The Supreme Court

[4/5]

SCOTUS punts with the "no standing" play call on the latest ACA challenge. Alito and Gorsuch dissent.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 0_6jfm.pdf

Not really the right thread for it, but does anybody have any data about any change in the number of uninsured people/households since the penalty for not having health insurance was revoked in the 2017 tax cut?

[4/5]

And here's Fulton v. Philadelphia. The opinion of the Court held that Philly violated the Free Exercise Clause, but said it fell outside of the scope of Employment Division v. Smith, keeping it as precedent. But Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch only concur in the judgment and want to overturn Smith. Alito's dissent is 77(!) pages long, as opposed to 15 for the Court's opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_g3bi.pdf

More evidence for the company Gorsuch keeps on religious issues I suppose.

[Green Habit]

And here's Fulton v. Philadelphia. The opinion of the Court held that Philly violated the Free Exercise Clause, but said it fell outside of the scope of Employment Division v. Smith, keeping it as precedent. But Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch only concur in the judgment and want to overturn Smith. Alito's dissent is 77(!) pages long, as opposed to 15 for the Court's opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_g3bi.pdf

More evidence for the company Gorsuch keeps on religious issues I suppose.

Yup. Kind of surprised Barrett didn't join them, though--she wrote a brief concurrence basically saying "it's complicated" with regard to overturning Smith.

[4/5]

And here's Fulton v. Philadelphia. The opinion of the Court held that Philly violated the Free Exercise Clause, but said it fell outside of the scope of Employment Division v. Smith, keeping it as precedent. But Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch only concur in the judgment and want to overturn Smith. Alito's dissent is 77(!) pages long, as opposed to 15 for the Court's opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_g3bi.pdf

More evidence for the company Gorsuch keeps on religious issues I suppose.

Yup. Kind of surprised Barrett didn't join them, though--she wrote a brief concurrence basically saying "it's complicated" with regard to overturning Smith.

Does her "it's complicated" seem like she'd be more inclined to carve out exceptions for Christian faiths than others, like the native ceremonies in Smith? (I admit that's a totally bad faith question to ask, but it's tough to imagine she wouldn't totally oppose Smith if it had been a Catholic ceremony.)

[Green Habit]

And here's Fulton v. Philadelphia. The opinion of the Court held that Philly violated the Free Exercise Clause, but said it fell outside of the scope of Employment Division v. Smith, keeping it as precedent. But Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch only concur in the judgment and want to overturn Smith. Alito's dissent is 77(!) pages long, as opposed to 15 for the Court's opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_g3bi.pdf

More evidence for the company Gorsuch keeps on religious issues I suppose.

Yup. Kind of surprised Barrett didn't join them, though--she wrote a brief concurrence basically saying "it's complicated" with regard to overturning Smith.

Does her "it's complicated" seem like she'd be more inclined to carve out exceptions for Christian faiths than others, like the native ceremonies in Smith? (I admit that's a totally bad faith question to ask, but it's tough to imagine she wouldn't totally oppose Smith if it had been a Catholic ceremony.)

Here's what she said (stripping out the citations for clarity):

Yet what should replace Smith? The prevailing assumption seems to be that strict scrutiny would apply whenever a neutral and generally applicable law burdens religious exercise. But I am skeptical about swapping Smith’s categorical antidiscrimination approach for an equally categorical strict scrutiny regime, particularly when this Court’s resolution of conflicts between generally applicable laws and other First Amendment rights—like speech and assembly—has been much more nuanced. There would be a number of issues to work through if Smith were overruled. To name a few: Should entities like Catholic Social Services—which is an arm of the Catholic Church-be treated differently than individuals? Should there be a distinction between indirect and direct burdens on religious exercise? What forms of scrutiny should apply? And if the answer is strict scrutiny, would pre-Smith cases rejecting free exercise challenges to garden-variety laws come out the same way?

[4/5]

Okay, interesting. Makes sense. IIRC you agree with Smith and don't think it should be overruled because that opens the door to all sorts of religious exemptions, right? I know (think?) that you'd prefer to not read freedom of religion as two separate clauses, is that in part because something like applying strict scrutiny to religiously neutral laws based on free exercise at the same time creates establishment clause issues if the two are considered separately?

[Green Habit]

Okay, interesting. Makes sense. IIRC you agree with Smith and don't think it should be overruled because that opens the door to all sorts of religious exemptions, right? I know (think?) that you'd prefer to not read freedom of religion as two separate clauses, is that in part because something like applying strict scrutiny to religiously neutral laws based on free exercise at the same time creates establishment clause issues if the two are considered separately?

Something like that. My simple reading of it is "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion". In this case, if one were to make the argument that refusal to certify unmarried & same-sex foster parents is protected by some broad freedom of expression/association, regardless of the reason, I'm not sure if I'd agree, but it would at least be consistent. But I'll have a big problem if Catholic Social Services is able to get out of this obligation solely because of religious belief, but others who cite non-religious reasons are not able to.

[4/5]

Okay, interesting. Makes sense. IIRC you agree with Smith and don't think it should be overruled because that opens the door to all sorts of religious exemptions, right? I know (think?) that you'd prefer to not read freedom of religion as two separate clauses, is that in part because something like applying strict scrutiny to religiously neutral laws based on free exercise at the same time creates establishment clause issues if the two are considered separately?

Something like that. My simple reading of it is "government shall neither favor nor disfavor religion". In this case, if one were to make the argument that refusal to certify unmarried & same-sex foster parents is protected by some broad freedom of expression/association, regardless of the reason, I'm not sure if I'd agree, but it would at least be consistent. But I'll have a big problem if Catholic Social Services is able to get out of this obligation solely because of religious belief, but others who cite non-religious reasons are not able to.

What kind of non-religious reasons would be acceptable for not allowing unmarried/same-sex couples to be foster parents?

[Green Habit]

What kind of non-religious reasons would be acceptable for not allowing unmarried/same-sex couples to be foster parents?

I can't think of any, but saying it's unacceptable for supernatural reasons seems even more absurd to me.

[Green Habit]

OK, Kavanaugh's now my favorite justice for at least a few days. It's always satisfied to see the NCAA get benchslapped with a unanimous opinion against them, and it's even better to see paragraphs like this enter the record:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_gfbh.pdf

The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing.

[B]

OK, Kavanaugh's now my favorite justice for at least a few days. It's always satisfied to see the NCAA get benchslapped with a unanimous opinion against them, and it's even better to see paragraphs like this enter the record:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_gfbh.pdf

The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing.

I don't disagree with any of that, but imagine Kavanaugh making the same argument against Walmart for suppressing the pay of their associates.

[simple schoolboy]

OK, Kavanaugh's now my favorite justice for at least a few days. It's always satisfied to see the NCAA get benchslapped with a unanimous opinion against them, and it's even better to see paragraphs like this enter the record:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_gfbh.pdf

The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing.

I don't disagree with any of that, but imagine Kavanaugh making the same argument against Walmart for suppressing the pay of their associates.

It would be more similar if Walmart fired their employees for working a second job or earning income off of their likeness.

[B]

OK, Kavanaugh's now my favorite justice for at least a few days. It's always satisfied to see the NCAA get benchslapped with a unanimous opinion against them, and it's even better to see paragraphs like this enter the record:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_gfbh.pdf

The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing.

I don't disagree with any of that, but imagine Kavanaugh making the same argument against Walmart for suppressing the pay of their associates.

It would be more similar if Walmart fired their employees for working a second job or earning income off of their likeness.

Yeah, I get that it's not the same thing. But it'd be nice to see the Court as passionate about protecting truly weakest members of society from the rich.

[4/5]

OK, Kavanaugh's now my favorite justice for at least a few days. It's always satisfied to see the NCAA get benchslapped with a unanimous opinion against them, and it's even better to see paragraphs like this enter the record:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_gfbh.pdf

The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing.

I don't disagree with any of that, but imagine Kavanaugh making the same argument against Walmart for suppressing the pay of their associates.

It would be more similar if Walmart fired their employees for working a second job or earning income off of their likeness.

Yeah, I get that it's not the same thing. But it'd be nice to see the Court as passionate about protecting truly weakest members of society from the rich.

Protecting them from having a job that requires little in the way of training and gives them an opportunity to earn income and build experience?

[B]

OK, Kavanaugh's now my favorite justice for at least a few days. It's always satisfied to see the NCAA get benchslapped with a unanimous opinion against them, and it's even better to see paragraphs like this enter the record:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_gfbh.pdf

The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing.

I don't disagree with any of that, but imagine Kavanaugh making the same argument against Walmart for suppressing the pay of their associates.

It would be more similar if Walmart fired their employees for working a second job or earning income off of their likeness.

Yeah, I get that it's not the same thing. But it'd be nice to see the Court as passionate about protecting truly weakest members of society from the rich.

Protecting them from having a job that requires little in the way of training and gives them an opportunity to earn income and build experience?

Maybe against discrimination.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/10-277

[Green Habit]

Maybe against discrimination.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2010/10-277

One of the worst things the Roberts Court has done that gets very little attention is completely gutting class action law, and it's not limited to just this one aspect.

[Malloy]

OK, Kavanaugh's now my favorite justice for at least a few days. It's always satisfied to see the NCAA get benchslapped with a unanimous opinion against them, and it's even better to see paragraphs like this enter the record:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_gfbh.pdf

The bottom line is that the NCAA and its member colleges are suppressing the pay of student athletes who collectively generate billions of dollars in revenues for colleges every year. Those enormous sums of money flow to seemingly everyone except the student athletes. College presidents, athletic directors, coaches, conference commissioners, and NCAA executives take in six- and seven-figure salaries. Colleges build lavish new facilities. But the student athletes who generate the revenues, many of whom are African American and from lower-income backgrounds, end up with little or nothing.

I don't disagree with any of that, but imagine Kavanaugh making the same argument against Walmart for suppressing the pay of their associates.

It would be more similar if Walmart fired their employees for working a second job or earning income off of their likeness.

Yeah, I get that it's not the same thing. But it'd be nice to see the Court as passionate about protecting truly weakest members of society from the rich.

Protecting them from having a job that requires little in the way of training and gives them an opportunity to earn income and build experience?

protecting them from exploitation.

those workers generate profits for their owners, just like the athletes do for the ncaa. the question B gestures at is how much of the value created by workers are workers entitled to. owners are going to trot out your argument. "hey, we can always get someone else to do this job, and probably for less. we're helping you out."

workers at walmart or anywhere else, should reject that argument for what it is -- the sophistry of the rich -- and should collectively act to make sure they get the value and benefits that they create everyday. because bargaining by yourself with some rich cunt is mostly never going to be on terms favorable to you.

**sprints out of this hell sub-forum**

[4/5]

Free speech victory in the Snapchat cheerleader case! Thomas, of course, dissents.

[Green Habit]

Free speech victory in the Snapchat cheerleader case! Thomas, of course, dissents.

Between this and the NCAA case, the Court has proven me wrong twice in that it granted cert but ultimately and overwhelmingly affirmed the circuit court ruling. That's an encouraging sign that they want to help establish circuit level precedent nationally, instead of just denying cert and letting the issue sleep in that circuit.

A couple other big cases came down too:
--Lange v. California: thankfully ruling out a categorical justification of warrantless home searches for fleeing suspects.
--Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid: Governments create a taking when they mandate that workspace be given for unionization efforts. This one ought to have all kinds of side effects.

[Green Habit]

As an aside, I am not a fan at all of initializing party names just because they're minors, granted that if they, like Brandi Levy did, go on the record with their full names elsewhere to discuss their plights. They did use Menachem Zivotofsky's name in the Jerusalem passport case, I wish they did the same here.