#SCOTUS could decide cases related to #Trump, #abortions & more
The #SupremeCourt will return to the bench starting at 10 a.m. Friday to release its next round of 2024 decisions, with about a dozen major rulings expected over the next week or so. The justices do not say in advance which opinions will be released
#Law
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/21/supreme-court-decisions-rulings-trump-abortion-social-media/
There are about a dozen major rulings expected over the next week or so. The justices do not say in advance which opinions will be released.
Among the most anticipated #SCOTUS decisions are cases involving #Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution & whether #Jan6, 2021, #insurgents were properly charged, as well as cases on emergency #abortion care, the #opioid crisis, #homelessness, #FreeSpeech on #SocialMedia platforms & #gun rights.
First up, a #WaterRights case, #Texas v #NewMexico & #Colorado. Justice #KetanjiBrownJackson has the opinion. There’s a divided ruling with Justices #ClarenceThomas, Samuel A. #Alito Jr. & #AmyConeyBarrett joining a #dissent by Justice Neil M. #Gorsuch.
Next up, an #immigration case: Department of #State v. Munoz. Justice #AmyConeyBarrett has the opinion, & the three liberals — Justices Sonia #Sotomayor, Elena #Kagan & #KetanjiBrownJackson — #dissented. Now on to the second box of opinions.
The third case decision announced this morning is also NOT one of the high-profile cases that we have been closely tracking. It involves the federal #criminal #sentencing statute — #Erlinger v. U.S.
Justice Neil M. #Gorsuch has the opinion. An interesting combination in #dissent: Justices Brett M. #Kavanaugh, Samuel A. #Alito Jr. & #KetanjiBrownJackson.
Interestingly, in her #dissent in the #immigration case, Department of #State v. Munoz, Justice Sonia #Sotomayor says #SCOTUS’ decision will most heavily burden #SameSex couples. She cites #Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark 2015 case that established a fundamental right to same-sex #marriage.
The fourth ruling announced this morning is Smith v. #Arizona, on the right of #criminal defendants to #CrossExamine #witnesses. All of these cases are important, of course. But none so far are the biggest cases of the term. Justice Elena #Kagan has the opinion, w/a unanimous-ish court agreeing w/the final judgment. There are many concurrences, which are written by justices who agree w/the outcome of the decision but disagree on certain aspects.
Decision on the #gun rights case:
#SCOTUS upholds the federal statute.
8-1 #ClarenceThomas dissented
This is a #2A case, about whether individuals who are guilty of #DomesticAbuse can have access to #guns.
When an individual has been found to be a threat that individual may be temporarily disarmed.
Note on #Rahimi:
#ClarenceThomas wrote the majority in NYSRPA v. #Bruen & was the sole dissent in today’s decision.
Bruen’s ruled a #NewYork #law was unconstitutional & that carrying a gun in public was a constitutional right guaranteed by #2A.
#SCOTUS said states are allowed to enforce "#ShallIssue" permitting, where #ConcealedCarry applicants must satisfy criteria, like #BackgroundChecks, but "#MayIssue" systems using "arbitrary" evaluations by local authorities are unconstitutional.
After #Bruen, multiple lawsuits involving #GunRegulations were filed.
In his #Rahimi dissent, #ClarenceThomas writes:
“…if the #SecondAmendment right was historically understood to allow an ofcl to disarm anyone he deemed 'dangerous,' it may follow that modern Congresses can do the same...
“…Yet, historical context compels the opposite conclusion. The Second Amendment stems from English resistance against 'dangerous' person laws.”
A #Texas court found that #Rahimi had “committed family violence” & that such violence was “likely to occur again in the future.” It issued a protective order [aka #RestrainingOrder] that suspended Rahimi’s #GunLicense, prohibited him from having #guns & warned him that possessing a #firearm while the order remained in effect might be a federal #felony.
Rahimi later violated the protective order & was involved in 5 shootings between Dec 2020 & Jan 2021.
In early 2021, #Rahimi was arrested at his #Texas home, & police found:
“a .45-caliber #pistol, a .308-caliber #rifle, #magazines, #ammunition, & a copy of the protective order.”
He was charged w/illegally possessing a #weapon since he had a #RestrainingOrder against him.
Rahimi argued in federal #court that he had the right to possess #guns, but a judge ruled against him on that issue. Afterward, he pleaded guilty to the federal charge & received a sentence of 6 yrs in prison.
#Rahimi continued to challenge the #law, & the (insanely #conservative #ActivistCourt] US Court of Appeals for the #5thCircuit reheard his case after #SCOTUS’ #Bruen ruling in which Justice #ClarenceThomas established a test for #GunLaws in his opinion: new restrictions on ownership MUST have a parallel in American HISTORY.
The unanimous 5th Circuit panel found that Rahimi was among those whose right to a weapon is protected by the #SecondAmendment.
The #5thCircuit rejected the historical comparisons that the government offered to justify the #law barring those w/a #RestrainingOrder from possessing #guns.
Today, #SCOTUS, overturned that decision & said the #Constitution permits #laws that bar individuals deemed dangerous from #GunPossession.
In this decision, #ClarenceThomas uses w/the #Bruen “historical parallel” standard. He says that the #DangerousPersons categorization in English law granted individuals the right to bear arms for the purpose of protecting themselves AGAINST dangerous persons, but does not grant the government to take guns away from dangerous persons & so it doesn’t apply.
Rahimi ruling:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
(Thomas dissent begins on p.72)
What seriously pisses me off about #ClarenceThomas’s dissenting opinion is that he’s basically arguing that we can’t use the #precedent English #law to TAKE AWAY individuals’ #GunRights, but guess what? That’s exactly what they did in #Dobbs. They took away #WomensRights to #ReproductiveHealthcare based on a bunch of bullshit.
@Nonilex skimming through Dobbs, Alito also seems pretty skeptical of applying British law to that question.
So it seems pretty consistent.
When interpreting American law they look to American context primarily.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
