Public Rights Project’s Post

This article from The Intercept provides an overview of Judicial Redistricting, describing tactics designed to limit political power on the local level, including the dismissal of prosecutors for exercising their independent professional judgment when making charging decisions. This is a good time to also highlight The Public Rights Project, an organization dedicated to defending local autonomy through litigation. https://lnkd.in/dute73ZB

The Supreme Court The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. It has a lot of power and affects American politics in many ways. The Supreme Court is like a referee for the government. They make sure everyone follows the Constitution's rules, keep the different branches of government in check, and their big decisions can change the way things work in the US. Understanding the Supreme Court's role is paramount to comprehending the intricate web of American politics. The Supreme Court: Composition and Core Responsibilities The Supreme Court comprises nine justices: one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. These esteemed jurists are nominated by the President and undergo a rigorous confirmation process by the Senate. Once appointed, they hold lifetime tenure, ensuring their independence from political pressures. The Supreme Court's core responsibilities can be distilled into three fundamental pillars: Constitutional Interpretation: The Court acts as the ultimate interpreter of the U.S. Constitution. It has the authority to determine whether laws passed by Congress or actions taken by the President align with the Constitution's principles. This power, known as judicial review, is a cornerstone of American government. Checks and Balances: The Supreme Court serves as a crucial check against the power of the other two branches of government. By reviewing the constitutionality of laws and actions, the Court prevents any one branch from accumulating excessive power and ensures a healthy balance within the system. Final Authority in Legal Disputes: The Supreme Court is the final boss of US courts. Their decisions are the law of the land for everyone else, setting the rules for how judges decide cases across the country. The Supreme Court's Impact on American Politics The Supreme Court's decisions have a profound and lasting impact on American politics and society. Here's a closer look at some key aspects of this influence: Landmark Rulings Throughout history, the Supreme Court has issued landmark rulings that have fundamentally reshaped American life. These cases have addressed critical issues such as: Civil Rights: The Court has played a pivotal role in dismantling racial segregation and expanding civil liberties for all Americans. Landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education \(1954\) ended segregation in public schools, while Loving v. Virginia \(1967\) legalized interracial marriage. Abortion: Roe v. Wade \(1973\) established a woman's constitutional right to abortion, sparking ongoing debates about reproductive rights. Campaign Finance: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission \(2010\) significantly impacted campaign finance regulations, influencing the flow of money in elections. The Powers of the Presidency: The Court has weighed in on the scope of presidential authority, with cases like United States v. Nixon \(1974\...

Guest Commentary: The ACLU Is Challenging Anti-Trans Laws in Court, and by Building Community https://lnkd.in/geH7JvVE

#politics #unitedstates #nobelprize I am writing this from Brussels, Belgium having arrived here to participate in the Nobel dialog on democracy after voting early in Virginia as an unaffiliated non-partisan voter in the Republican Super Tuesday March 5th primary by choice for Nikki Haley and not Donald Trump. I had a nice dinner at a small and quiet Tibetan vegetarian restaurant 400 feet from my hotel. The Nobel dialog on democracy is also on March 5th, before March 8th, International Women's Rights Day. In the case filed by some Colorado voters to disqualify former president Donald Trump from the Colorado state Republican primary ballot on March 5, Super Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states do not have the authority to interpret the post-Civil War 14th Amendment or use it to remove a presidential candidate from the state ballot: "Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 [of the 14th Amendment] against federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse.” On the surface, this may appear to be a victory for Trump just as the Dobbs decision on abortion for hardline conservatives, the basis for the Court’s reasoning in both remains the same. It delineated states’ rights from federal authority in the Constitution very clearly. In Dobbs, it overturned Roe v. Wade saying appropriately that there is no constitutional right to abortion and left it to individual states to decide under their constitutions to what extent abortion may be allowed. In DONALD J. TRUMP, PETITIONER v. NORMA ANDERSON, ET AL. (https://lnkd.in/eAfdzKgk), the Court decided in converse to Dobbs that it is federal jurisdiction, in this case of the United States Congress and not of Colorado or any state to remove Trump from the ballot. Meaning: 1. After Dobbs, women must challenge the abortion laws in the states where they are citizens if they do not like them or leave the state to live in another state where they like the abortion laws. 2. After the Trump Colorado ballot case, Americans should call their members of Congress to get Trump off the ballot in their state. The Supreme Court of the United States did the right thing by the framers in both Dobbs and the ballot case. Now it is up to us the people and our elected representatives in the states and the Congress to decide what kind of country we want: democracy as Thomas Jefferson wanted or fascism as Donald Trump wants. The language of Amendment XIV Section 3 is very clear and requires a simple Congressional majority to remove him. In fact, it is already implicit in Section 3 that he should not be on the ballot. To undo it the Congress would need 2/3rds in House and Senate, a very high bar.

A short, interesting read about the Supreme Court's evolution.

#StateCourtReport's best kept secret is our state case database - with hundreds of notable state constitutional decisions since 2021 (and often hard-to-access briefing). Check out this primer on how use it by @nwatzman @DouglasKeith_ https://lnkd.in/dcw9NXNf .

An Insttution In Decline And Disrepair by Ruth Marcus Was this the term that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. adopted an if-you-can’t-beat-them-join-them posture with his fellow conservatives? It sure looks that way. Roberts began his tenure in 2005 with a vision of leading a court in which unanimous rulings, achieved through compromise and moderation, would supplant ideological division and undergird the stability of the law. The court would be understood as a body that transcended the partisan screeching endemic to other branches. Justices would suppress their inclinations to pen individual concurrences and dissents for the greater good of speaking for the court as an institution. This was made paradoxically more difficult by the amassing of a six-justice conservative supermajority. Roberts is willing to put ideology aside in the service of the greater good. The primary example of this was his 2012 vote, joining with the liberal justices, to save the Affordable Care Act. But with the arrival of three new conservatives, Roberts found himself in potential irrelevance. A chief justice's power lies mostly in the ability to assign opinion authorship when he is in the majority. Roberts, outflanked on the right, now has even less sway. The other conservatives could proceed without him. This possibility was made manifest in the 2022 abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, when Roberts could not secure any takers for his rather contrived compromise position, that the constitutional right to abortion would remain, but that the procedure could be prohibited after 15 weeks. As I wrote of Roberts in the aftermath of that decision: “He is a chief caught between conflicting imperatives. If he insists on hewing to the go-slow, decide-no-more-than-necessary approach that has been the hallmark of his tenure, he risks appearing weak — and losing what little ability he retains to influence and constrain the conservative majority. If he votes with that majority, as might be his underlying inclination in most cases, he risks contributing to what he has been laboring to prevent: the decline of the institution.” Nearly half of all cases, 46 percent, were decided unanimously this term, about the same as the previous year, and up dramatically from the 27 percent in the tumultuous 2021-2022 term that witnessed the abortion and gun-rights cases. In addition, even when the court split, the coalitions were often scrambled. As Adam Feldman of the website Empirical Scotus has reported, in situations where the court divided 6-3, only half (11 of 22) reflected a conservative-liberal split. By contrast, during the 2021 term, nearly three-fourths (14 of 19) of the 6-3 cases were along ideological lines. So, the court is polarized, to be sure, but not as badly this term as the year before. The question must be asked: What profits a chief to be in the majority if he presides over an institution in decline and disrepair? ©️Washington Post 2024

Check out this article I wrote surrounding the meaning of justice and reflecting on the new SC Supreme Court Justice! https://lnkd.in/evNjJk5m

Check out how 3 SCOTUS rulings have changed state judicial races https://lnkd.in/e7HuwN7G