
Americans know a king when they see one.
And as Americans come to understand the conservative Supreme Court justices’ profoundly negative impact on their daily lives, they won’t like what they see.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unfathomably Cruel': Billionaire-Backed Justices Rule in Favor of Criminalizing Homelessness
"Maybe the right-wing justices could empathize with the most vulnerable Americans if they spent less time jet-setting on luxury vacations on their wealthy benefactors' dime," said one critic.
Jun 28, 2024
"SCOTUS just criminalized homelessness."
So said numerous legal experts and advocates for the unhoused Friday after the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority ruled that local governments can enforce bans on sleeping outdoors, regardless of whether municipalities are able to offer them shelter space.
In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the justices ruled in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson that officials can criminalize sleeping and camping on public property including parks, even when housing options are unavailable or unaffordable.
"We are disappointed that a majority of the court has decided that our Constitution allows a city to punish its homeless residents simply for sleeping outside with a blanket to survive the cold when there is nowhere else for them to go," said Ed Johnson, director of litigation at the Oregon Law Center, which represented unhoused Grants Pass residents in the case.
The decision overturned a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found bans on outdoor sleeping violated the 8th Amendment's proscription of cruel and unusual punishment.
"Homelessness is complex. Its causes are many. So may be the public policy responses required to address it," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. "A handful of federal judges cannot begin to 'match' the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding 'how best to handle' a pressing social question like homelessness."
Gorsuch suggested that unhoused people could invoke "necessity... insanity, diminished-capacity, and duress defenses" when they are prosecuted for poverty-related offenses.
In a dissent calling the criminalization of unhoused people "unconscionable and unconstitutional," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that "sleep is a biological necessity, not a crime."
"For some people, sleeping outside is their only option," she noted.
Sotomayor continued:
Homelessness is a reality for too many Americans. On any given night, over half a million people across the country lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. Many do not have access to shelters and are left to sleep in cars, sidewalks, parks, and other public places. They experience homelessness due to complex and interconnected issues, including crippling debt and stagnant wages; domestic and sexual abuse; physical and psychiatric disabilities; and rising housing costs coupled with declining affordable housing options.
"It is possible to acknowledge and balance the issues facing local governments, the humanity and dignity of homeless people, and our constitutional principles," Sotomayor asserted. "Instead, the majority focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local governments and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested."
"The Constitution provides a baseline of rights for all Americans rich and poor, housed and unhoused," Sotomayor added. "This court must safeguard those rights even when, and perhaps especially when, doing so is uncomfortable or unpopular."
Attorney Theane Evangelis, who represented Grants Pass in the case, cheered the decision, arguing that the 9th Circuit ruling had "tied the hands of local governments."
Some leaders in places where the homelessness crisis is most acute welcomed Friday's ruling, including Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who filed an amicus brief in the case, and London Breed, the Democratic mayor of San Francisco, which also filed an amicus brief.
"Gorsuch extensively cites San Francisco's amicus in the decision,"
noted Raya Steier, a San Francisco-based attorney who led the successful campaign to pass a local ballot measure taxing the wealthy to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for Covid rent relief and affordable housing. "Congratulations London Breed and David Chiu, this is now your legacy."
Economic justice advocates said rising inequality and housing costs have played a key role in driving the U.S. unhoused population to a record 650,000. If all the unhoused people in the country came together to form a city, it would be the nation's 23rd-largest—ahead of Las Vegas, Boston, Detroit, and Portland, Oregon—based on 2020 Census figures.
"We are in the midst of a crisis where housing is unaffordable for millions of Americans. Millions of us are just one paycheck away from losing our homes," New York-based Center for Popular Democracy Action said in a statement. "Today, the Supreme Court has made the morally bankrupt decision to allow people experiencing homelessness to be persecuted and punished just for existing, while denying them shelter and safety as a human right."
"For those who are unhoused, this will mean fines, tickets, and even incarceration for a vulnerable community already abandoned by city and state authorities," the group added.
Referring to the high court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, many social media users said that "corporations are people" but "the homeless are not."
Others pointed to the millions of dollars worth of gifts and other perks—many of them undisclosed—lavished upon Supreme Court members, especially far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, by right-wing billionaires, some with business before the court.
"Today's decision shows how little the MAGA supermajority cares about struggling Americans," said Tracy Adair, communications manager at Stand Up America, a New York-based pro-democracy group. "It is unfathomably cruel to punish unhoused individuals for existing on public property when they have nowhere else to go."
"Maybe the right-wing justices could empathize with the most vulnerable Americans if they spent less time jet-setting on luxury vacations on their wealthy benefactors' dime," Adair added.
Advocates for the unhoused stressed that the solution to homelessness is housing, not criminalization.
"Cities should not punish people for being poor," said Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness, a housing justice and human rights group serving San Francisco. "The solution is, and has always been, safe and affordable housing."
In response to the ruling, the National Homelessness Law Center is calling on the Biden administration to invest at least $356 billion next year to fund universal rental assistance, upgraded public housing, a national housing trust fund, eviction and homelessness prevention programs, and voluntary supportive and emergency services.
"America is the richest country in the world. We can afford to ensure that everybody has a roof over their heads, a warm bed, and a door to lock," the group sad. "Our neighbors living outside cannot wait any longer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular