The U.S. Supreme Court begins its next nine-month term Monday as public trust in the court remains shaken following recent extreme rulings due to ethically questionable conduct by some justices.
Now, as the new school year begins, the dust cloud kicked up by controversial opinions submitted at the end of last term has barely subsided. In particular, the July decision by a 6-3 right-wing majority to grant Donald Trump broad immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions as president surprised even seasoned observers of the nation’s highest court. .
“That ruling is shocking, it tears at the fabric of the Constitution, and it gives the president another law-breaking opportunity,” Michael Waldman said in a recent webinar for the Brennan Center, a progressive think tank where he chairs. “It gave me enormous authority.” .
Despite the chaos the act has caused, the increasingly hard-right court shows no signs of restraining itself. The first major case of the new term, to be taken up on Tuesday, will bring the justices back to the thorny area of gun control.
The case, Garland v. Vanderstock, concerns “ghost guns,” kits that can be assembled at home that are increasingly used to circumvent basic gun regulations such as serial numbers and federal background checks. be. The Biden administration imposed restrictions on ghost guns in 2022, but they were quickly blocked by lower courts, sending the case to the Supreme Court for ruling.
This incident could have a major impact on gun control. The decision to exclude ghost guns from basic regulations would create a major loophole in the US’s already lax approach to firearms.
In reality, American courts are grappling with confusion and confusion in the wake of recent Supreme Court gun decisions. In his Bruen decision, hard-right Justice Clarence Thomas devised a new rule: Any handgun ban must be compatible with the country’s “history and traditions.” Those words sent federal judges scrambling to make sense.
The ghost gun case comes out of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has the distinction of being the most right-wing appellate court in the United States. Six of the 17 active judges were appointed by Trump.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices October 2022. Photo: Olivier Douliery/AFP/Getty ImagesPresident Trump could nominate first Neil Gorsuch, then Brett Kavanaugh, and finally Amy Coney Barrett during his one term as president, creating a new 6-3 conservative supermajority. Some of the bombshell decisions handed down by the Supreme Court since the 5th Circuit. This includes overturning the state’s right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson.
At least seven cases could be brought to the Supreme Court from the Fifth Circuit in the new term. “We again expect the Fifth Circuit to be a very frequent source of ideologically-based cases that judges feel compelled to take up,” said Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center. “It will be done,” he said.
Some of the most important back-to-school business may not be on the docket yet. This includes anything related to President Trump and the upcoming presidential election.
In 2020, the Supreme Court carefully avoided getting drawn into a legal battle over President Trump’s election sabotage efforts, but will it do so this time? “The 8,000-pound gorilla at stake this term is the election,” Vladek said.
He added: “It’s not hard to imagine that major election-related cases will come to the court, and Chief Justice John Roberts will be a central figure in resolving them.”
Mr. Roberts will likely be the central figure in any case involving Mr. Trump’s federal prosecution. Last month, a surprising leak to the New York Times revealed that Mr. Roberts personally directed the court’s controversial approach to presidential immunity, writing a memo to eight of his fellow justices in which he charged Mr. Trump with It was revealed that he had explained the issue of granting protection from the government.
Roberts’ surprising behind-the-scenes intervention could move the court toward similar involvement by Roberts in a series of lawsuits expected after Election Day on Nov. 5, should Democratic candidate Kamala Harris win by a narrow margin. There is a growing expectation that there is a possibility that this will be induced. “The question is which Mr. Roberts will emerge, the one who was cautious in the 2020 election, or the one who moved sharply to the right last season?” Vladek said.
The court may also have to deal with federal prosecutions against President Trump, particularly his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Following the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling, the lawsuit seeks to distinguish between Trump’s public conduct, for which the court has granted him broad protection, and his private conduct, which he should protect. It was remanded to the judge. Criminal liability still remains.
On Wednesday, a 165-page filing from special counsel Jack Smith was unsealed that prosecutors said detailed why Trump should still stand trial. This would pave the way for the case to return to the Supreme Court for a final decision.
As if the prospects for mass gun violence and seismic activity regarding the election and Trump prosecution weren’t dizzying enough, the court will also take up a case this term regarding health care access for transgender youth. The case, United States v. Scumetti, arose from Tennessee Senate Bill 1 (SB1), which prohibits doctors from prescribing puberty blockers and hormones to transgender people under the age of 18.
All major medical and mental health organizations in the United States support evidence-based medicine for transgender people. These include the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychiatric Association.
The justices are being asked to decide whether the ban violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides equal protection under the law. Their decisions could have far-reaching implications, possibly extending to the rights and bodily autonomy of all Americans facing government bans.
“Transgender children and their families are already being targeted in many ways, including their ability to attend school, play sports, and use the restroom,” said Deborah Archer, a law professor at New York University. “It’s certainly going to have a ripple effect on the state.” President of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The ACLU also filed a potentially precedent-setting case in court this term relating to First Amendment free speech rights and the Internet. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton would force websites with more than a third of their content to be pornographic or content deemed “harmful to minors” to require users to provide proof of age before entering. Relates to Texas law requiring
The ACLU and other plaintiffs argue that this is a burden on adults’ First Amendment rights to view sexual content and could have other serious consequences. “Throughout history, we have seen access to supposedly adult content restricted in order to push LGBTQ content into the shadows and deny sexual and reproductive information.” said Mr. Archer.
More major incidents will once again threaten U.S. environmental protection. The justices are considering several cases, including whether to ease requirements that federal agencies consider the environmental effects of their actions and eliminate regulations that prevent toxic pollution from waters. We plan to consider this.
All these cases, and many more, will be heard in court under a dark ethical cloud. In recent months, individual justices, particularly Mr. Thomas and fellow right-winger Samuel Alito, have made headlines about Mr. Thomas’s lavish trips paid for by Republican megadonors and the $900 worth of opera he received from a German princess. has faced criticism over issues such as free tickets.
Amid the storm, the justices adopted their first ethics code last November. However, it is widely lamented that it is ineffective as it lacks an independent enforcement mechanism and is completely self-regulated.
Joe Biden raised the bar in July by calling for 18-year term limits for judges currently holding lifetime judgeships. He also proposed a binding code of ethics.
“Concerns about the ethical conduct of judges persist and we expect them to remain a major topic of conversation throughout the coming term,” said Gabe Ross, executive director of the nonpartisan reform group Fix the Court. said.
Ross added: “In a democracy, it’s natural to question the morality of those who wield so much power.”
