SCOTUS Watch

[stessier]

Gorsuch was on a roll today with regards to patent cases - writing the majority opinion in SAS that the USPTO must consider and rule on all claims challenged in an IPR, and writing a scathing dissent (joined by Roberts) about how IPRs should be considered unconstitutional in Oil States.

Linky?

Check out Scotusblog for all the decisions.

[Pyperkub]

It's also nice to see the reasoning was along the lines of the government can attach strings to the things it grants and that patents are inherently personal property.

I don't think you read the decision properly:

he big question, then, was which category a patent fell into. The court's seven-member majority ruled that patents are "public rights"—rights granted by government and subject to subsequent revision by the executive branch. The IPR process, the majority wrote, involves "reconsideration of the government's decision to grant a public franchise." In other words, it's more like a government-granted privilege to run a toll bridge than it is like your property right in your home.

[stessier]

It's also nice to see the reasoning was along the lines of the government can attach strings to the things it grants and that patents aren't inherently personal property.

I don't think you read the decision properly:

he big question, then, was which category a patent fell into. The court's seven-member majority ruled that patents are "public rights"—rights granted by government and subject to subsequent revision by the executive branch. The IPR process, the majority wrote, involves "reconsideration of the government's decision to grant a public franchise." In other words, it's more like a government-granted privilege to run a toll bridge than it is like your property right in your home.

Sorry, it was a typo. Stupid fast fingers.

[pr0ner]

Gorsuch was on a roll today with regards to patent cases - writing the majority opinion in SAS that the USPTO must consider and rule on all claims challenged in an IPR, and writing a scathing dissent (joined by Roberts) about how IPRs should be considered unconstitutional in Oil States.

Linky?

SCOTUSBlog

In case someone else wants a direct link - I saw you addressed some of it already.

[pr0ner]

Why's that?

Because I think the IPR is an important bandaid to many of the current patent issues and didn't want to see it go away. It's also nice to see the reasoning was along the lines of the government can attach strings to the things it grants and that patents aren't inherently personal property.

Edit: typo

So I'm a little confused - you're happy that Gorsuch thinks that IPRs are unconstitutional (which is what his dissent is saying), and you're also happy he thinks IPRs should focus on all the claims that were challenged?

FYI, quite a few "oh the sky is falling" types on a couple of patent blogs I read abhor IPRs and think it's a sign that the patent system is dying (or already dead).

[Pyperkub]

It's also nice to see the reasoning was along the lines of the government can attach strings to the things it grants and that patents aren't inherently personal property.

I don't think you read the decision properly:

he big question, then, was which category a patent fell into. The court's seven-member majority ruled that patents are "public rights"—rights granted by government and subject to subsequent revision by the executive branch. The IPR process, the majority wrote, involves "reconsideration of the government's decision to grant a public franchise." In other words, it's more like a government-granted privilege to run a toll bridge than it is like your property right in your home.

Sorry, it was a typo. Stupid fast fingers.

Thanks - makes a lot more sense now.

[stessier]

Why's that?

Because I think the IPR is an important bandaid to many of the current patent issues and didn't want to see it go away. It's also nice to see the reasoning was along the lines of the government can attach strings to the things it grants and that patents aren't inherently personal property.

Edit: typo

So I'm a little confused - you're happy that Gorsuch thinks that IPRs are unconstitutional (which is what his dissent is saying), and you're also happy he thinks IPRs should focus on all the claims that were challenged?

FYI, quite a few "oh the sky is falling" types on a couple of patent blogs I read abhor IPRs and think it's a sign that the patent system is dying (or already dead).

I'm not sure where you get that reasoning. I'm glad he is in the minority because I abhor his thinking on IPRs. I also didn't say anything about his decision in SAS. I have to read some more about it - I tend to want to lean toward what is more cost effective, but don't fully understand why he said what he said.

I disagree with the blogs you frequent (in terms of IPRs). I'm undecided if I'd mourn current patent system vanishing.

[pr0ner]

Why's that?

Because I think the IPR is an important bandaid to many of the current patent issues and didn't want to see it go away. It's also nice to see the reasoning was along the lines of the government can attach strings to the things it grants and that patents aren't inherently personal property.

Edit: typo

So I'm a little confused - you're happy that Gorsuch thinks that IPRs are unconstitutional (which is what his dissent is saying), and you're also happy he thinks IPRs should focus on all the claims that were challenged?

FYI, quite a few "oh the sky is falling" types on a couple of patent blogs I read abhor IPRs and think it's a sign that the patent system is dying (or already dead).

I'm not sure where you get that reasoning. I'm glad he is in the minority because I abhor his thinking on IPRs. I also didn't say anything about his decision in SAS. I have to read some more about it - I tend to want to lean toward what is more cost effective, but don't fully understand why he said what he said.

I disagree with the blogs you frequent (in terms of IPRs). I'm undecided if I'd mourn current patent system vanishing.

Ahh, I see your point now. Appreciate the clarification.

I think with SAS, he's saying that if you have to have IPRs, the PTAB at the PTO has to rule on every claim that's challenged as part of the IPR. Before, they were picking and choosing which claims they ruled on (i.e. not every claim in every IPR).

The people at the patent blogs abhor IPRs because they think it's a way for small inventors to get shit on by big business because they can afford the IPR process and small inventors can't really afford frequent challenges. Then again, there's a lot of wild conspiracy theories bandied about in the comments that I just laugh at (like how Google is trying to control the PTO and the Federal Circuit), so I take a lot of what they say with a grain of salt.

[Pyperkub]

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court in favor of the Trump Administration's Travel ban apparently include this little nugget:

Attorney representing the Trump Administration concludes oral arguments re: Muslim ban by saying 45 has praised “Islam as one of the great countries of the world.’

Link includes draft transcript segment of it.

Another link to the transcript (can search for great countries).

[Zarathud]

America once was appalled that a Vice President couldn't spell Potato. Now the President can't tell a religion from a country.

Sad.

[Isgrimnur]

Probably on deck for SCOTUS soon: warrantless forensic border searches

In a victory for privacy rights at the border, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit today ruled that forensic searches of electronic devices carried out by border agents without any suspicion that the traveler has committed a crime violate the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling in U.S. v. Kolsuz is the first federal appellate case after the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Riley v. California (2014) to hold that certain border device searches require individualized suspicion that the traveler is involved in criminal wrongdoing. Two other federal appellate opinions this year—from the Fifth Circuit and Eleventh Circuit—included strong analyses by judges who similarly questioned suspicionless border device searches.
...
The Fourth Circuit’s ruling applies only to forensic, not manual, searches of electronic devices at the border because Kolsuz only challenged the use of the evidence obtained from the forensic search of his cell phone in his prosecution. “We have no occasion here to consider whether Riley calls into question the permissibility of suspicionless manual searches of digital devices at the border,” the court said.

While we're heartened that the Fourth Circuit left open the possibility that manual searches may also require individualized suspicion, we disagree with the court’s unsupported statement that “the distinction between manual and forensic searches is a perfectly manageable one,” given that manual searches of electronic devices enable government agents to access virtually the same personal information as forensic searches.
...
The Kolsuz court recognized the unique privacy interests that travelers have in their digital data and thus held, “particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley,” that forensic border device searches are “non-routine” searches that require “some form of individualized suspicion.” The Fourth Circuit quoted Supreme Court precedent and concluded that forensic border device searches are “highly intrusive” searches that infringe the “dignity and privacy interests” of individuals. The court noted, “The key to Riley’s reasoning is its express refusal to treat [cell] phones as just another form of container….”

Importantly, the Fourth Circuit also left open the possibility that forensic border device searches may require the highest standard of individualized suspicion under the Fourth Amendment: “What precisely that standard should be—whether reasonable suspicion is enough… or whether there must be a warrant based on probable cause… is a question we need not resolve.”

[Moliere]

Unions Could Lose 726,000 Members if Mark Janus Wins His Supreme Court Case

The Illinois Economic Policy Institute estimates that 726,000 workers would choose to stop paying dues if they had that choice, which public sector workers in many states currently do not. That could change after the U.S. Supreme Court announces a ruling—likely to come next month—in the much watched Janus v. AFSCME case. The plaintiff in that case, Mark Janus, has asked the court to release him from paying mandatory "fair share fees" to a union that represents him even though he has not joined it.

With the current composition of the high court, unions are bracing for a decision that would potentially cut off lucrative revenue streams. A ruling in Janus' favor could require unions to do what all other non-government entities already have to do: convince people to voluntarily support their activities.

The loss of union members and their dues could be particularly challenging in blue states, according to the IEPI report. Public sector union membership would decrease by an estimated 189,000 members in California, 136,000 members in New York, and 49,000 members in Illinois.

[pr0ner]

Regarding sports betting:

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court rules that federal ban on state-sanctioned sports betting is unconstitutional. Decides case in favor of New Jersey. Floodgates now officially open for other states to allow sports betting. #RIPPASPA

[The Meal]

STATEMENT BY TED LEONSIS ON THE SUPREME COURT DECISION TO REPEAL PASPA

May 14, 2018

Stats have always been the lifeblood of sports fandom, and a fan today has more stats available to digest and analyze than was imaginable even a decade ago: player movements, biometrics, hyper-detailed opponent history. Data analytics have become integral to teams’ success – but also to diehard fans’ enjoyment of the game.

So, the Supreme Court’s decision today to repeal the federal ban on sports betting and clear the way for legalized sports betting across the country is in many ways the logical outgrowth of fans’ obsession with data. It brings a multibillion dollar industry out of the shadows and into the sunlight, where its integrity can be guaranteed and consumers can be better protected. I believe today’s decision will change the face of sports fandom for the better.

Sports betting is built on a rock-solid foundation of data, plain and simple. The more data a fan has about a player or a team, the better he or she can predict the outcome of a game, or a possession or a play. And as our data analytics have gotten better, sports betting has only gotten more popular. A 2017 gaming industry study estimated that offshore bookmakers are earning $2.5-$3 billion from people in the U.S who are betting illegally. The same report suggested that about 12-15 million Americans are currently active illegal bettors – and they don’t include “casual” or “social” bettors in that count. The appetite for sports betting is there, and now, instead of offshore bookmakers reaping the benefits, we have a pathway to bring this revenue into the US economy – and to ensure that Americans aren’t getting ripped off when they place their bets.

Think about it this way: Wall Street is another industry that’s all about data. It’s about making informed decisions about what the market will do based on the data you have available to you. And there are tremendous safeguards in place to protect consumers – the SEC, for example – to ensure that trading happens on a level playing field. Sports betting is no different. Today’s decision paves the way for the implementation of safeguards against fraud in sports betting, including things like licensing betting operators to ensure they are legitimate and regulated monitoring of betting lines.

Many ask if this decision will impact the integrity of sports themselves. I think it’s just the opposite. I think that the increased transparency that will accompany more legalized betting around the country will only further protect against potential corruption. They say sunlight is the best disinfectant, and in this case I believe that is certainly true.

Of course, there are a huge number of questions about how today’s decision will play out across different states and throughout the different leagues. I don’t claim to know all of those answers today, but what I do know is that this is a new frontier for professional sports and teams who don’t seize on this opportunity will be left behind. As millennials and Gen Z continue to embrace the second screen, it’s not hard to imagine in the near future fans on their devices analyzing data, placing bets and communicating with each other in real time during games. Legalized sports betting will only bring fans closer to the game, ramping up the action in each minute and creating more intensity. It will bring new revenue into the economy, creating jobs and growing our tax base. Today’s decision is a great one for sports fans and I am eager to embrace it.

[Isgrimnur]

EFF

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled yesterday in Byrd v. United States that the driver of a rental car could have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car even though the rental agreement did not authorize him to drive it. We’re pleased that that the Court refused to let a private contract dictate Fourth Amendment rights in this case, and we hope it’s instructive to other courts, particularly those confronted with the argument that terms of service undermine users’ expectation of privacy in third party email.
...
In Byrd, state troopers stopped Terrence Byrd while he was driving a rental car alone on a Pennsylvania interstate. Once the troopers realized he was not an authorized driver, they went ahead and searched the car, finding body armor and 49 bricks of heroin in the trunk. Byrd challenged the search on Fourth Amendment grounds, but both lower courts ruled that he did not have a Fourth Amendment interest in a car that he was not authorized by the rental company to drive. The Supreme Court disagreed.

The Court explained that as in any Fourth Amendment case, the starting point is to determine whether the individual has demonstrated a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the place searched.
...
The Court compared him to the defendant in a 1960 case called Jones v. United States ... in which the defendant was staying alone in an apartment rented by his friend and was allowed to contest an illegal search by the police. In both cases, the defendants were the sole occupants of the place searched, so they had “dominion and control” and the “right to exclude” others from it. In light of this, Justice Kennedy wrote that there was “no reason” that an expectation of privacy should depend on “whether the car in question is rented or privately owned by someone other than the person in current possession of it.” As a result, the Court remanded for a determination of exactly whether Byrd’s possession of the car was lawful or whether he had a friend rent it as an illegal pretext.

Perhaps the more interesting question in the case, however, was whether the Budget Rent a Car agreement that Byrd’s friend signed before giving him the keys should have negated Byrd’s expectation of privacy in the car. That agreement provided in capital letters that permitting an unauthorized driver to drive the car was a violation of the rental contract that could void its coverage. The government argued that this provision automatically nullified Byrd’s expectation of privacy in the car.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court refused to go down this road. “As anyone who has rented a car knows, car-rental agreements are filled with long lists of restrictions,” including things like “driving the car on unpaved roads or driving while using a handheld cellphone. Few would contend that violating provisions like these has anything to do with a driver’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car.” There might even be “innocuous” reasons to do something that voids the agreement, like allowing an unauthorized driver, such as when the official renter is too drunk to drive. At the end of the day, the Court wrote, rental agreements concern “risk allocation between private parties,” not someone’s expectation of privacy.

[Pyperkub]

STATEMENT BY TED LEONSIS ON THE SUPREME COURT DECISION TO REPEAL PASPA

May 14, 2018

Stats have always been the lifeblood of sports fandom, and a fan today has more stats available to digest and analyze than was imaginable even a decade ago: player movements, biometrics, hyper-detailed opponent history. Data analytics have become integral to teams’ success – but also to diehard fans’ enjoyment of the game.

So, the Supreme Court’s decision today to repeal the federal ban on sports betting and clear the way for legalized sports betting across the country is in many ways the logical outgrowth of fans’ obsession with data. It brings a multibillion dollar industry out of the shadows and into the sunlight, where its integrity can be guaranteed and consumers can be better protected. I believe today’s decision will change the face of sports fandom for the better.

Sports betting is built on a rock-solid foundation of data, plain and simple. The more data a fan has about a player or a team, the better he or she can predict the outcome of a game, or a possession or a play. And as our data analytics have gotten better, sports betting has only gotten more popular. A 2017 gaming industry study estimated that offshore bookmakers are earning $2.5-$3 billion from people in the U.S who are betting illegally. The same report suggested that about 12-15 million Americans are currently active illegal bettors – and they don’t include “casual” or “social” bettors in that count. The appetite for sports betting is there, and now, instead of offshore bookmakers reaping the benefits, we have a pathway to bring this revenue into the US economy – and to ensure that Americans aren’t getting ripped off when they place their bets.

Think about it this way: Wall Street is another industry that’s all about data. It’s about making informed decisions about what the market will do based on the data you have available to you. And there are tremendous safeguards in place to protect consumers – the SEC, for example – to ensure that trading happens on a level playing field. Sports betting is no different. Today’s decision paves the way for the implementation of safeguards against fraud in sports betting, including things like licensing betting operators to ensure they are legitimate and regulated monitoring of betting lines.

Many ask if this decision will impact the integrity of sports themselves. I think it’s just the opposite. I think that the increased transparency that will accompany more legalized betting around the country will only further protect against potential corruption. They say sunlight is the best disinfectant, and in this case I believe that is certainly true.

Of course, there are a huge number of questions about how today’s decision will play out across different states and throughout the different leagues. I don’t claim to know all of those answers today, but what I do know is that this is a new frontier for professional sports and teams who don’t seize on this opportunity will be left behind. As millennials and Gen Z continue to embrace the second screen, it’s not hard to imagine in the near future fans on their devices analyzing data, placing bets and communicating with each other in real time during games. Legalized sports betting will only bring fans closer to the game, ramping up the action in each minute and creating more intensity. It will bring new revenue into the economy, creating jobs and growing our tax base. Today’s decision is a great one for sports fans and I am eager to embrace it.

This is going to be a huge change in America, IMHO. A true bellwether decision in opening floodgates.

[Blackhawk]

Bye, what's left of Reno.

[Isgrimnur]

Employment arbitration

In 1925, Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act, which (among other things) provides that an agreement to arbitrate a dispute “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” Ten years later, Congress enacted the National Labor Relations Act, which makes clear that employees have the right to work together for “mutual aid and protection.” Today the Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 5-4, that employers can include a clause in their employment contracts that requires employees to arbitrate their disputes individually, and to waive the right to resolve those disputes through joint legal proceedings instead. Although it likely won’t garner the attention that some of this term’s other cases will receive, the decision was a huge victory for employers, because it could significantly reduce the number of claims against them.

Today’s opinion resolved three cases that were argued together on the first day of the term: Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA. Each arose when an employee who had signed an employment agreement that contained an arbitration provision filed a lawsuit in federal court, seeking to bring both individual and collective claims. The employers argued that, under the terms of the arbitration agreements, the employees needed to go to individual arbitrations, and today the Supreme Court agreed.
...
The majority concluded that, although it “may be debatable” whether the result it reaches is a sound policy, “the law is clear.” Congress can always pass new legislation to reach a different result, the majority pointed out, but it is not the Supreme Court’s job to “substitute its preferred economic policies for those chosen by the people’s representatives.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the relatively rare step of reading her dissent – which was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – from the bench. Criticizing the majority’s decision as “egregiously wrong,” Ginsburg lamented that today’s ruling will lead to “the underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of vulnerable workers,” because it will rarely be worthwhile for individual employees to pursue their own claims.

[malchior]

The dissent referenced above threw enormous shade at the majority. Basically she implied that the majority found the bare minimum legal argument to fit their vote to get the desired outcome. The implication is pretty clear employers have little reason to not push a piece of paper in front of everyone to sign away their right to fight about a variety of labor issues in court or not be employed. The oligarchs win again.

[Isgrimnur]

Ohio

Conservatives on the Supreme Court on Monday upheld Ohio’s method of purging voters from the rolls after they miss elections, a move that challengers of the law said would disproportionately remove poor and minority voters.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority in the 5 to 4 decision, said Ohio’s disputed process met the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act.
...
The decision came under immediate criticism, not just from dissenters on the court but from liberal groups who said it gave states a green light to impose procedures that studies have shown disproportionately impact the poor and minorities, who tend to move more often.
...
Unlike many voting cases that come before the court, Monday’s case centered not on grand constitutional principles but on interpreting seemingly contradictory directives of federal law.

The NVRA prohibits removing voters simply because they failed to vote. But it also calls on states to keep accurate rolls and allows removal when a person fails to respond to a request to confirm registration and then fails to vote in two federal elections.

Ohio sends a notice after a voter skips a single federal election cycle. If they fail to respond and do not vote in the next four years, their names are removed from the rolls.

Alito Jr. said the Ohio process complies with federal directives.

“It does not strike any registrant solely by reason of the failure to vote,” he wrote. “Instead, as expressly permitted by federal law, it removes registrants only when they have failed to vote and have failed to respond to a change-of-residence notice.”

[Isgrimnur]

Minnesota

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Minnesota’s ban on wearing “political” apparel to polling places on Election Day, saying that the state’s intentions may be good but that its law was too broad and open to differing interpretations.

The 7 to 2 decision written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was careful not to cast constitutional doubt on restrictions every state imposes to protect the solemnity of the voting booth.

But Minnesota’s prohibition on the wearing of a “political badge, political button or other political insignia” raised more questions than it answered, Roberts wrote, and gave too much discretion to election judges trying to figure out what counted as “political” and what did not.
...
The Supreme Court decided 25 years ago that states could ban electioneering and distributing campaign materials within 100 feet of polling places, and all states have restrictions.

But Minnesota and nine other states go further. Minnesota’s clothing and button ban has been interpreted to include the names of political parties, candidates, support for or opposition to a ballot question; materials designed to influence voting; and the promotion of groups with recognizable political views, such as unions, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other organizations.
...
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen G. Breyer dissented. They said the court should have first given the Minnesota Supreme Court a chance to interpret the law, and perhaps given election judges more guidance on what the law covered.

All justices agreed that states may impose restrictions on speech at polling places.

[Sepiche]

Looks like I'm going to be re-writing part of our tax processing code soon:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... c74315d3d0

A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states may require online retailers to collect billions of dollars of sales tax revenue owed to them.

[Isgrimnur]

More retailers are collecting, including 19 of the 20 largest, regardless of whether they have a physical presence in the state, according to briefs filed in the case. Included in that group is Amazon, as well as Walmart, Target and Apple. (Amazon CEO Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

Three large retailers — Wayfair, Overstock and Newegg — do not, and South Dakota sued them for failing to collect taxes after the state’s law went into effect.

[Isgrimnur]

Guardian

A US supreme court ruling issued Friday barred police from accessing cell phone data such as call listings and location data without first obtaining a search warrant, in a landmark decision in favor of privacy protections.

Advocates hailed the 5-4 ruling as a victory for personal privacy rights in an age when digital technology and the widespread use of mobile devices could create easy paths for law enforcement or other state bodies into the most intimate corners of private life.
...
The court ruling left open that collecting less than seven days of cell-site records may not be a search, noted Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of Southern California, on Twitter.

Chief justice John Roberts was joined by the court’s four liberal-leaning justices in writing for the majority in the case, Carpenter v United States. The four dissenting justices each wrote a separate dissent.

In one section of his opinion, Roberts quoted fellow justice Samuel Alito, who had written on behalf of privacy protections in an earlier ruling but dissented in the Carpenter case.

“Prior to the digital age, law enforcement might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so ‘for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken’,” Roberts wrote. “For that reason, ’society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not – and indeed, in the main, simply could not – secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.”

[Fitzy]

I find comfort from the Supreme Court not being a predictable 4-4 with Kennedy jumping from ship to ship. Sometimes the judges surprise me.

[Rip]

Guardian

A US supreme court ruling issued Friday barred police from accessing cell phone data such as call listings and location data without first obtaining a search warrant, in a landmark decision in favor of privacy protections.

Advocates hailed the 5-4 ruling as a victory for personal privacy rights in an age when digital technology and the widespread use of mobile devices could create easy paths for law enforcement or other state bodies into the most intimate corners of private life.
...
The court ruling left open that collecting less than seven days of cell-site records may not be a search, noted Orin Kerr, a law professor at the University of Southern California, on Twitter.

Chief justice John Roberts was joined by the court’s four liberal-leaning justices in writing for the majority in the case, Carpenter v United States. The four dissenting justices each wrote a separate dissent.

In one section of his opinion, Roberts quoted fellow justice Samuel Alito, who had written on behalf of privacy protections in an earlier ruling but dissented in the Carpenter case.

“Prior to the digital age, law enforcement might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so ‘for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken’,” Roberts wrote. “For that reason, ’society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not – and indeed, in the main, simply could not – secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.”

[gbasden]

I'm moderately shocked that after 1 year, 153 days, 13 hours, 55 minutes and 26 seconds Trump's government has done something that isn't morally bankrupt, a sellout to corporate interests or a shitshow of the highest caliber. Well done!

[Chaz]

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the SCOTUS is part of Trump's government, or that Trump should get any credit for this.

[gbasden]

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the SCOTUS is part of Trump's government, or that Trump should get any credit for this.

Well, with Gorsuch taking the stolen seat, the majority of the court is (R). Of course, I don't think they can take much credit for this as it was the four members of the liberal wing and John Roberts who crafted this opinion. The "conservative" wing of thhe court was more than happy to sell out the 4th amendment and let law enforcement track us on a whim.

[Defiant]

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would not stop South Dakota from killing a man who may have been sentenced to death because he is gay.

Some of the jurors who imposed the death penalty on Charles Rhines, who was convicted of murder, have said they thought the alternative — a life sentence served in a men’s prison — was something he would enjoy as a gay man.

Juror deliberations are considered sacrosanct, but last year the Supreme Court carved out an important exception for cases of racial bias in the jury room. In a race discrimination case, there was evidence that the jury decided to convict an accused man of unlawful sexual contact and harassment because “he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want,” in the words of one juror. The Supreme Court rightly found that such racial animus interfered with an accused’s person right to a fair and impartial trial.

It’s difficult to square allowing the state to execute Mr. Rhines because of his sexual orientation with the Supreme Court’s observation this month that states should prevent the harms of discrimination against L.G.B.T. people. And while bias in the criminal justice system is not always explicit, it was in Mr. Rhines’s case. That makes the court’s decision not to step in even more alarming.

link

[Isgrimnur]

Texas

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that one congressional district in Texas was drawn in a way that influenced the number of Hispanic and African-American voters in that district, but that three other districts in the challenged map did not violate the law.

In the case, Abbott v. Perez, the court had to decide whether to overturn a Texas state court’s decision concerning congressional and state political districts redrawn after the 2010 census.

The decision upholds Texas' latest congressional map against challenges that said lawmakers drew the boundaries to intentionally suppress votes from minority communities.
...
The decision reversed a lower court's ruling that the challenged districts were all unlawfully gerrymandered, saying that the three-judge federal court "committed a fundamental legal error" when they ruled that the state's district map based on the 2010 Census was unlawful.
...
The justices said that Texas House District 90, which surrounds Fort Worth, Texas, is an "impermissible racial gerrymander" because the Texas legislature changed it to manipulate the percent of the district made up of Hispanic and African-American voters.

[Captain Caveman]

A 5-4 decision. Mitch McConnell's theft of a SCOTUS seat pays off again.

[Isgrimnur]

Scotusblog life feed

Court says that it is reversing grant of preliminary injunction, sending case back to lower courts "for such further proceedings as may be appropriate."
...
Addresses the issue of the president's statements on excluding Muslims from the US. Says "the issue before us is not whether to denounce the statements. It is instead the significance of those statements in reviewing a Presidential directive, neutral on its face, addressing a matter within the core of executive responsibility."
...
Justice Kennedy's concurrence says, essentially, that there are some things that are unconstitutional that the Judiciary is not in a place to correct or address. It's subtext is pretty close to the surface, and seems designed to chastise the Executive while agreeing with the majority that there was not anything the Court could do about it.

[Fireball]

Driven by his deep-seated hatred of black people who do things other than bring him food, Mitch McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from Barack Obama, and the result may well be the death of both American democracy and American values.

[El Guapo]

Awful.

I will say that, reading the decision summary, the legal reasoning here is not crazy, even though the travel ban is bigoted and terrible. The statute gives the president broad authority to suspend a "class of aliens", with very little restrictions on that authority. A lot of the strength of the challenges against the travel ban comes from Trump's statements (outside the bounds of the travel ban itself), but how those statements should factor into the analysis of the ban is not a clear cut question.

In a perfect post-Trump world there would be a committee that would be charged with reviewing statutes that were written assuming good faith or competency in the presidency, and that should be rewritten to account for presidents like Trump.

[El Guapo]

Also, and this is stating the obvious, but McConnell is such an asshole.

[Captain Caveman]

Also, and this is stating the obvious, but McConnell is such an asshole.

Such a cynical bastard. When Trump first called for a ban on Muslims during the campaign, McConnell condemned him for it. But the SCOTUS seat open he kept open for him was just used to uphold the ban and Mitch now celebrates it because he owned the libs. His only principled commitment is to power, and that means embracing now what he once condemned. The establishment GOP has fully internalized Trumpism.

[malchior]

Another disgraceful day for the nation and sets up the stage for the President to ban others on thin pretexts as well. I'm sure that won't be abused.

[hepcat]

We're in full blown isolationism at this point. It doesn't exactly have a great track record for us...or anyone else, for that matter. Time will reveal why.

[El Guapo]

On the plus side, there are significant planned protests for this Saturday on the whole family separation thing. This seems like just the thing to supercharge those protests (that might have been muted somewhat by Trump sort of backing down on the family separation thing).