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
sonia sotomayor
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
From a Coup to Assassinations, Just How Much Immunity Does the US President Now Have?
"If Trump, as commander-in-chief, ordered his troops to assassinate somebody or stage a coup, that would seem to fall within the absolute immunity provision of the court's decision," said one legal expert.
Jul 03, 2024
Right-wing Chief Justice John Roberts accused his liberal colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court of "fearmongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals" in their alarmed dissents against the conservative supermajority's ruling in Trump v. United States, which held that current and former presidents are entitled to sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for so-called "official acts."
But legal experts said in response to the decision that the "nightmare" scenarios Justice Sonia Sotomayor outlined in her dissent—including a president ordering the Navy's SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a domestic political opponent or staging a coup to remain in power, all without legal consequences—aren't farfetched readings of the new ruling.
"The language of the Supreme Court's decision seems to suggest that because this is a core function of the president, that there is absolute immunity from criminal prosecution," Cheryl Bader, a criminal law professor at Fordham Law School and a former federal prosecutor, toldPolitico. "If [presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald] Trump, as commander-in-chief, ordered his troops to assassinate somebody or stage a coup, that would seem to fall within the absolute immunity provision of the court's decision."
"If brazenly attempting to overturn a democratic election by claiming the powers of the presidency can be a so-called 'official' act of the president, then where does it end?"
Bader was hardly alone in her interpretation of the ruling, which Trump and the far-right architects of his possible second White House term celebrated as a critical victory in their effort to seize the levers of the federal government.
"If I'm reading the court correctly," Cornell Law School professor Michael Dorf wrote on social media after the decision was released Monday, a president "can openly accept bribes for pardons, because those fall within his 'exclusive' authority."
During oral arguments over the case in April, an attorney for Trump conceded in response to questioning from Sotomayor that assassination of a political rival "could well be an official act"—thus making it unprosecutable under Trump v. United States.
Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, warned that if Trump wins another term, he's "going to preface every blatantly illegal thing he does by saying, 'Official act, this is an official act.'"
Justice Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military...to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?"
Trump’s Lawyer: "That could well be an official act."
– Trump v. US, oral arguments pic.twitter.com/6hOzZ3WFPN
— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) July 1, 2024
Analysts, lawmakers, and civil liberties groups alike expressed horror at the prospect of a former president who has openly threatened to target his political opponents taking office with king-like powers bestowed by the Supreme Court's conservative majority—half of which Trump appointed.
"Former President Trump's handpicked justices have cast aside our nation's bedrock principle of the rule of law, afforded future presidents carte blanche to abuse the powers of their office for political and personal gain, and laid the foundation for Donald Trump to have absolute authority in a potential second term," Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) said Monday.
"If brazenly attempting to overturn a democratic election by claiming the powers of the presidency can be a so-called 'official' act of the president, then where does it end?" he continued. "If a former president who has fomented an insurrection at our Capitol and who now promises to serve as a dictator on day one back in office can avoid accountability in a court of law, then as Justice Sotomayor stated, I too 'fear for our democracy.'"
ACLU national legal director David Cole warned that the Supreme Court supermajority's opinion "sits like a loaded weapon for Trump to abuse in the pursuit of criminal ends if he is reelected."
In a column headlined "The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially," The Nation's Elie Mystal wrote that he "cannot even imagine what [Trump will] try if he is actually given power again, knowing full well that he will never be held accountable for literal crimes."
"Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree, steal all the money and murder all the people they can get their hands on, all under the guise of presumptive 'official' behavior, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable for their crimes while in office," Mystal noted. "That, according to the court, is what the Constitution requires."
"While the Supreme Court says 'unofficial' acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting 'unofficially,'" he added. "And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were 'unofficial.'"
Keep ReadingShow Less
AOC Vows to File Articles of Impeachment After Supreme Court Trump Ruling
"Today's ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture."
Jul 01, 2024
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Monday said she will file unspecified articles of impeachment U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority ruled that former President Donald Trump is entitled to "absolute immunity" for "official acts" performed while he was in office, a decision that prompted dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor to declare her "fear for our democracy."
Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said on social media that "the Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control."
"Today's ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture," she added. "I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."
The House of Representatives reconvenes next Monday.
The justices ruled 6-3 along ideological lines Monday in Trump v. United States that "the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and that "he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
Dissenting, Sotomayor asserted: "Never in the history of our republic has a president had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former presidents will be cloaked in such immunity."
Far-right Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dismissed calls to recuse themselves from the case over alleged conflicts of interest. In addition to them and Chief Justice John Roberts, the court's three Trump appointees sided with the ex-president in the case.
The decision means it is highly unlikely that Trump will face a trial for his alleged role in fomenting the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection before November's election, in which he is the presumptive Republican nominee. In addition to four felony charges in that case, Trump faces one trial in Fulton County, Georgia for his alleged effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election and another in Florida over his alleged mishandling of classified documents.
In May, Trump was convicted on 34 felony charges related to the falsification of business records regarding hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 presidential election. The former president was also impeached twice while in office, although the Senate did not convict him either time.
At least one other House lawmaker—Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.)—said he supports Ocasio-Cortez's move. Other progressive lawmakers expressed alarm over Monday's ruling.
"Presidents are not kings. Trump should absolutely be held criminally liable for inciting a violent mob to overturn the 2020 election," said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.). "This ruling sets an incredibly dangerous precedent. This extremist court has put our democracy on life support."
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said that "the far-right extremist majority has politicized our highest court, undermined its legitimacy, and has created a dangerous 'absolute' immunity for a president's official acts."
"This is a rogue, untethered, and damaging Supreme Court. MAGA extremist justices also are ignoring the festering corruption in their ranks," he added. "We need justices committed to justice. Stolen seats filled with partisan hacks lead to alarming results. Today's ruling is devastating to our democracy."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) asked, "If brazenly attempting to overturn a democratic election by claiming the powers of the presidency can be a so-called 'official' act of the president, then where does it end?"
"If a former president who has fomented an insurrection at our Capitol and who now promises to serve as a dictator on day one back in office can avoid accountability in a court of law, then as Justice Sotomayor stated, I too 'fear for our democracy,'" he added.
Some progressive groups and campaigners also called for the impeachment of the six right-wing justices.
"The Supreme Court is a corrupt institution that's more concerned with advancing their ideological agenda than upholding the Constitution," Sunrise Movement said on social media. "Congress must move forward with impeachment."
Erica Payne, founder and director of Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement that "the Supreme Court's decision effectively legalizes the use of political violence by a president so long as it is an 'official act.'"
"This relieves the presidency—and the sitting president—from the most basic level of accountability while putting our entire constitutional republic in mortal danger," she continued. "Donald Trump incited an insurrection and encouraged his thugs to storm the Capitol. The idea that he should not be held accountable if these actions were 'official' is an egregiously partisan attempt to deny reality."
"This decision is the culmination of a relentlessly executed, multidecade plan to destroy American democracy," Payne contended. "It is the inevitable outcome of rank corruption facilitated by a malignant class of American oligarchs who, over decades, bought and paid for a complicit Supreme Court."
"The frog in the pot is now at a rolling boil," she added. "The president can encourage his thugs to murder members of Congress without fear of legal repercussions. If Democrats do not immediately take bold action, historians will mark today as the moment illiberal authoritarians cemented their rule over the United States of America."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular