Supreme decision

The New York Times reports that the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a set of legal challenges to states’ bans on performing or recognizing gay marriage. The decision reversed a trend of the court from earlier this term of letting these cases stand at the lower level. The difference this time was that the Court of Appeals in this specific case, the Sixth Circuit (MI, OH, KY, TN) recently upheld the constitutionality of the bans, thus creating a split at the appellate level.  The case will examine two basic questions. First, may a state ban gay marriage? Second, may a state refuse to recognize valid gay marriages performed in other states?

Most commentators expect the court to strike down the laws, thus bringing gay marriage nationwide (thus Texas). Two years ago, in the case Hollingsworth v. Perry, the court specifically punted on the issue and found the intervenor-plaintiffs lacking standing. And while Windsor v. United States, which struck down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act, largely relied upon federalism, it has been used as the primary vehicle for lower courts to strike down bans on constitutional grounds.

Last year, a District Court Judge in San Antonio struck down Texas’ ban on gay marriage, and a bipartisan panel of the 5th Circuit recently heard that challenge –and appeared willing to uphold that decision. Texas Monthly has a truly great article on that. Accordingly, even though gay marriage may very likely come nationwide by the end of June, it could come to Texas even before then.

Prognosticating on Supreme Court decisions is truly a fool’s errand. But just to be silly, I tend to think that the case will be 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the four liberals. Kennedy’s reasoning in Windsor would just be contradicted at a very basic level if he upheld bans. And Roberts, obsessed as he is with the court’s reputation, simply could not be in the dissent.

Every Governor in the Sixth Circuit is praying tonight that their state’s case is not selected, thus enshrining their name for posterity as the Ferguson, the Board of Education of Topeka, the Heart of Atlanta Motel for this generation.

This case, be it Obergefell v. Hodges, Tanco v. Haslam, DeBoer v. Snyder or Bourke v. Beshear, will go down in history as one of the preeminent civil rights cases of our time. I say bring it on!

Advertisements

Supreme Court blocks HB2

The US Supreme Court has ruled in emergency fashion that invaluable components of HB2, the omnibus anti-abortion bill that Wendy Davis famously filibustered, may be stayed until appeal. Specifically, a provision that required all clinics to adhere to the standards of ambulatory surgical centers was put on hold, as was another in part. The provision that requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital was set aside specifically for clinics in McAllen and El Paso, though not the rest of the State.

The ruling was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the four liberals. The three arch-conservatives, meanwhile, dissented from the order. As most will remember, a Federal Judge struck down these provisions a couple months back, but a Federal Appeals Court lifted the stay while it considered the appeal. The Supreme Court today merely reapplied the stay of the Federal District Judge in Austin who originally ruled the law unconstitutional, Lee Yeakel. Last year, Yeakel also ruled other provisions of the law unconstitutional, in a suit that similarly was reversed by the Appeals Court, although the Supreme Court pointedly chose not to reapply the stay in that case.

The implications here are, in a word, huge. As noted above, the Court has decidedly not stayed previous decisions, often 5-4 and along party lines. The two moderate conservatives on the Court, Roberts and Kennedy, have for some reason decided to shift views on the topic. Perhaps it is because the full effect of the case would reduce the number of clinics in Texas to just 5 or 6, a horrifying lower number per capita than other states included Mississippi, which has only one. Whatever the rationale, the implications of this decision are rather significant. For the first time, I am even cautiously optimistic that the law could be struck down by the Supreme Court upon final appeal (which is still likely years off).

Additionally, this development will likely take everyone’s mind off of that silly Wendy Davis ad, which has been eating up a significant portion of the 24/7 news cycle recently. As unfavorable to Davis as talking about abortion might be, I would still reckon it is leaps and bounds above the fallout over her wheelchair ad. Anyways, that’s my two-cents.

As for the clinics closed by this law, they can now re-open. Sagacious followers of the press will be familiar with stories of clinics closing overnight and cancelling dozens of appointments along with it. Those clinics can now re-open and, hopefully, women can continue receiving the healthcare options they need.

Civil Affairs: McCutcheon

Nearly two weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in a closely divided case — McCutcheon v. FEC — that political donors have the right to give a certain amount of money to as many candidates as they like. Previously, federal law had prevented a donor from providing the maximum donation ($2,600 for a candidate, $5,000 to a political action committee and $32,400 to a political party) to more than roughly 19 candidates or 15 PACs. Now, those donors can give those aforementioned individual limits to as many candidates, committees and interest groups as they wish.

The 5-4 decision rested upon the assertion that, under the First Amendment, money is tantamount to speech. Using that assumption, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that, despite its unpopularity, the right to give money to as many politicians as you choose is fundamentally constitutional. Of course, spending money should not be a universal right like worship or speech because not everyone has the pocketbook needed.

“Money in politics may, at times, seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” Roberts wrote in a decision joined by the four other justices nominated by Republican presidents. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

PLEASE SEE THE REST OF THIS COLUMN AT THE DAILY TEXAN!

Hobby Lobby case

First off, I invited my readers to gloss over profiles in both The New York Times and The Washington Post, which were both penned today on the infamous Hobby Lobby case. The case, which reached oral argument at the United States Supreme Court today, namely revolves around the “contraception mandate” in Obamacare. What this provision does, simply put, is to require employers cover birth control on their employee health insurance. However, big exceptions have been made for both religious institutions (i.e., churches) and non-profits with some religious influence (e.g., Catholic Schools or Hospitals). Today, Hobby Lobby –a privately run for-profit corporation– (along with another similar business) argues that it violates both the 1st Amendment and Federal Statutes to compel it to cover specific forms of birth control for their employees.

However, this is where the woeful misinformation of the mainstream press becomes all too pervasive. The argument Hobby Lobby makes IS NOT that they refuse to condone the casual sex allegedly resulting from contraception, it all has to do with abortion. Hobby Lobby specifically is condemning both emergency contraception (Plan B) and Intrauterine Devices (IUD), arguing they occur after fertilization, thus ending a unique life. The problem with this, of course, is that neither drug actually causes abortion.

 

Click here to read more!

Supreme Court does not block HB2

The Associated Press (via the Washington Post) reports that the Supreme Court has ruled, 5-4, to allow the omnibus anti-abortion law (HB2) to fully take effect before the Federal 5th Circuit hears the matter upon appeal early next year. The court’s opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the court could not overturn the Fifth Circuit unless they could decisively prove the court had erred. This opinion, however, was only joined by Clarence Thstaomas and Samuel Alito. Both Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, arguably the court’s most centrist Republican-appointees, did not join in the decision, leaving their opinions on the matter up in the air.

The law, which was famously filibustered by Wendy Davis, enacts four major provisions that all seek to reduce the numbers of abortions performed in Texas. Specifically, the constitutionality of the provision requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital was challenged in this case.

Click here to read more!

Fisher decision

The New York Times reports that the United States Supreme Court has come out with their ruling in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. Many months ago, I wrote an op-ed on this topic. I wrote shortly before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, where I repeated the assertion made often in the media at that time, that a 5-4 division of the Court would have struck affirmative action as unconstitutional.

That was before the court heard arguments, however. As this decision approached, I became convinced the Court would render an exceedingly narrow opinion, pertaining only to Texas because of the 10% rule, in a nearly unanimous manner. For the first time in many, many years, I was right about one of these things.

The Supreme Court held 7-1 that the Fifth Circuit had, indeed, erred in their ruling. However, they attributed this to the Appeals court incorrectly not applying heightened scrutiny to UT’s affirmative action program.  6 Justices specifically held not to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger, the most recent Supreme Court opinion upholding affirmative action.

The Justices, for all intent and purposes, were actually divided into three groups. 5 Justices (Roberts, CJ., Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, J.J.) held the opinion of the court, the thing with heightened scrutiny and what not. 2 Justices (Scalia and Thomas, J.J.) would have scrapped all affirmative action. Justice Ginsburg would have affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s opinion. The missing link, Justice Kagan, did not take part in the case since it was pending while she was the President’s Solicitor General.

This was especially interesting since Justice Kennedy was in the dissent of Grutter. While Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were not on the Court in that year, Justices typically as conservative as them were dissenting in the previous case, like Chief Justice Rehnquist.

We’ll see how the Legislature deals with all this in 2015, though.