U.S. COURT SYSTEM
********************************* U.S. SUPREME COURT **************************
Scalia's Untimely Death Adds to an Election Year Complexity
Justice Antonin Scalia, a powerful voice for the conservative legal philosophy over the past 30 years, passed away on February 13, 2016 at a remote west Texas ranch. Through his numerous writings both for majority and dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia saw the court as a key upholder of the viewpoints held by the founding fathers when the constitution was written. From that perspective, Justice Antonin Scalia was an originalist, and even many conservatives came to regard him as antithesis to conservatism as his legal rationalities not only failed to take into account the societal evolution with fresh perspectives and plural voices over time, they were stuck to the time when the law was originally written. Justice Antonin Scalia's death inserted a new dimension in partisan brick-batting into an election year politics. No sooner Justice Antonin Scalia's death was announced in the news circles, than the Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said that President Barack Obama should not name his replacement and, instead, leave it to his successor. Republican presidential candidates echoed the same sentiment.
President Obama Names Scalia Replacement
President Barack Obama named Merrick Garland, chief justice of the country's second most powerful D.C. Circuit of Appeals, to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Antonin Scalia.
Tie Verdict Goes In Favor of Unions
The 4-to-4 tie verdict on March 29, 2016 by Antonin Scalia-absent Supreme Court gave a victory to public unions over mandatory dues from members. Lower courts ruled against the 10 California Public school teachers, who had brought the case, on the ground that employees would get the collective bargaining benefit even if they were not union members.
Body Blow by the Apex Court to Obama's Immigration EO
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2016 was deadlocked 4-4 on the Obama administration's appeal to lower court order that had put the president's November 20, 2014, executive order on hold. The tie dealt a temporary blow to President's executive order (EO) that would have shielded millions of undocumented children and parents of American citizens and legal residents from deportation as the lower court would hear the legal merit of the EO. The reaction was along the familiar lines and swift, with Republicans and Texas officials lauding the ruling as "affirmation of rule of law" while the President and his Democratic allies bemoaning the ruling. As the case goes back to Andrew Hanen's Brownsville federal court, the programs that would be
* UNAFFECTED: The current DACA program that covers 1.2 million undocumented immigrants who have entered the USA before their 16th birthday, stepped into their 31st birthday on, or after, June 15, 2012, and lived continuously in the USA since June 15, 2007.
* AFFECTED: (1) The DACA+ program that covers those who have lived in the USA continuously since January 1, 2010 and have been over 30 years old by June 15, 2012; and (2) DAPA program that covers undocumented immigrants who have lived in the USA since January 1, 2010 and have a child, who, as of November 20, 2014, is a legal permanent resident, or the citizen, of the USA.
Fisher VS. UT Case Fallout: Apex Court Verdict Upholds UT Admission Policy
A 4-3 verdict on June 23, 2016 ended an eight-year legal saga that reached all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy opined that University of Texas had not violated constitution when it used, among other factors, applicants' race to admit one-fourth of the 2008 incoming class and rejected the basic precept of the arguments made by the lawyers of Abigail Fisher, a White applicant who said that the UT had violated her right for equal protection under the constitution's 14th Amendment.
Supreme Court Overturns Key Parts of Texas Abortion Law
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 tossed out the admitting privilege and facility surgical standards requirements of the controversial abortion law that was passed by the Texas legislature in 2013. The decision in the Whole Woman's Health VS. Hellerstedt was 5-3 and helped to clarify to what extent states could go to make access to abortion difficult. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, opined that the Texas abortion requirements had placed "a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion", and thus constituted "an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate constitution".
Transgender Case Lands on the Supreme Court
It was never a matter of "if", but "when" the country's top court would accept and address transgender rights. The day of reckoning came on October 28, 2016 as the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a transgender student's case for hearing. The case related to a Gloucester County, Virginia high school student, Gavin Grimm, 17, who wanted to use the boy's bathroom, but was denied by the county school board. In April 2016, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Grimm, ruling that his case could go forward. In August 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-3 to put a temporary stay on the use of a restroom corresponding to the gender Grimm had identified. Now, with the Supreme Court taking the Grimm VS. Gloucester County School Board case, the transgender rights have become a focal issue for the country's top court in the coming months.
Trump Names Gorsuch to Supreme Court
President Donald trump on January 31, 2017 named Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Apex Court Raises Bar for Special Ed
Giving a solid victory to students with disabilities and their families, U.S. Supreme Court on March 22, 2017 unanimously ruled that schools had to ensure all possible measures to teach the same challenging curricula to special education students as regular students and strive for the best for making those students with special need to be equally successful. The March 22, 2017, unanimous verdict was a wholesale rejection of a ruling issued by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had placed the bar for schools much lower. Since Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch was a judge of the Denver-based appeals court that had ruled for much lower bar for special education, his hearing immediately got political color with Democrats hammering him for siding with diluting the standard for special education students.
Senate Changes Rules for Gorsuch
U.S. Senate went "nuclear" on April 6, 2017 by changing the rule to make it a 51-vote necessary cutoff to confirm Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Before invoking the so-called "nuclear" option, the norm was to garner 60 or more votes to proceed with a Supreme Court nominee for a floor vote.
Senate Confirms Gorsuch
Senate on April 7, 2017 voted 54-45 to confirm Neil Gorsuch as the 113th Supreme Court Justice. Three Democrats broke ranks to vote for Judge Gorsuch: Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana. One GOP Senator was absent from Senate floor: Georgian Senator Johnny Isakson.
Gorsuch Joins Liberal Justice against Deportation Law
To surprise of legal pundits and ire of conservatives, Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch on April 17, 2018 joined his Liberal peers to rule against deportation of a permanent resident in a landmark case with potential to test the reach of a law and perseverance of the apex court's conservative majority's staying power. In a case formally known as Sessions vs. Dimaya, Supreme Court's four liberal justices and Gorsuch ruled on April 17, 2018 that the law which dictated the deportation of James Dimaya, a Filipino who received permanent residency when he was 13 in 1992 and convicted of residential burglary in 2007 and 2009, was unconstitutional. In a separate opinion, Gorsuch called it a "vague law". The case was first heard in February 2017, but the court was deadlocked in 4-4 ruling and later reheard in October 2017 after Gorsuch was seated in.
Colorado Baker's Case: Supreme Court Issues a Narrow Ruling
In a setback to LGBTQ rights, U.S. Supreme Court on June 4, 2018 left the businesses' right to deny the services for same-sex wedding unresolved as the majority, 7-2, issued a narrow ruling rejecting the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's "hostile" stand against the First Amendment rights of baker Jack Philips of Masterpiece Cakeshop of Lakewood, Colorado after a gay couple--Charlie Craig and David Mullins--took the case to the state's civil rights panel after being refused the service in 2012 for preparing their wedding cake. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy opined that Colorado Civil Rights Commission had displayed a "clear and impermissible hostility" to the baker and an appeals court erred favoring the state civil rights panel. Kennedy especially cited the ruling of one commissioner, who wrote: freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be Holocaust", and said that "this sentiment is inappropriate". Two dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, of the Supreme Court took a symmetrically opposite stand, with Ginsburg penning a scathing critique of majority verdict, pointing out majority opinion's lack of clarity where prejudice had "infected the determinations of adjudicators in the case before and after the commission". However, Kennedy cautioned that the verdict was related only to this case, and not any broader set of ruling.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of States on Online Sales Tax
U.S. Supreme Court on June 21, 2018 in a historic ruling took side with the states, giving them authority to force online retailers to collect sales taxes for the purchases made in those states irrespective of whether there was presence for the retailers there. The case, known as South Dakota vs. Wayfair, lingered in the judicial system for 26 years, and Texas joined the brief along with 40 other states in South Dakota's bid to overturn the 1992 decision in Quill Corp vs. North Dakota in which the court had prohibited states from forcing the internet retailers to collect taxes in states where they did not have physical presence.
State Remap Basis not Discriminatory, Supreme Court Rules
U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2018 in a 5-4 ruling overturned an appeals court ruling that had found a number of Texas' Congressional and State House districting maps, re-crafted in 2013 to address issues with a previous map drawn in 2011, discriminatory against minorities, handing a big win to GOP leaders in Texas and giving a severe jolt to voting rights, civil rights and minority rights groups.
Scalia's Untimely Death Adds to an Election Year Complexity
Justice Antonin Scalia, a powerful voice for the conservative legal philosophy over the past 30 years, passed away on February 13, 2016 at a remote west Texas ranch. Through his numerous writings both for majority and dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia saw the court as a key upholder of the viewpoints held by the founding fathers when the constitution was written. From that perspective, Justice Antonin Scalia was an originalist, and even many conservatives came to regard him as antithesis to conservatism as his legal rationalities not only failed to take into account the societal evolution with fresh perspectives and plural voices over time, they were stuck to the time when the law was originally written. Justice Antonin Scalia's death inserted a new dimension in partisan brick-batting into an election year politics. No sooner Justice Antonin Scalia's death was announced in the news circles, than the Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said that President Barack Obama should not name his replacement and, instead, leave it to his successor. Republican presidential candidates echoed the same sentiment.
President Obama Names Scalia Replacement
President Barack Obama named Merrick Garland, chief justice of the country's second most powerful D.C. Circuit of Appeals, to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Antonin Scalia.
Tie Verdict Goes In Favor of Unions
The 4-to-4 tie verdict on March 29, 2016 by Antonin Scalia-absent Supreme Court gave a victory to public unions over mandatory dues from members. Lower courts ruled against the 10 California Public school teachers, who had brought the case, on the ground that employees would get the collective bargaining benefit even if they were not union members.
Body Blow by the Apex Court to Obama's Immigration EO
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2016 was deadlocked 4-4 on the Obama administration's appeal to lower court order that had put the president's November 20, 2014, executive order on hold. The tie dealt a temporary blow to President's executive order (EO) that would have shielded millions of undocumented children and parents of American citizens and legal residents from deportation as the lower court would hear the legal merit of the EO. The reaction was along the familiar lines and swift, with Republicans and Texas officials lauding the ruling as "affirmation of rule of law" while the President and his Democratic allies bemoaning the ruling. As the case goes back to Andrew Hanen's Brownsville federal court, the programs that would be
* UNAFFECTED: The current DACA program that covers 1.2 million undocumented immigrants who have entered the USA before their 16th birthday, stepped into their 31st birthday on, or after, June 15, 2012, and lived continuously in the USA since June 15, 2007.
* AFFECTED: (1) The DACA+ program that covers those who have lived in the USA continuously since January 1, 2010 and have been over 30 years old by June 15, 2012; and (2) DAPA program that covers undocumented immigrants who have lived in the USA since January 1, 2010 and have a child, who, as of November 20, 2014, is a legal permanent resident, or the citizen, of the USA.
Fisher VS. UT Case Fallout: Apex Court Verdict Upholds UT Admission Policy
A 4-3 verdict on June 23, 2016 ended an eight-year legal saga that reached all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy opined that University of Texas had not violated constitution when it used, among other factors, applicants' race to admit one-fourth of the 2008 incoming class and rejected the basic precept of the arguments made by the lawyers of Abigail Fisher, a White applicant who said that the UT had violated her right for equal protection under the constitution's 14th Amendment.
Supreme Court Overturns Key Parts of Texas Abortion Law
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2016 tossed out the admitting privilege and facility surgical standards requirements of the controversial abortion law that was passed by the Texas legislature in 2013. The decision in the Whole Woman's Health VS. Hellerstedt was 5-3 and helped to clarify to what extent states could go to make access to abortion difficult. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, opined that the Texas abortion requirements had placed "a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion", and thus constituted "an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate constitution".
Transgender Case Lands on the Supreme Court
It was never a matter of "if", but "when" the country's top court would accept and address transgender rights. The day of reckoning came on October 28, 2016 as the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a transgender student's case for hearing. The case related to a Gloucester County, Virginia high school student, Gavin Grimm, 17, who wanted to use the boy's bathroom, but was denied by the county school board. In April 2016, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Grimm, ruling that his case could go forward. In August 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-3 to put a temporary stay on the use of a restroom corresponding to the gender Grimm had identified. Now, with the Supreme Court taking the Grimm VS. Gloucester County School Board case, the transgender rights have become a focal issue for the country's top court in the coming months.
Trump Names Gorsuch to Supreme Court
President Donald trump on January 31, 2017 named Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Apex Court Raises Bar for Special Ed
Giving a solid victory to students with disabilities and their families, U.S. Supreme Court on March 22, 2017 unanimously ruled that schools had to ensure all possible measures to teach the same challenging curricula to special education students as regular students and strive for the best for making those students with special need to be equally successful. The March 22, 2017, unanimous verdict was a wholesale rejection of a ruling issued by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had placed the bar for schools much lower. Since Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch was a judge of the Denver-based appeals court that had ruled for much lower bar for special education, his hearing immediately got political color with Democrats hammering him for siding with diluting the standard for special education students.
Senate Changes Rules for Gorsuch
U.S. Senate went "nuclear" on April 6, 2017 by changing the rule to make it a 51-vote necessary cutoff to confirm Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Before invoking the so-called "nuclear" option, the norm was to garner 60 or more votes to proceed with a Supreme Court nominee for a floor vote.
Senate Confirms Gorsuch
Senate on April 7, 2017 voted 54-45 to confirm Neil Gorsuch as the 113th Supreme Court Justice. Three Democrats broke ranks to vote for Judge Gorsuch: Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana. One GOP Senator was absent from Senate floor: Georgian Senator Johnny Isakson.
Gorsuch Joins Liberal Justice against Deportation Law
To surprise of legal pundits and ire of conservatives, Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch on April 17, 2018 joined his Liberal peers to rule against deportation of a permanent resident in a landmark case with potential to test the reach of a law and perseverance of the apex court's conservative majority's staying power. In a case formally known as Sessions vs. Dimaya, Supreme Court's four liberal justices and Gorsuch ruled on April 17, 2018 that the law which dictated the deportation of James Dimaya, a Filipino who received permanent residency when he was 13 in 1992 and convicted of residential burglary in 2007 and 2009, was unconstitutional. In a separate opinion, Gorsuch called it a "vague law". The case was first heard in February 2017, but the court was deadlocked in 4-4 ruling and later reheard in October 2017 after Gorsuch was seated in.
Colorado Baker's Case: Supreme Court Issues a Narrow Ruling
In a setback to LGBTQ rights, U.S. Supreme Court on June 4, 2018 left the businesses' right to deny the services for same-sex wedding unresolved as the majority, 7-2, issued a narrow ruling rejecting the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's "hostile" stand against the First Amendment rights of baker Jack Philips of Masterpiece Cakeshop of Lakewood, Colorado after a gay couple--Charlie Craig and David Mullins--took the case to the state's civil rights panel after being refused the service in 2012 for preparing their wedding cake. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy opined that Colorado Civil Rights Commission had displayed a "clear and impermissible hostility" to the baker and an appeals court erred favoring the state civil rights panel. Kennedy especially cited the ruling of one commissioner, who wrote: freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be Holocaust", and said that "this sentiment is inappropriate". Two dissenters, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, of the Supreme Court took a symmetrically opposite stand, with Ginsburg penning a scathing critique of majority verdict, pointing out majority opinion's lack of clarity where prejudice had "infected the determinations of adjudicators in the case before and after the commission". However, Kennedy cautioned that the verdict was related only to this case, and not any broader set of ruling.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of States on Online Sales Tax
U.S. Supreme Court on June 21, 2018 in a historic ruling took side with the states, giving them authority to force online retailers to collect sales taxes for the purchases made in those states irrespective of whether there was presence for the retailers there. The case, known as South Dakota vs. Wayfair, lingered in the judicial system for 26 years, and Texas joined the brief along with 40 other states in South Dakota's bid to overturn the 1992 decision in Quill Corp vs. North Dakota in which the court had prohibited states from forcing the internet retailers to collect taxes in states where they did not have physical presence.
State Remap Basis not Discriminatory, Supreme Court Rules
U.S. Supreme Court on June 25, 2018 in a 5-4 ruling overturned an appeals court ruling that had found a number of Texas' Congressional and State House districting maps, re-crafted in 2013 to address issues with a previous map drawn in 2011, discriminatory against minorities, handing a big win to GOP leaders in Texas and giving a severe jolt to voting rights, civil rights and minority rights groups.
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Trump's Travel Ban
U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2018 in a 5-4 ruling upheld Trump administration's September 24, 2017, Executive Order, its third try to implement travel ban on people from majority Muslim nations. The September 24, 2017, EO targeted nations that included Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, Chad, Somalia, North Korea and Venezuela. Later, Chad was removed from the list. North Korea and Venezuela were not part of the legal challenge. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts opined that the president had the necessary authority and privilege to order such a ban. Court's four liberal justices dissented, but Sonia Sotomayor wrote a scathing opinion while Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan wrote a less critical dissenting opinion. Justice Sotomayor compared the June 26, 2018, U.S. Supreme Court ruling to another disgraceful ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court 74 years ago in 1944 in the case of Korematsu vs. United States. The U.S. Supreme Court in that historic Korematsu vs. United States case ruled in favor of detaining Japanese-American citizens, a decision later judged a grave historical mistake. Justice Sotomayor's bringing the case of Korematsu vs. United States led Chief Justice to dispute forcefully the logic of linking the two circumstances, but nonetheless gave the opportunity to officially impugn that flawed decision. Justice Roberts wrote: "Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and--to be clear--has no place in law under the Constitution".
Anthony's Decision Hands Trump Opportunity to Impact Court
Anthony Kennedy's decision on June 27, 2018 to retire can not come at any more inopportune time for Democrats and liberal groups as it will give President Donald Trump to influence the direction of court for generations to come.
Trump Names Brett Kavanaugh
President Donald Trump on July 9, 2018 introduced conservative judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace outgoing Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kavanaugh, 53, has once worked as a clerk under Kennedy, and is considered to be so called originalist. He currently sits at the nation's second-powerful court, D.C.-based Court of Appeals.
Kavanaugh Faces Scrutiny over Sex Assault Allegations
Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court nominee who was all but assured to become the justice to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy in a smooth Senate testimony, faced most damaging accusation of a booze-filled party years ago when he was alleged to have sexually assaulted Palo Alto University Professor Christine Blasey Ford. Both Ms. Ford and Justice Kavanaugh were high school seniors at that time. The Washington Post reportedly spilled the years-old story on September 16, 2018, and Republicans wanted Professor Ford to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 24, 2018. However, Ford's attorneys sent a letter to the committee on September 18, 2018, demanding an FBI inquiry first.
Professor Ford Agrees to Testify before Senate Panel
Attorney of Professor Christine Blasey Ford on September 20, 2018 wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying that the professor would agree to testify before the panel on September 27, 2018.
Now a Second Woman Comes Forward against Kavanaugh
As it's not enough amidst hitting up of political atmosphere in the U.S. Capitol with Christie Blasey Ford's assault allegation against the Supreme Court nominee Justice Brett Kavanaugh while they were high school students, another explosive allegation had appeared in The New Yorker's September 23, 2018, edition, with a second woman, Deborah Ramirez, alleging sexual misconduct against the Trump pick to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. The allegation dated back to their Yale Freshman Year's of class. Justice Kavanaugh denied the allegation.
Kavanaugh Accuser Testifies in the Charged Atmosphere of "He Said, She Said"
A replay of Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas scene replayed on the Senate floor 27 years later on September 27, 2018 as Trump's Supreme Court pick Justice Brett Kavanaugh faced off for the first time his accuser, Professor Christie Blasey Ford, at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. However, the testimony and subsequent acrimony, instead of clarifying the confusions surrounding what had happened years ago, made the confirmation process muddier.
FBI to Launch a Limited Investigation of Kavanaugh
The Kavanaugh confirmation process on September 28, 2018 went through a series of topsy-turvy dramas in the U.S. Senate chamber and outside. Republican Senator Jeff Flake on September 28, 2018 put a hold on bringing the Kavanaugh nomination process to the full Senate. Instead, he wanted FBI to launch an additional background investigation into allegations against the nominee. Later in the day, Trump administration approved a limited scope FBI investigation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh that could be wrapped up in days.
Kavanaugh Confirmed as 114th Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
After a scaled-down, limited-scope probe, FBI cleared Supreme Court nominee Justice Brett Kavanaugh. On October 6, 2018, U.S. Senate voted to confirm Kavanaugh by 50-48 votes, with Alaskan Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski and West Virginian Democratic Senator Joe Manchin breaking their respective parties' ranks.
Supreme Court Revives Transgender Ban in the U.S. Military
Handing out a win to Trump administration, U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 2019 by 5-4 votes upheld Trump administration's ban on transgender soldiers to the U.S. military. In July 2017, President Trump reversed the Obama-era transgender rules in a tweet message, and later then-defense minister, Jim Mattis, had drawn rules that all but banned transgender recruits and gender transition therapy. The exception that Mattis had made was related to about 900 personnel who had been already serving in military and those who had said to be serving in accordance with their birth gender.
Roberts New Pivot of Balance in the Supreme Court
Chief Justice John Roberts is making his presence felt by being the decisive vote in many verdicts in an increasingly conservative court. In December 2018, Justice Roberts joined the Liberal justices to suspend Trump administration's new asylum policy that would bar migrants not crossing the official borderpoints from seeking asylum. In January 2019, Roberts joined his fellow conservative judges to let a Trump administration directive banning transgenders to join the U.S. military go into effect. Then on February 7, 2019, Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the Liberal justices to block a Louisiana law that would have closed at least one, but up to 2, of the three abortion clinics on the law's requirement for abortion provider's "admitting privilege" at a nearby hospital.
Supreme Court Makes Anti-Seizure Protection Stronger
In a unanimous verdict, written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg on her second day on the job after returning from a prolonged hospital stay, U.S. Supreme Court on February 20, 2019 issued stronger measures against property forfeitures often carried out by nation's police departments. The apex court's ruling didn't ban seizures, but extended the legal challenge privilege by defendants beyond federal authorities to cover local and state authorities. The verdict was a victory for an Indiana defendant, Tyson Timbs, whose Land Rover had been seized by police after he had been convicted of selling drugs, totaling $300. In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg has said for the court that the Constitution's Eighth Amendment's ban on "excessive fines" applies to states and localities, not only the federal government. Although the verdict was unanimous, the provisions cited for reaching the same conclusion were different for Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg based her decision on the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch have cited a different provision of the 14th Amendment that forbids states from making or enforcing any law that abridges the "privileges or immunities" of the U.S. citizens. It's a classic legal contrast exemplified in this case on two sharply different provisions--"due process" vs. "privileges or immunities clause"--leveraged by the Supreme Court justices to arrive at the same conclusion.
Supreme Court Revives Transgender Ban in the U.S. Military
Handing out a win to Trump administration, U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 2019 by 5-4 votes upheld Trump administration's ban on transgender soldiers to the U.S. military. In July 2017, President Trump reversed the Obama-era transgender rules in a tweet message, and later then-defense minister, Jim Mattis, had drawn rules that all but banned transgender recruits and gender transition therapy. The exception that Mattis had made was related to about 900 personnel who had been already serving in military and those who had said to be serving in accordance with their birth gender.
Roberts New Pivot of Balance in the Supreme Court
Chief Justice John Roberts is making his presence felt by being the decisive vote in many verdicts in an increasingly conservative court. In December 2018, Justice Roberts joined the Liberal justices to suspend Trump administration's new asylum policy that would bar migrants not crossing the official borderpoints from seeking asylum. In January 2019, Roberts joined his fellow conservative judges to let a Trump administration directive banning transgenders to join the U.S. military go into effect. Then on February 7, 2019, Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the Liberal justices to block a Louisiana law that would have closed at least one, but up to 2, of the three abortion clinics on the law's requirement for abortion provider's "admitting privilege" at a nearby hospital.
Supreme Court Makes Anti-Seizure Protection Stronger
In a unanimous verdict, written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg on her second day on the job after returning from a prolonged hospital stay, U.S. Supreme Court on February 20, 2019 issued stronger measures against property forfeitures often carried out by nation's police departments. The apex court's ruling didn't ban seizures, but extended the legal challenge privilege by defendants beyond federal authorities to cover local and state authorities. The verdict was a victory for an Indiana defendant, Tyson Timbs, whose Land Rover had been seized by police after he had been convicted of selling drugs, totaling $300. In her opinion, Justice Ginsburg has said for the court that the Constitution's Eighth Amendment's ban on "excessive fines" applies to states and localities, not only the federal government. Although the verdict was unanimous, the provisions cited for reaching the same conclusion were different for Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg based her decision on the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch have cited a different provision of the 14th Amendment that forbids states from making or enforcing any law that abridges the "privileges or immunities" of the U.S. citizens. It's a classic legal contrast exemplified in this case on two sharply different provisions--"due process" vs. "privileges or immunities clause"--leveraged by the Supreme Court justices to arrive at the same conclusion.
U.S. Supreme Court Protects LGBTQ from Job Discrimination
In a landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a severe jolt to conservative efforts against LGBTQ community, and in 6-3 ruling on June 15, 2020, extended a key federal employment protection act to include "sex orientation". Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch has justified the extension of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as to prevent discrimination on the ground of sex because, if allowed to fire an employee because of sexual orientation, that is tantamount to discriminating based on sex as it will not be applicable to opposite sex and thus violate Title VII. Gorsuch was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and four liberal justices of the court. The verdict, though, has limitation. For example, it applies only to employment, and it doesn't cover bathroom battle and exempts religious institutions.
End of an Iconic Era; Political Jockeying Begins Hours after RBG's Death
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who after joining the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993 became a judicial icon of women's rights, minority rights, voting rights and a woman's right to choose and came to be known as "Notorious RBG", on September 18, 2020 passed away at her home in the Washington D.C. in metastatic Pancreatic cancers. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away at the age of 87. Ginsburg was the second woman named and confirmed as one of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg worked as one of the ACLU attorneys in 1970s to fight for minority and women's rights. When President Bill Clinton named Ginsburg, then a judge in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in 1993 to the Supreme Court, he compared Ginsburg to women's right what Thurgood Marshall was to African Americans.
Hours after her death, political fighting seemed to have erupted in earnest and only looked to get uglier in coming days as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that President Trump's nominee would get a hearing on the Senate floor. Democrats were hell-bent on opposing any Trump nominee from going forward and replacing Justice Ginsburg as they had cited how McConnell didn't hold any hearing for the entirety of 2016 for Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia. Democratic Presidential Candidate Joe Biden and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer separately called for delaying any confirmation vote until after the election of a new president.
President Trump Booed; Ginsburg Breaks one Final Ceiling; Media Names Replacement
As President Donald Trump, along with First Lady Melania Trump, on September 24, 2020 visited the Supreme Court Steps where Liberal icon Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s casket lay in rest for mourners to pay respect, and was booed by mourners. Chants were heard “Vote Him Out”.
Meanwhile, in her death, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, known better as “Notorious RBG”, broke glass ceilings for the one last time, becoming one of the few women whose body lay in state on the Capitol. Her casket was placed on the Lincoln catafalque in the Statutory Hall of the Congress. Women lawmakers passed by the casket, and paid their last respect. Senators, Representatives and military leaders paid respect to the lifelong services of RBG to make America more perfect and more equal. Lying in state is the ultimate honor in the U.S., especially reserved for presidents, military leaders and distinguished lawmakers. Ruth Bader Ginsburg made history even here, becoming only the second Supreme Court Justice to lie in state, 90 years after the then-Former President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William Howard Taft had lain in state in 1930. Ginsburg was also the first Jew to lie in state.
Meanwhile, media named Judge Amy Coney Barrett as Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court to replace RBG. President Trump will name his pick on September 26, 2020.
President Trump Sets on Legacy; Turns the Supreme Court Sharp Right
On September 26, 2020, President Donald Trump at a Rose Garden ceremony, reminiscent of how then-President Bill Clinton had introduced Liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the nation, named and introduced the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the next justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, thus appointing three Supreme Court justices in his first term and bending the judicial landscape of the nation to the sharp right. Although Judge Barret served in the Chicago-based appeals court since 2017 and lot less had been known about her verdicts, as a Notre Dame law professor she had written several articles putting her faith in constitution's original viewpoints instead of stare decisis, or legal precedents. Writing for a law review article in 2013, the then-Professor Amy Coney Barrett has opined that “stare decisis is not a hard-and-fast rule in the Court’s cases”, implying her willingness to revisit Roe vs. Wade and overturn, or significantly scale down, it. Amy Coney Barrett is likely to take a very critical look at Affordable Care Act as in a joint scholarly article with other Conservative luminaries in 2012 she panned the idea of requiring “religious people and institutions” to provide contraceptives free of cost through the insurance carriers. She also takes a much more expansive view of Second Amendment Rights than Late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she dad clerked in 1998-99. The appointment of Amy Coney Barrett marks the most significant ideological turn in 29 years when President George H.W. Bush had nominated Clarence Thomas to replace another liberal icon Thurgood Marshall. Democrats, powerless to block her nomination vote, are warning the voters that Affordable Care Act is on line.
Judge Barrett Wins Confirmation Vote, Immediately Sworn in
U.S. Senate on October 26, 2020 confirmed President Donald Trump’s nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the 115th U.S. Supreme Court Justice to replace late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon, in the most partisan manner and at one of the fastest paces in modern history. The vote was 52 to 48, with Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who’s in a tight re-election race in the next week’s general election, joined all 47 Democratic Senators to vote no. Later in the evening, Judge Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in by Justice Clarence Thomas in a socially distanced ceremony at the White House attended by President Trump and 200 or so other invitees. With Amy Coney Barrett joining the supreme court, the highest judicial body will tip solidly to the right with six conservative justices, most rightwing tilt compared to the overall national political leanings since 1930s.
U.S. Supreme Court Shows that It’s Now Majority Conservative
Flexing its muscle, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court put an injunction on New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s order to limit congregants in the houses of worship as the merit of the case was being litigated in the lower court. The Thanksgiving eve ruling on November 25, 2020 demonstrated clearly that Trump’s three nominees (Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett) had taken the court into a sharp conservative territory. Justice Gorsuch took special shot, with his separate opinion, at Chief Justice John Roberts, who had sided with three Liberal justices—Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Stephen Breyer—opining that Justice Roberts depended too much on a 1905 local control law when deciding on a previous worship case from California. In that California case, Justice John Roberts sided with three current liberal justices and now-deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to rule that local jurisdictions had authority over congregation size. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito sided with three conservative Trump appointees in the New York case that had been brought by Catholic Church and a Jewish religious organization.
************* BIPARTISAN PANEL ON SUPREME COURT
Biden Forms a Bipartisan Study Committee on Supreme Court
Implementing his campaign promise to form a commission on Supreme Court-related issues, including its composition, President Joe Biden on April 9, 2021 formed a 36-member bipartisan committee to study, among other issues, possible expansion of the Supreme Court and term limits for the justices. The panel, headed by Former White House Counsel Bob Bauer and a Yale Law School Professor, Christina Rodriguez, who like Bauer has served President Barack Obama in the Office of Legal Counsel, will have 6 months to study hot button issues, but from the White House statement, it is not clear whether the panel has any recommendation mandate.
Panel Finds Public Support for Term Limits of Justices
The bipartisan panel formed to provide guidance about the U.S. Supreme Court composition on December 7, 2021 voted unanimously by 34-0 to submit the final report to the White House. The final report includes provisions that deal with term limits for justices. The panel has found strong public support for such term limits. The panel found itself mired in "profound disagreement" over adding justices to the nine-member bench.
************* BIPARTISAN PANEL ON SUPREME COURT
Shadow Docket Controversy Ensnares the Supreme Court
In a span of 12 days since August 24, 2021, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has used the so called "shadow docket" three times in cases which are consequential and have potential to determine the outcomes affecting millions of people. Shadow docket, a term officially first used by a University of Chicago Law professor, William Baude, refers to skipping many of the traditional steps related to a typical docket. Under the typical docket, cases are heard with a full suite of testimonials, hearings and lower court references. Justices undertake profound and deliberative analysis and evidence dissection, and draw conclusion on the case in question by corroborating or refuting the supporting evidence. After that, majority of justices writes opinion supporting the verdict. Minority writes their own dissent. Shadow docket often skirts those comprehensive steps and related work-streams, and instead, leads to unsigned verdict. Shadow docket used to be rare. That the conservative majority has used the principle of shadow docket in three cases as consequential as restoration of Stay in Mexico policy, invalidating the rental eviction moratorium and rejecting an emergency request to block the Texas "Heartbeat Act" in 12 days is unprecedented, sweeping and alarming, to say the least.
************************ JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER'S REPLACEMENT
Liberal Icon to Retire
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer is to announce his resignation on January 27,
2022, according to major news outlets and media reports circulating on January
26, 2022. Justice Breyer will serve out the remainder of the current term. Justice
Stephen Breyer’s resignation will give President Joe Biden to put
his signature and imprimatur on the composition, but not on the outcome, of the
court by nominating the first Black woman to the country’s top-most court. Senate
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said that the Senate would work swiftly to vote
and confirm Biden’s nominee.
Liberals, Rights Supporters Laud Biden Naming First Black Woman to the Apex Court
President Joe Biden on February 25, 2022 named the first Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Ketanji Brown-Jackson is only the third Black jurist named to the U.S. Supreme Court. The other two are Thurgood Marshall, nation's first Black Supreme Court justice named by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, and Clarence Thomas, appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1991.
Of the 115 justices in the U.S. Supreme Court, all but seven are White males. In addition to Thurgood Marshall (1968-1991) and Clarence Thomas, five women have either served or are serving on the Supreme Court. President Ronald Reagan in 1981 named Sandra Day O'Connor as the first female justice to the apex court. She was followed by Liberal icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Three women justices--Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Sonia Sotomayor--are currently serving on the Supreme Court. U.S. Supreme Court's current make-up is solidly conservatives with six justices--(1) Justice John Roberts, (2) Justice Clarence Thomas, (3) Justice Samuel Alito, (4) Justice Neil Gorsuch, (5) Justice Brett Kavanaugh and (6) Justice Amy Coney Barrett--forming the conservative majority, leaving three justices--(7) Justice Stephen Breyer, (8) Justice Sonia Sotomayor and (9) Justice Elena Kagan--in the liberal minority.
Judge Ketanji Brown-Jackson is also the first justice, if confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, who has also worked as public defender in the U.S. Supreme Court and will bring unique perspectives to the Supreme Court from the both sides of the aisle. Judge Ketanji Brown-Jackson was confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on June 14, 2021 by 53-44 votes.
Ketanji Brown Jackson Grilled by GOP Senators
The hearing to confirm the historical nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was held in the week of March 21, 2022. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Dick Durbin spoke the historic nature of the nomination of the first Black woman to the U.S. Supreme Court as he was introducing Judge Jackson to the Senate panel on March 21, 2022. Beginning March 22, 2022, Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee began grilling Judge Brown Jackson, often cherry-picking parts of her past rulings. Texas Senator Ted Cruz acted in a bellicose manner and portrayed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as soft on crime, complaining that she had often sentenced the child pornography convicts to shorter jail terms than what were prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. Senator John Cornyn accused Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of calling Former President George W. Bush as "war criminal". Ketanji Brown Jackson worked as a federal public defender, and she had defended Guantanamo Bay prisoners as part of the federal public defender. What Ketanji Brown Jackson had said at that time in her filings was that the harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding might constitute "war crimes". Republican Senators such as Cruz, Cornyn and Sen. Josh Hawley tried to paint Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson with the color of so called "soft on crime", a Republican theme in the 2022 midterm election.
Jackson Nomination Moves to the Next Step
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's historic Supreme Court nomination on April 4, 2022 moved a step closer to the confirmation. Senate Judiciary Committee was deadlocked on President Joe Biden's nomination for Justice Stephen Breyer's replacement by 11-11 vote. Hours later, the full Senate voted 53-47 to send the nomination for a confirmation vote to be held later in the week. Republican Senators Mitt Romney, Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski joined all 50 Democrats to vote to move the nomination forward.
First Black Woman, First Public Defender Confirmed as the Justice of the Highest Court of the Land
In a historic vote, the U.S. Senate on April 7, 2022 confirmed Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first Black female jurist to become the U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Three Republican senators--Sen. Mitt Romney, Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Sen. Susan Collins--joined all 50 Democrats to vote 53-47 in favor of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, making her also the first public defender to become the justice of the apex court. President Joe Biden celebrated the historic moment of confirmation vote with Judge Jackson at the Roosevelt Room in the White House. The four-day hearing last week in the U.S. Senate marked one of the most withering attacks by the GOP Senators on a very qualified judge in a very personal manner. Senator Ted Cruz vilified the judge, without much evidence, as sympathetic to porn criminals, soft on crime, extreme Left-wing activist jurist and supportive of Critical Race Theory. Senator John Cornyn accused Judge Jackson of calling out Former President George W. Bush and Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as "war criminals". Entire Congressional Black Caucus members were present during the time of confirmation vote on the Senate floor.
White House Celebrates the Historic Confirmation of the First Black Supreme Court Justice
A day after the U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as the U.S. Supreme Court's 116th justice, President Joe Biden and the nation's first Black Vice President Kamala Harris on April 8, 2022 celebrated the history-shattering event of the nation's first Black woman's confirmation to the apex court. It took 232 years, and after 115 justices, for the nation to celebrate the confirmation of the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. Jackson is also the first public defender to win the U.S. Supreme Court nomination. It was a very sunny day and plenty of guests at the White House to celebrate the dream of slaves to have one of their descendants to serve the highest court of the nation.
Jackson Sworn in
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson on June 30, 2022 was sworn in as the 116th justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
************************ JUSTICE STEPHEN BREYER'S REPLACEMENT
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects GOP Challenge to New Pennsylvania, North Carlina Maps
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 7, 2022 handed a significant victory to Democrats by turning away GOP challenges to state courts-drawn Congressional maps more favorable to Democrats compared to if it would have been drawn by state legislatures. In separate rulings, the U.S. Supreme Court let the State Supreme Court-drawn Congressional map for each state. North Carolina's new map is likely to elect one more Democratic lawmaker to the House, while Pennsylvania is likely to have additional Democrats in the House of Representatives effective 2023. Four conservative justices, though, want to curtail state courts' rights and authorities to draw Congressional boundaries. Justice Samuel Alito deplored the Supreme Court's inaction to seize this "good opportunity" to resolve this once and for all. Alito was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a separate opinion, wrote along the same line of rational argument, but didn't want to tinker with this year's Congressional redistricting process as the electoral process had already been underway.
U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Cruz in Campaign Finance Law
U.S. Supreme Court on May 16, 2022 has issued a verdict in a 6-3 conservative majority to nullify a $250,000 ceiling that a candidate can raise after the election is over to pay for a personal loan made by the candidate to the campaign fund before the election. Sen. Ted Cruz had a personal bet of $10,000 in this case. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts opined that the ceiling "burdens the core political speech without proper justification". The law that Sen. Ted Cruz is challenging is dated to a 2002 legislation that Congress has passed. Under that 2002 law and Federal Election Commission rules, there is a maximum of $2,900 that can be contributed to a federal candidate per election cycle. However, a candidate can make unlimited amount of personal loans to the campaign. Under the 2002 law and FEC rules, a candidate can raise an unlimited amount from political donations to pay back the loan within 20 days after the election is over. After the 20-day threshold, candidates can raise a maximum of $250,000 to pay for any personal loan made to the campaign before the election. To contest this provision, Sen. Ted Cruz loaned his campaign $260,000 a day before the election day in the 2018 midterm poll in which he faced a strong challenge from Beto O'Rourke. Cruz campaign didn't need the money as he had enough money on hand and his campaign raised $46 million in a campaign that was costliest Senate campaign as of then. Cruz Campaign raised $250,000 after the 20-day threshold, paying back all but $10,000 of the personal loan made a day before 2018 midterm poll and, thus, creating a standing for the court case challenging the 2002 law, known as McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law, or Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court's May 16, 2022, verdict clears the way for Sen. Ted Cruz to recoup $545,000 from his 2012 match-up in the 2012 Republican Primary with the then-Lieutenant-Governor David Dewhurst. Ted Cruz loaned nearly $1 million in personal loan to his campaign during 2012 Primary and runoff. From that primary and runoff, Cruz Campaign owed $545,000 after raising post-election donations and staying within the maximum limit with respect to 20-day threshold. Now, with the May 16, 2022, U.S. Supreme Court verdict, Sen. Ted Cruz is looking forward to recouping that $545,000 still owed by his campaign from 2012 election.
Sen. Ted Cruz on August 5, 2022 drew $555,000 ($545,000 from his 2012 campaign and $10,000 from his 2018 campaign) from his campaign to pay off his personal loan.
Supreme Court Sides with Football Coach in Prayer Case
The conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2022 gutted a key wall of separation between religion and public schools. The court has ruled 6-3 in favor of rights of a Washington state high school Football coach to pray on the field after the game is over. The conservative majority upheld the rights of former Bremerton High School Assistant Football coach Joe Kennedy's right to pray after the game was over. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said that there was no obligation for the students to join in the prayer as Mr. Kennedy prayed after the game was over and, during that time, anyone could call, talk to others, or simply looking at text messages. Dissenting with the majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the majority's twisted logic and held them responsible for not seeing through a more diabolical design of pressuring the student athletes to pray with the coach. Coach Kennedy was suspended from the school, and he later moved to Florida.
A Former Conservative Religious Leader Says Alito being the Source of Leak in an Earlier Ruling
As the storm is still brewing and the investigation is ongoing over the leak in the Spring of 2022 that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court is to overturn Roe vs. Wade, a former conservative evangelist has said that Justice Samuel Alito, or his wife, Martha-Ann, has shared a similar upcoming verdict related to a Hobby Lobby case in 2014 with the justice's friend Gayle Wright over a dinner, according to The New York Times' November 19, 2022, edition. Rob Schenck, who identifies himself on his website as a "once-right-wing religious leader but now dissenting evangelical voice", has said that Justice Samuel Alito and his wife has hosted the dinner at their home for Gayle Wright and her now-deceased husband, Donald. According to The New York Times' report based on Rob Schenck's account, Wrights came to know during that dinner that Supreme Court would rule against ACA's mandate for free contraceptives in Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell case. Alito was the primary author of that 2014 case. Eerily, Justice Samuel Alito was the author of the June 2022 Mississippi case that had overturned the federal protection of abortion rights.
Supreme Court Orders Retrial of Penalty Phase of Defendant Handed down Capital Punishment
The U.S. Supreme Court on February 22, 2023 ruled 5-4 vote to hold retrial of the penalty phase of a defendant, John Montenegro Cruz, who had been sentenced to death for murder after the jury was not told that life without parole could be an option. A 1994 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Simmons vs. South Carolina stated that in cases involving life terms when the sentence without a parole was an option, that must be conveyed explicitly to jurors.
IDEA No Bar to Pursuing ADA, U.S. Supreme Court Rules
In a historic ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21, 2023 ruled
unanimously in favor of a deaf plaintiff who filed a lawsuit against his school
district for not providing necessary support and tools to help succeed in
academia. The case, known as Luna Perez vs. Sturgis Public Schools, proceeded
through the federal court system as the lower courts upheld the stance of the
defendant, Sturgis Public Schools. The heart of the argument is whether the
plaintiff can seek monetary damage by pursuing Americans with Disabilities Act,
or ADA. The lower courts ruled in favor of the defendant that the plaintiff
should first exhaust all the administrative recourses under the Individual with
Disabilities Education Act. IDEA ensures children with disabilities to receive
appropriate and free public education. Writing for the unanimous verdict,
Justice Neil Gorsuch has said that nothing in IDEA bars plaintiff Miguel Luna Perez
from pursuing legal steps under the ADA.
*********** JUSTICE THOMAS-BILLIONAIRE CROW BONHOMIE RAISES CONCERN
Justice Thomas' Largesse Receipt Sent to a Panel for Investigation
Political firestorms erupted after ProPublica revealed early this month (April 2023) that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had received lavish treatments from Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow over the years, including family holidays spending together in Indonesian beaches and Dallas business magnate buying properties from the justice and his family. At one of those properties bought by Crow, Justice Clarence Thomas' mother still lives. ProPublica said that Justice Thomas didn't report these largesse, or special treatments, by Crow. Many ethics experts believed that Justice Clarence Thomas might have broken ethics laws by not filing reports on those gifts and transactions. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Rep. Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, D-Ga, had filed a complaint to a panel of federal judges, Judicial Conference of the United States, requesting the panel to launch an investigation into the justice's failure to report the favored treatments from Harlan Crow. U.S. District Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf, director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said on April 18, 2023 that the Judicial Conference of the United States had received the lawmakers' complaint.
Senate Finance Head Asks Largesse-related Docs from Crow, Bloomberg Reports Potential Conflict of Interest
U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, sent a letter to Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow on April 24, 2023, asking him to furnish all relevant information related to gifts, including free jet services, vacations to exclusive places, yacht rides and other largesse, provided to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the committee by May 8, 2023. Senator Wyden called the largesse showered on one of the most conservative Supreme Court Justices, Justice Clarence Thomas, as an "unprecedented arrangement between a wealthy benefactor and a Supreme Court justice" that's "simply unacceptable".
Meanwhile, another key Senator, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., and Rep. Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, D.GA, asked a special panel of federal judges to investigate the Thomas-Crow relationship and the benevolent splurge of gifts showered on Justice Clarence Thomas by Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow. The panel of federal judges forwarded the complaint to an ethics panel, Judicial Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure, which "is responsible for implementing the disclosure provisions of the Ethics in Government Act", according to Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Director Roslynn R. Mauskopf.
On April 24, 2023, Bloomberg News reported that a case against Trammel Crow Residential Co. had reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 and, in January 2005, U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided not to take the case that an architectural firm had filed against the developer for infringing its copyrights. Bloomberg News reported that Justice Clarence Thomas didn't recuse in that case as was expected. However, there is another narrative that explains why Justice Thomas has not recused himself from the case. Womack + Hampton, the plaintiff, filed the lawsuit against "Metrics Holdings Limited Partnership", a company that was later described as "Trammel Crow Entity", and Justice Clarence Thomas might not have known that it was a Trammel Crow company. A lower federal court and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the lawsuit filed by Womack + Hampton seeking $25 million in damages. Harlan Crow's Office said that when suit was filed, Harlan Crow's company, Crow Holdings, only had a minority stake in Trammel Crow Residential Co.
Chief Justice Misses an Opportunity to Take Stand on Court Ethics
Senate Judiciary Committee on May 2, 2023 convened a special hearing on the recent revelation that billionaire businessman Harlan Crow had showered largesse on Justice Clarence Thomas, including free expensive and exotic trips, buying the justice's Georgia home and many other gifts and giveaways, which were not reported by Justice Thomas, but the world later came to know, thanks to ProPublica. Although the committee chairman, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., invited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to appear before the panel, he refused, and instead, attached a document to his refusal letter. The document, "Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices", was signed by all nine Supreme Court justices. This is a missed opportunity for Justice Roberts to come up with a magnanimous gesture to provide clarification on ethical lapses. Instead he had shown himself "oblivious to the obvious", according to Sen. Dick Durbin.
Crow Reported to have Paid for School for Thomas' Relative
The Dallas Morning News on May 5, 2023 republished an excerpt from ProPublica that Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow had paid for tuition and boarding costs for Mark Martin, the grandnephew of Justice Clarence Thomas, at two expensive private schools--Hidden Lake Academy in northern Georgia and Randolph-Macon Academy, Crow's alma mater--before Martin graduated from high school in 2010. Crow funded for Martin's education at Hidden Lake in 2009 school year and at Randolph in the following year.
Political Fight between Crow and Senate Democrats Ramping up
Michael Bopp, an attorney of Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow, wrote a letter in response to the Senate Judiciary Committee's ask for information related to the largesse that the billionaire had showered upon U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas over the years, questioning the panel's prerogative, arguments and authority to pry on a private citizen's personal information. Sen. Dick Durbin, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a senior Democrat in the powerful Senate committee, issued a joint statement on June 6, 2023, emphasizing that "Harlan Crow doesn't call the shots here". They reiterated that, if needed, all options were now on the table, including issuing a subpoena.
Justice Thomas Reports Three Private Trips Paid by Crow Last Year
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas reported three private plane trips--two to Dallas in February and May 2022 and a third trip for a weeklong vacation at an upstate New York estate owned by Harlan Crow--paid by Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow. The information about flying in private jets three times in 2022 was made public on August 31, 2023. Justice Thomas didn't report any of the pre-2022 trips and other largesse paid by Crow on the ground that reporting requirements didn't call for a one.
*********** JUSTICE THOMAS-BILLIONAIRE CROW BONHOMIE RAISES CONCERN
INDIAN CHILD ADOPTION CASE: Supreme Court Upholds the Indigent Rights
U.S. Supreme Court on June 15, 2023 ruled 7-2 in favor of upholding the rights of Indian tribes to adopt Indian children over non-Indian families as enshrined under the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, or ICWA. The case originated with a White Fort Worth family, Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, filing a lawsuit opposing the ICWA although they were eventually able to adopt a child who hailed from Cherokee and Navajo nations. The plaintiffs pursued the case on non-discrimination argument.
*************************** JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO'S UNREPORTED LARGESSE
A 2008 Exclusive Trip not Reported by Justice Alito in Financial Disclosure
It's not, after all, that only Justice Clarence Thomas whose ethical transgression and borderline appearance of conflict of interest has brought much of disrepute to the apex judicial body of the nation. Now, Justice Samuel Alito is added to that list too.
A Pro Publica article published on June 21, 2023 described a 2008 fishing trip that Justice Alito had undertaken with the funding from two wealthy GOP donors, but didn't report in the financial disclosure report for that year. According to the Pro Publica report, Justice Alito in July 2008 flew in the private jet of hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer free of charge. Singer later had cases pending before the Supreme Court which Justice Alito didn't recuse from. Justice Alito's three-day stay at King Almon Lodge in Alaska was paid by another GOP donor, Robin Arkley II, owner of a California-based mortgage company. The trip for Alito was organized by Leonard Leo, then a high-ranking leader of the Federalist Society.
Hours before the Pro Publica report was published, Justice Samuel Alito on June 21, 2023 refuted the investigative journal's report in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal.
*************************** JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO'S UNREPORTED LARGESSE
Supreme Court Rejects the State Legislature's Independence Authority Theory
Heaving a sigh of relief, Democrats and voting rights activists are embracing and applauding the June 29, 2023, U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 verdict to reject the independence authority of the state legislatures. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority--joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan--opined that "when state legislatures prescribe the rules concerning the federal elections, they remain subject to the ordinary exercise of state judicial review". The opinion clears the way for the state courts to "retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act" outside the bounds of their authority such as appointing electors in presidential polls that don't reflect the state's popular mandate. The case originated in North Carolina. Conservatives are focusing on the Constitution's clause that refers to "Times, Places and Manner" of electing Senators and Representatives which "shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof". Conservatives point out a similar Constitutional clause regarding the presidential election that entrusts the state legislatures to "direct" and "appoint" the electors.
Supreme Court Strikes down Race-based Affirmative Action for College
Admissions
The U.S. Supreme Court in 6-3 decision on June 29, 2023 struck down the race-conscious admission criteria, or race-based affirmative action, in college
admissions, a major setback to our nation's campus diversity. The case was brought to the Supreme Court by a conservative activist, Edward
Blum, who targeted the race-based affirmative action, and the pair of cases—his seventh
and eighth—targeted the admission practices of Harvard University and
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Students for Fair Admissions, a non-profit led by Edward Blum, argued that the practice amounted to reverse discrimination. Edward Blum ran unsuccessfully for a Congressional seat in 1992, and since then, focused on eliminating the race-based affirmative action. He single-handedly filed eight cases, targeting the practice, since 1996. He had filed two cases against University of Texas, Austin, on behalf of a White student, Abigail Fisher, arguing that she was harmed by the race-based affirmative action. He lost both cases. However, the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court was quite different then. Now, the Supreme Court has an overwhelming make-up and flair of conservative justices. Striking down the race-conscious admission or race-based affirmative action, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said that the practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. However, Chief Justice Roberts opined that colleges could still use how an applicant was influenced by race through "discrimination, inspiration or otherwise", but not on the "basis of race".
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing one of the dissenting opinions, decried the court's "own impotence in the face of an America whose cries for equality resound". In a second dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that "it would be deeply unfortunate if the Equal Protection Clause actually demanded this perverse, ahistorical, and counterproductive outcome".
Supreme Court Orders Employers to Accommodate Employees on Religious Grounds
On June 29, 2023, U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with a former U.S. Postal Services employee, Gerald Groff, who refused to deliver Amazon packages in rural Pennsylvania on Sundays on ground that the Sundays were meant for church and families, ruling that the employers could not deny religious accommodation just on the basis of more than "de minis" costs to the business. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for all the justices that the company had to base the decision on whether "substantial increased costs in relation with the conduct of its particular business" would happen because of the accommodation.
Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Designer to Refuse Offering Services to Gay Couple
For the first time in the U.S. history, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2023 upheld the rights of a Christian graphic designer, Lorie Smith, to refuse providing services of creating custom wedding website to a gay couple based on the First Amendment right. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, on behalf of the six Conservative Justices, that the "the 1st Amendment prohibits" any state authority to force "a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees". The case relates to the narrow scope of original design, and Justice Gorsuch rationalized the verdict based on protecting the First Amendment right instead of religious freedom.
Senate Panel Drives Ethics Code for the Supreme Court
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on July 20, 2023 voted 11-10 to pass sweeping ethics rules and new disclosure requirements for the Supreme Court Justices. Country's lower court judges are required to follow the ethics rules formulated by Judicial Conference of the United States, nation's court system policymaking body, but they are voluntary for the high court justices. Recent revelations of Justice Clarence Thomas having received lavish gifts and expensive trips from Dallas billionaire Harlan Crow have added urgency of such ethics rules to be mandated for the Supreme Court Justices.
U.S. Supreme Court Issues Code of Conduct
After the U.S. Supreme Court came under withering criticism for the unreported lavish gifts and justices' trips in private planes, the nine justices on November 13, 2023 issued a signed nonbinding code of conduct, Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices, that would "for the most part" codify the existing principles. The code of conduct and an accompanying unsigned commentary will dictate functional items, which have come under heightened scrutiny in the recent past, such as
* Recusals: They should be rare as there is lack of replacement leading to loss of judicial value
* Gifts such as Lavish Trips: "Justices should comply with the restrictions on the acceptance of gifts"
* Transparency: No new system for the public to file complaints or outside review
* Review of Best Practices: Chief Justice John Roberts instructed the court staff to undertake the review
*************** HOMELESS CAMPING
Supreme Court to Hear the Most Consequential Homelessness-related Case in Decades
Our nation is facing growing homelessness and unsheltered population across the regions, spanning big cities and rural towns. Many of the states and local jurisdictions, especially governed by the Republicans, are taking a heavy-handed approach to a problem that, instead of addressing the root of the root causes, merely kicks the can down the road. Criminalizing homelessness only adds to the virulence of the problem and makes it worse. An April 2023 study conducted by the American Medical Association illustrates that displacement from encampments severs the unhoused population's connection with the healthcare services and causes higher propensity for drug overdose and death.
Now, the most consequential case in decades pitting constitutional rights vs. the authority of governments over homeless encampments has reached the U.S. Supreme Court, according to The Dallas Morning News' April 22, 2024, edition. Nation's apex court will hear the case that has originated at the small city of Grants Pass that's nestled in the mountains of southern Oregon. Grants Pass began to cite unhoused people $295 for sleeping outside. A class action lawsuit ensued in 2018. Two lower courts ruled against the city ordinance, calling them against the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that prohibited "cruel and unusual punishment". Now, the Grant Pass vs. Johnson is in the docket of the U.S. Supreme Court.
A 2018 verdict in a separate case by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that giving criminal citations to people sleeping outside when there was a lack of alternative housing was tantamount to violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment".
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Local Rights to Ban Homeless Encampment
Vertically split along the ideological line, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, 2024 ruled 6-3 to uphold the rights of local jurisdictions to fine and ban the homeless encampments.
*************** HOMELESS CAMPING
American Flag Upside Down over Justice Alito's Home, Report says
In a troubling sign indicating an open bias by a Supreme Court justice, The New York Times reported on May 16, 2024, that an American flag flew upside down on January 17, 2021 over U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's home. The inverted flag was a hallmark of Trump backers to protest against the unfounded allegation of vote stealing in 2020 Presidential Election. Many of the January 6th insurrectionists carried inverted flags during the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill demonstration. However, Justice Alito gave a lame duck excuse that it was not he who had done it, but his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, in protest against one their neighbors' behavior.
The self-adopted do's and don'ts that the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed to in November 2023 as part of the voluntary ethics rule would have prohibited an open display of an inverted U.S. flag.
Justice Alito not to Recuse from Capitol Attack Cases
In response to three letters written by Congressional Democrats last week to Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to seek Justice Alito's recusal from the two Capitol Hill attack-related cases over an inverted national flag at his Virginia house and an "Appeal to Heaven" flag flying outside the justice's beach home in New Jersey, Justice Samuel Alito on May 29, 2024 responded that he wouldn't recuse himself.
Alito Tells Liberal Activist Masquerading as Conservative: Country's Value "Can't be Compromised"
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito appears to not have faded from the limelight of controversies. Or saying in other words, the swirling controversies of the D.C. appear not to eschew Justice Alito. In a recording that went viral on social media platform X and first reported on June 10, 2024 by Rolling Stone, Justice Alito, in a rejoinder to a comment from liberal activist Lauren Windsor that the conservatives needed to keep fighting, said that the "one side or the other is going to win" in this war and there couldn't be any split difference on the nation's core values, which "can't be compromised". The comments coming from a U.S. Supreme Court justice are bereft of high standard and sagacious thought processes underlying the position, prestige and profile of an apex court justice.
The liberal documentary filmmaker attended incognito the Supreme Court Historical Society annual dinner at the Supreme Court on June 3, 2024, posing as a religious conservative and prodding Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to join the conversation, which the chief justice didn't oblige, but was able to extract highly unbecoming comments from Justice Samuel Alito, who had joined the dinner with his wife.
The AI-detection tool TrueMedia validated the veracity of the recording. U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society Executive Director James Duff criticized the recording, according to a June 12, 2024, report by The Dallas Morning News.
Supreme Court Rejects Petition against Offshore Income Taxes
In a case keenly followed by Conservatives and Liberals alike, pro-less and pro-fair tax advocates alike, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 20, 2024 ruled 7-2 against a suit filed by a Washington couple--Charles and Kathleen Moore--who had invested in an Indian firm, but never brought their income to the U.S. The couple, backed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, a free-market think tank, argued that their initial investment of $40,000 in KisanKraft had risen to over $500,000, but never took a dime out of that investment. Under the 2017 tax reduction law signed by Former President Donald Trump, a one-time tax was imposed on their investment income, netting in $15,000 in revenue for the federal government. The verdict was 7-2, with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas dissenting.
***************** SOCIAL MEDIA
Supreme Court Sides with Biden Admin on Social Media Content
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2024 handed a victory to Biden administration in what federal government could do in collaboration with social media companies to sanitize content that might be outright lies, discriminatory or derogatory. Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett opined that Missouri, Louisiana and other states, who accused Democratic administration to put pressure on social media firms to censor conservative content, didn't have legal right, or standing, to adopt the litigious path. The ruling was 6-3, with Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.
Nation's apex court heard a similar case in February 2024 over state laws such as Florida and Texas laws that banned social media firms from censoring conservative contents.
Supreme Court Returns the Texas and Florida Social Media Laws to Lower Courts
The U.S. Supreme Court on July 1, 2024 unanimously returned two cases related to the states of Texas and Florida banning removal of conservative content from the social media platforms to the lower courts, saying that the contradictory rulings from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals didn't deal sufficiently with the analysis of how the First Amendment Rights would be affected by the respective laws.
***************** SOCIAL MEDIA
Justices Sharply Narrow Obstruction of Justice Charges in Insurrection Cases
In a sharp attack on prosecutors' one of the main legal tools to pursue cases against the January 6th insurrectionists, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court on June 28, 2024 narrowed down the scope under which the federal government could prosecute the defendants, including Former President Donald Trump, under the obstruction of justice counts. The verdict was 6-3.
President Biden Calls for Supreme Court Reforms
As the U.S. Supreme Court's approval nosedived in recent years for undermining what many Democrats and Liberals said the progress of women's rights, voting rights, workers' rights and LGBTQ rights, President Joe Biden on July 29, 2024 used the pulpit of the institute named after the architect of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to call for profound reforms of the nation's apex court. President Joe Biden was supposed to be giving a keynote address at the LBJ Presidential Library in Austin in mid-July 2024 to mark the 60th anniversary of the July 2, 1964, signing of the Civil Rights Act, but had to postpone the trip due to the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt against Former President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania. On July 29, 2024, President Biden gave the first public address since dropping out of the presidential race. President Joe Biden called for an 18-year term limit for the U.S. Supreme Court Justices and a mandatory code of ethics--last year (2023) for the first time in the history, the U.S. Supreme Court unveiled a formal code of conduct for the justices without any enforcement mechanism or obligation--and a Constitutional Amendment to diminish the recent ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court to give broad immunity to the presidents while in office. The trifecta of proposals--term limits, mandatory Code of Conduct and Constitutional Amendment to counter the Supreme Court ruling favoring broad immunity for president--are the most expansive unveiled by any U.S. president as of date and they get immediate attention from scholars and experts as the proposal is coming from a seasoned public official whose entire public domain in Congress, then as the Vice President and eventually as the President is colored by his pursuit to uphold the institutional values.
Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed the presidential speech on the Supreme Court reforms, saying that it would be "dead on arrival".
******************************** U.S. SUPREME COURT **************************
Judges Should Avoid Financial Conflict of Interest
Writing on the eve of the New Year on the state of the nation's judiciary, Chief Justice John Roberts said that judges should "adhere to the highest standards" and recuse from cases where their own or families' conflict of financial interest were present. Justice Roberts' nine-page report issued on December 31, 2021 came after a damning article published by The Wall Street Journal, shedding light on activities and stating that "between 2010 and 2018, 131 federal judges participated in 685 matters involving companies in which they or their families owned shares of stock". Justice John Roberts said that "those judges violated an ethics rule".
******************************** U.S. FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM *******************
Judge Limits Cooperation between Social Media Companies, Government
In a sweeping and far-fetched ruling, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty on July 4, 2023 sided in favor of plaintiffs--Attorney Generals of Missouri and Louisiana--and ordered Biden administration to stop coordinating and contacting with the Social Media companies such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. The case stemmed from Biden administration's collaborative endeavor with the Social Media platforms to mitigate misinformation related to Coronavirus, COVID-19 vaccines and election conspiracy theories. Plaintiffs accused the Biden administration of weeding out the Conservative voices, content and messages from Social Media platforms. Although the federal judge imposed a preliminary injunction on the government contacts and cooperation with Social Media companies, the scope and breadth of his verdict indicated not a different final outcome than the TRO. In addition to government agencies such as the U.S. DOJ, DHS, State Department, Health and Human Services, and CDC, Judge Doughty barred Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Jen Easterly, head of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, from contacting with the companies.
U.S. Files Appeal against Contact Restriction
U.S. DOJ lawyers filed an appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 10, 2023 to put a temporary pause on U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty's July 4, 2023, order that instructed the Biden administration to end most of its contacts with Social Media and Technology companies. Hours earlier, the DOJ filed a motion before Judge Doughty for a temporary pause on his judgment issued six days ago, but the federal judge rejected the motion, thus leading to the motion before the appeals court.
******************************** U.S. FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM *******************
VOTING RIGHTS ISSUES
On June 25, 2013, the US Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling invalidated the Section 4 Voting Rights Act that is used as a formula to identify states and counties of several states that require federal government's pre-clearance for any change in voting rules and regulations. Section 4 is an old formula based on the minority voter turnout and registration from the 1964 presidential election. The ruling, authored by the Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by four other conservative judges on the bench--Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia--with the court's four liberal justices providing a dissenting rebuke, asked Congress to come up with a better formula to flag states and counties that need pre-clearance under Section 5 for any voting rules change. The ruling didn't impact either VRA of 1965 or Section 5 that demands pre-clearance requirement. However, the use of Section 5 has become moot now because of Supreme Court's June 25, 2013, ruling to make the Section 4 null and void, and it's very unlikely that a divided Congress will come up with a new formula any time soon. However, the ruling, opposed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Stephen Breyer, made clear that any discrimination based on race or other factors remained illegal, but left the aggrieved parties with the only option of suing the jurisdictions, perceived to be discriminating, in court under Section 2 that might take years to resolve. According to the writing of the Chief Justice Roberts: "Congress--if it is to divide the states--must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions. It cannot rely simply on the past". Section 4 of the VRA of 1965 automatically flags nine states--Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia--and parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota for pre-clearance requirement, under the Section 5 of the VRA of 1965, to approve any changes in voting rules.
History of the Voting Rights Act
* Inspired by the Civil Rights march on March 7, 1965 to demand for easing the discriminatory restrictions imposed on non-White voters, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, and the then-President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law on August 6, 1965.
* 1970: Congress extended Section 5 for five years.
* 1975: Congress extended Section 5 for an additional seven years and Texas came under the purview of VRA.
* 1982: Congress extended the Section 5 for 25 years.
* 2006: Congress held hearings on continuance of racial discrimination in voting. Extended Section 5 for 25 years by an overwhelming margin by Senate (98-0) and House of Representatives (390-33). The formula was made off the 1972 election data.
A day after Supreme Court's ruling on Voting Rights Act, Texas AG Gregg Abbott rushed ahead to implement the strict voter ID act passed by the Texas legislature in 2011, but put on hold.
On July 25, 2013, addressing a National Urban League conference in Philadelphia, the US AG Eric Holder made it plain that his Justice Department was willing to pursue legal route to block the election rule changes being sought by the state of Texas. The DOJ has leeway to pursue a legal case and persuade a court to force Texas to seek a federal pre-clearance through the Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. Meanwhile, US Rep. Marc Veasey, D-TX, along with others had already sued to block the new redistricting matters and the strict Voter ID law.
The US Department of Justice on August 22, 2013 joined the lawsuit filed by US Rep. Veasey to block a stringent voter ID law and weighing on a fight on redrawn election map. The case was filed in a Corpus Christi court.
100th Anniversary of Women's Suffrage Marked in a Racially Nuanced Way
Across the nation, women and men observed and marked--both virtually and in-person, but the latter with social distancing--on August 18, 2020 the 100th anniversary of ratification of the 19th Amendment of Constitution that extended the right to vote to women. However, most of the events were observed in a more balanced way as women of color were not permitted to vote freely because of racial segregation, literacy test, poll taxes and other discriminatory actions. Women and men of color were denied the basic rights to freely participate in the polling process until Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed. Rich tributes were made in the honor of well-known suffragists such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. This year is especially important as presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Former Vice President Joe Biden, had chosen Kamala Harris as his running mate, the first time any major party's political ticket included a Black woman. Not to be left behind in the hunt for suburban women votes, President Donald Trump said on August 18, 2020 that he would issue a posthumous pardon to Susan B. Anthony for the crime of defying the ban and voting in 1872 that had landed her in jail.
History of the Voting Rights Act
* Inspired by the Civil Rights march on March 7, 1965 to demand for easing the discriminatory restrictions imposed on non-White voters, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, and the then-President Lyndon B. Johnson signed it into law on August 6, 1965.
* 1970: Congress extended Section 5 for five years.
* 1975: Congress extended Section 5 for an additional seven years and Texas came under the purview of VRA.
* 1982: Congress extended the Section 5 for 25 years.
* 2006: Congress held hearings on continuance of racial discrimination in voting. Extended Section 5 for 25 years by an overwhelming margin by Senate (98-0) and House of Representatives (390-33). The formula was made off the 1972 election data.
A day after Supreme Court's ruling on Voting Rights Act, Texas AG Gregg Abbott rushed ahead to implement the strict voter ID act passed by the Texas legislature in 2011, but put on hold.
On July 25, 2013, addressing a National Urban League conference in Philadelphia, the US AG Eric Holder made it plain that his Justice Department was willing to pursue legal route to block the election rule changes being sought by the state of Texas. The DOJ has leeway to pursue a legal case and persuade a court to force Texas to seek a federal pre-clearance through the Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. Meanwhile, US Rep. Marc Veasey, D-TX, along with others had already sued to block the new redistricting matters and the strict Voter ID law.
The US Department of Justice on August 22, 2013 joined the lawsuit filed by US Rep. Veasey to block a stringent voter ID law and weighing on a fight on redrawn election map. The case was filed in a Corpus Christi court.
100th Anniversary of Women's Suffrage Marked in a Racially Nuanced Way
Across the nation, women and men observed and marked--both virtually and in-person, but the latter with social distancing--on August 18, 2020 the 100th anniversary of ratification of the 19th Amendment of Constitution that extended the right to vote to women. However, most of the events were observed in a more balanced way as women of color were not permitted to vote freely because of racial segregation, literacy test, poll taxes and other discriminatory actions. Women and men of color were denied the basic rights to freely participate in the polling process until Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed. Rich tributes were made in the honor of well-known suffragists such as Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. This year is especially important as presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Former Vice President Joe Biden, had chosen Kamala Harris as his running mate, the first time any major party's political ticket included a Black woman. Not to be left behind in the hunt for suburban women votes, President Donald Trump said on August 18, 2020 that he would issue a posthumous pardon to Susan B. Anthony for the crime of defying the ban and voting in 1872 that had landed her in jail.
****************************** A NEW VOTING RIGHTS BILL ***********************
House Starts Debating Voting Rights Bill
The Associated Press reported on March 1, 2021 that the House Resolution 1 backed by the House Democrats might be the most significant election reform measure in a generation to protect voting rights, especially for the voters from the communities of the color, restrict Republican-led states from carrying out massive voter suppression drive such as voter ID laws, shortening the early voting period and creating hurdles for the minority voters to easily register and vote, and most importantly, facilitate higher voter turnout by providing easier access to the electoral process such as same-day voter registration.
House Passes the Voting Rights Bill H.R. 1
House Democrats on March 3, 2021 passed the H.R. 1, a bill aimed at protecting the voting rights for millions of minority voters through a federally mandated standardized measures and oversight, by 220 to 210 votes.
****************************** A NEW VOTING RIGHTS BILL ***********************
Sinema, Manchin Stand in the Way of Voting Rights Bill in Senate
After the For the People's Act, or House Bill 1, and Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act were passed by the House of Representatives, there were much expectation that the U.S. Senate would take up at least one of them and pass. For months, there were no GOP support for any of those bills, or even a scaled-down version of them, leaving no choice for the Senate Democratic Caucus but to try to change the so called filibuster rule on this fundamental issue that's so near and dear to the Democratic base, especially after close to dozen Republican-ruled states made election law changes that had made voting by communities of color all but more difficult. Democratic Leader Senator Chuck Schumer has made the filibuster rule change a centerpiece of the Democratic strategy to push through Senate the Freedom to Vote that calls for election day to be made a national holiday, ensuring access to early voting as well as mail-in voting and requiring the DOJ to monitor elections more closely in states with discriminatory past. However, Senator Kyrsten Sinema and Senator Joe Manchin stood in the way, and voted with Republicans to defeat the filibuster rule change measure. The filibuster rule change measure fell by 52-48 vote in the U.S. Senate on January 19, 2022.
Trio of Republican States to Leave National Voting Integrity System
Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, is under the constant assault by conspiracy theorists and right-wing groups since the 2020 election. Louisiana withdrew from this national electoral integrity and security system last year. Alabama is in the process of withdrawing from ERIC. Next come Missouri, Florida and West Virginia. On March 6, 2023, Missouri State Secretary Jay Ashcroft said that he would withdraw the state from ERIC as the officials at the Center had failed to address his concerns.
SECTION 2 of the VRA: Private Parties Can't Bring Lawsuit, a Divided Appeals Court Rules
In a setback to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 20, 2023 sided with a lower court ruling that the private parties such as the NAACP had no legal standing in filing a lawsuit under the Section 2 of the landmark law. The 2-1 ruling marks a significant setback to the voting rights groups and minority rights groups. The lawsuit was filed by the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and Arkansas Public Policy Panel against the state's redistricting that had diluted the likely say of the state's Black voters by reducing the number of Black majority state House districts from 16 to 11.
U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky ruled that the redistricting might have very likely violated the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but the suit couldn't be brought by parties other than the U.S. Attorney-General, a more restrictive criterion to challenge the gerrymandering to undermine the minority voice. The November 20, 2023, ruling by the St. Louis-based appeals court, which oversees Arkansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota, puts stamp of approval to the lower court ruling. Judge David Stras, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion that other laws such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 spelt clearly when private parties could file a lawsuit. However, no such wording was present, according to the majority opinion that was joined by Circuit Judge Raymond Gruender, a George W. Bush appointee, in the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the court just couldn't fill in the blank absent Congressional mandate. Dissenting the majority opinion, Chief Judge Lavenski Smith, another Bush appointee, said that a foundational law such as the Voting Rights Act couldn't be left to be fended by a sparse few people just because it was not described in a more comprehensive way in the statute. The 2-1 ruling is only valid under the jurisdiction of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Republicans Gear up to Challenge Biden's EO Aimed at Making Voting Process Easier
The Dallas Morning News has reported on June 23, 2024 that President Joe Biden's March 7, 2021, Executive Order is attracting a whole lot of interest and scorn from the Republican leaders in the run-up to the November 2024 Presidential Election. The EO says that the federal government will strive for ensuring that "registering to vote and the act of voting be made simple". Republicans see the EO as a partisan effort to boost Democratic turnout and are planning to thwart the EO legally and legislatively.
ALABAMA
Supreme Court Lets Alabama's New Map Stand
U.S. Supreme Court on February 7, 2022 overturned a lower court ruling and allowed the new map drawn by the legislature to go into effect, paving the way for continuing stifling of minority voices. As Black people represent 27% of the state's population, Alabama's Congressional delegation of 7 members should include an additional Black-majority district to potentially increase the number of Black federal lawmakers to 2. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 otherwise, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court's three Liberal justices. Writing the dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan called the majority ruling as "a disservice to Black Alabamians" as it would dilute the representation of Black people. A three-judge special panel on January 24, 2022 threw away state's new map, calling it a violation to the Voting Rights Act.
Hearing on an Epic Alabama Case Tests the Voting Rights Act
In an unprecedented threat to the U.S. Voting Rights Act, the state of Alabama is trying to negate the collective of voice of 27% voters in the state who happen to be African Americans. On October 4, 2022, U.S. Supreme Court heard the case known as Merrill vs. Milligan. A lower court ruled in favor of a second Black majority district before the November 2022 election, but the U.S. Supreme Court on February 7, 2022 blocked the lower court ruling and let the state's biased map stand. Evan Milligan, an African American, is the plaintiff in this case. Alabama Solicitor General Edmund LaCour on October 4, 2022 argued that the redistricting should be done without showing any bias towards race factor. Merrill vs. Milligan is the first case related to Voting Rights Act that challenges the court's new justice, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Supreme Court Rejects Alabama's Redistricting Map
In a surprise verdict, U.S. Supreme Court on June 8, 2023 in a 5-4 ruling upheld the lower court verdict that had ruled the new Congressional boundaries to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act and ordered the state of Alabama to redraw the map. Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's three Liberal justices in the 5-4 ruling. The ruling has far-reaching effect as it will add a potentially Black majority district in the 7-seat Alabama delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives. The current map preserves only one Black majority district in the 7-seat delegation from a state that has 1 in 4 people as African American. The ruling may also impact a similar case filed related to Louisiana. The Alabama map in question before the U.S. Supreme Court was used in 2022 Midterm Election. The lead plaintiff in the Alabama redistricting case, Evan Milligan, said after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that "today is a win for democracy and freedom".
Plaintiffs Return to Court for Open Defiance of the Supreme Court by GOP
That the right-wing force will stop at nothing to preserve a tenuous GOP House majority is on full display in Alabama as the state legislature's new map has failed to create a second Black-majority district as per the U.S. Supreme Court's instruction. Supreme Court surprised in June 2023 by upholding a special three-judge panel's ruling that a second Black-majority district should be created among seven-member House delegation where "Black voters either comprise a voting-age majority" or something close. The Alabama Legislature has redrawn the map under the court orders, but instead of creating a second Black-majority district, it boosts the Black voters in the Second Congressional House district from the current 30% to 39.9%. Plaintiffs are aghast at Alabama Legislature's shameful defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 8, 2023, ruling. According to the July 31, 2023, edition of The Dallas Morning News, plaintiffs returned to the three-judge panel on July 28, 2023 with their new filing blasting the newly drawn map.
Alabama Map Redraw now in Special Master's Hands
The U.S. Supreme Court on September 26, 2023 turned away a Republican challenge to a three-judge appellate panel's decision to appoint a special master who had come up with three proposals that would create a second Black-majority, or close to that, district and brightening up the possibility for a second Democratic pick-up in seven-member Alabama House delegation team. The special master, Richard Allen, drew up a map that would have eligible Black voters between 48.5% and 50.1% of total voters of the District 2.
ARIZONA
Arizona Case the Key Test to 2013 Court Verdict on Voting Rights
An Arizona voting restriction law is being litigated at the U.S. Supreme Court and will provide the first insight into understanding of to what extent the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 may be leveraged by the aggrieved parties to redress voting restriction laws after the apex court's 2013 ruling that has waived the pre-clearance requirements, part of the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, before undertaking any changes to election rules, including voter ID laws, changes to precinct location and other efforts designed to undermine the options and opportunities for voting by minority voters. At issue are two provisions of the Arizona law: first provision curtails Arizona voters' ability to vote in polling stations outside their precincts, and a second provision precludes any third-party handling of the mail-in ballots, including dropping at designated places, or mailing the ballots. As far as the second provision is concerned, it has to be a voter by themselves, or a caregiver or a family member or a postal worker or an election official, but not any political operative. The case was heard on March 2, 2021.
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Pair of Arizona Voter Restrictions Measures
The conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court on July 1, 2021 dealt a significant setback to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by diluting a key provision against voting suppression. The 6-3 ruling upheld two measures of an Arizona voting restriction law that voting rights groups and minority rights groups assailed as state tools aimed at curbing the turnout of voters from the communities of color. The measures pertain to barring out of precinct votes and so called "ballot harvesting" such as a neighbor can carry a disabled voter's sealed ballot to drop at the Post Office. The apex court, though, didn't eviscerate completely the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 under which plaintiffs would be able to file lawsuits against voting restriction laws, but nonetheless diluted the the teeth of the provision. Now, the DOJ lawsuit against Georgia's voting restriction law filed last week under the Section 2 looks more uncertain. President Joe Biden, reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, urged the Congress to strengthen the federal oversight as in eight years the apex court had diluted the 1965 era landmark law twice, first, in Shelby vs. Holder in 2013, by invalidating the Section 4 of the VRA that had rendered federal "pre-clearance", a bulwark of the Section 5, all but impossible, and on July 1, 2021, by upholding two controversial Arizona voting restriction measures, significantly weakening the last tool (Section 2) of the Voting Rights Act needed to fight racial discrimination.
U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Pair of Arizona Voter Restrictions Measures
The conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court on July 1, 2021 dealt a significant setback to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by diluting a key provision against voting suppression. The 6-3 ruling upheld two measures of an Arizona voting restriction law that voting rights groups and minority rights groups assailed as state tools aimed at curbing the turnout of voters from the communities of color. The measures pertain to barring out of precinct votes and so called "ballot harvesting" such as a neighbor can carry a disabled voter's sealed ballot to drop at the Post Office. The apex court, though, didn't eviscerate completely the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 under which plaintiffs would be able to file lawsuits against voting restriction laws, but nonetheless diluted the the teeth of the provision. Now, the DOJ lawsuit against Georgia's voting restriction law filed last week under the Section 2 looks more uncertain. President Joe Biden, reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, urged the Congress to strengthen the federal oversight as in eight years the apex court had diluted the 1965 era landmark law twice, first, in Shelby vs. Holder in 2013, by invalidating the Section 4 of the VRA that had rendered federal "pre-clearance", a bulwark of the Section 5, all but impossible, and on July 1, 2021, by upholding two controversial Arizona voting restriction measures, significantly weakening the last tool (Section 2) of the Voting Rights Act needed to fight racial discrimination.
U.S. DOJ Files Lawsuit against Arizona Voting Rights Law
United States Department of Justice on July 5, 2022 filed a lawsuit against Arizona's HB 2492 that Governor Doug Ducey had signed in March 2022. The law requires voters to prove citizenship such as birth certificate or passport for voter registration. The law is to go into effect next year, but it sends a chill through the bone of voting rights activists as it will disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters from the communities of color. Mounting challenge to HB 2492, Assistant Attorney-General Kristen Clarke said that the law was a "textbook violation" of the National Voter Registration Act.
ARKANSAS
Arkansas High Court Tosses out Voter ID Law
Arkansas' highest court on October 15, 2014 tossed out the restrictive voter id law.
FLORIDA
Election Police Unit Brings Charges against 20
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on April 25, 2022 signed a bill to create the first of a kind in the nation an election police unit to weed out election fraud. The bill created the Office of Election Crimes and Security. On August 18, 2022, the election integrity office named 20 people in election fraud. Governor Ron DeSantis used a campaign-style event at Fort Lauderdale to announce the charges of voter fraud involving 20 people out of 11 million voters who had voted in 2020 election. Voter fraud is very rare. Less than 475 cases have been found as potential voter fraud out of 25.5 million votes in the six states that Donald Trump's campaign had contested the outcomes in 2020.
GEORGIA
Georgia’s Voting Law a Major Concern for Minorities
After Donald Trump’s defeat in 2020 election, Republicans in several states have taken some of the harshest and shameful measures to restrict access to voting. Georgia has become the epicenter of the fight against indirect voter suppression. In response to Governor Brian Kemp’s signing of Georgia’s Election Integrity Act, NAACP and other organizations have filed a lawsuit on March 28, 2021 against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensberger and other members of the State Election Board on the ground that the law violates the U.S. Constitution and Voting Rights Act. Georgia’s Election Integrity Act requires a photo ID when voting absentee by mail, cuts down the time to seek mail in ballots, drop box location and other access restrictions as well as it criminalizes handing out food or drinks to voters in the voting line and expands other restrictive measures.
DOJ Files Lawsuit against Georgia Voting Restriction Law under Section 2
U.S. Attorney-General Merrick Garland on June 25, 2021 filed a federal lawsuit against Georgia's restrictive voter law under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Judge Orders Georgia to Redraw Maps Favorable to Democrats
A federal judge on October 26, 2023 ordered Georgia lawmakers to draw new maps that would create two favorable Democratic state senate seats, five additional Democratic state House pick-ups and an opportunity for Democrats to win an additional U.S. House seat from the state. Governor Brian Kemp called a special legislative session for November 29, 2023 hours after the verdict issued by U.S. District Judge Steve Jones.
Legislative Session to Begin to Draw New Voting Maps
As per the order from U.S. District Judge Steve Jones, Georgia Legislature is to begin a special session on December 6, 2023 to redraw voting maps after its earlier version has been tossed out by the court.
Judge Accepts Revised Republican Map
U.S. District Judge Steve Jones on December 28, 2023 has accepted newly drawn map that still favors Republicans.
KANSAS
Kansas Voter Registration Law Challenged
American Civil Liberties Union on February 18, 2016 filed a lawsuit challenging a 3-year-old Kansas law that required proof of citizenship for voting registration. According to ACLU, the law deprives voting rights of tens of thousands of genuine voters, most of them are poor, minority and elderly. Only three other states beside Kansas require the citizenship proof for registration: Georgia, Alabama and Arizona.
NORTH CAROLINA
Voter ID Law Struck Down
A Panel of 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 29, 2016 struck down North Carolina's voter ID law, calling it a discriminatory against "African-Americans with surgical precision". The appeals court ruling reversed a late April 2016 lower court ruling by a federal judge in Winston-Salem.
U.S. Supreme Court Frustrates GOP, not to Intervene in Voter ID Law
North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory received a severe jolt on August 31, 2016 in his bid to restore one of the most restrictive, if not discriminatory, voter ID laws of the nation in the aftermath of the July 29, 2016, ruling by a panel of 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as the U.S. Supreme Court was deadlocked with 4-4 vote and decided not to accept the appeal.
State Supreme Court Throws out GOP-written New Map
North Carlina Supreme Court on February 4, 2022 ruled 4-3 to reject a map re-write of the state General Assembly and U.S. House seats that would heavily favor the GOP. The state Supreme Court asked the legislature to redraw the map by February 18, 2022 and provide an explanation of the redrawing strategy. The new map will be used in North Carolina's May 17, 2022, primary.
Legislature Draws New Map Cementing GOP Majority
North Carolina's lawmakers on October 25, 2023 passed new state House and Senate maps as well as the U.S. House redistricting maps with a veto-proof margin. The new maps are not significantly less biased than the previous maps which have been rejected by the court. The gerrymandering is so pronounced that it will cement the GOP majority among the U.S. House of Representatives delegation and state legislature in the coming decade.
NORTH DAKOTA
Federal Judge Orders Change to Voter Map to Give Due Rights to Tribes
That the gerrymandering dilutes voting rights not only of Black voters, but other minority voters too, has become evident as a federal judge, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, has on January 8, 2024 ordered North Dakota Secretary of State Michael Howe and state legislature to work on a new map that will create a state legislative seat whose outcome will be determined by Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians and the Spirit Lake Tribe. Judge Welte on November 17, 2023 gave the state a deadline of December 22, 2023 to rectify the bias.
OHIO
Appeals Court Tosses out Voter Registration Law
A panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on September 23, 2016 that the voter registration purge law that Ohio had proposed would drop many genuine voters who had not cast their votes in recent polls and sent the measure back to a lower court to work on appropriate criteria. The ACLU of Ohio and another activist group sued the state's Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted in April 2016 for violating voting rights.
PENNSYLVANIA
A state judge in Pennsylvania, Commonwealth Court Judge Bernard McGinley, on January 17, 2014 struck down a 2012 state voter ID law.
TEXAS
A day after Supreme Court's ruling on Voting Rights Act, Texas AG Gregg Abbott on June 26, 2013 rushed ahead to implement the strict voter ID act passed by the Texas legislature in 2011.
On July 25, 2013, addressing a National Urban League conference in Philadelphia, the US AG Eric Holder made it plain that his Justice Department was willing to pursue legal route to block the election rule changes being sought by the state of Texas. The DOJ has leeway to pursue a legal case and persuade a court to force Texas to seek a federal pre-clearance through the Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act. Meanwhile, US Rep. Marc Veasey, D-TX, along with others had already sued to block the new redistricting matters and the strict Voter ID law.
The US Department of Justice on August 22, 2013 joined the lawsuit filed by US Rep. Veasey to block a stringent voter ID law and weighing on a fight on redrawn election map. The case was filed in a Corpus Christi court.
Judge Blocks Voter ID Law
A federal district judge, U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christie, on October 9, 2014 blocked the Texas voter id law from going into effect days before the November mid-term polls. Issuing a scathing ruling against the country's one of the most stringent voter id laws, Judge Ramos likened the measure to an unconstitutional "poll tax" that would burden and hinder the voting rights of the state's minority population.
Appeals Court Reinstates Voter ID Law
On October 14, 2014, a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the voter id law that was tossed out by the U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christie, on October 9, 2014.
Appeals Court Issues Verdict against Voter ID Law
A day before the 50th anniversary of signing of Voting Rights Act by the then-President Lyndon B. Johnson, a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on August 5, 2015 that the Texas' voter ID law was "discriminatory" against minorities, but stopped short of calling it tantamount to "poll tax" as a lower court judge, the U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christie, ruled on October 9, 2014.
Appeals Court Strikes Down Texas Voter ID Law
A full bench of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on July 20, 2016 tossed out one of the strictest voter ID laws of the nation, ruling that the Texas Senate Bill 14 had been passed to discriminate the minorities and thus violated the Voting Rights Act. The 9-6 ruling didn't nullify all the ID requirements of the law, but definitely loosened the strict requirements enshrined in the law. The decision, especially coming from a conservative appeals court, was a slap in the face of Texas' Republican state officials. The law was enacted in 2011, but kept in abeyance until the June 25, 2013, U.S. Supreme Court ruling invalidating the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Reacting to the verdict of the full bench of the New Orleans-based appeals court, the lead plaintiff of the case, Rep. Marc Veasey, D-Fort Worth, then a state house representative and now a U.S. House member, issued a statement, "Today Texas voters' fair access to the ballot box is restored". What has befuddled many is that state's GOP officials and leaders have spent so much time and money to pass the measure, SB14, destined to fix an almost non-existent problem as voter impersonation has been extremely rare as there has been only a pair of convictions out of 20 million votes cast a decade leading to the passage of the measure.
Texas Reaches Agreement on Voter ID Law
Two weeks after a federal appeals court tossed out the state's strict voter ID law, Texas on August 3, 2016 reached an agreement that would loosen the stiff voting requirements as called for by the SB14. Under the agreement, Texas voters whose name are on the voter list will be able to cast their votes by showing IDs that go beyond the narrow list allowed by the law, thus helping reverse disenfranchising about 600,000 Texans. The agreement reached among the state, the US DOJ officials and minority rights groups will be submitted to the U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of Corpus Christie for her approval. Besides, the state officials will spend about $2.5 million in voter reach-out effort. On July 20, 2016, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 9-6 against the SB14, specifically calling out the state for violating the Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act that prohibited discrimination based on color, race and ethnicity.
Texas Doesn't Need Oversight in Re-districting, Federal Court Says
A three-judge federal court panel in San Antonio on July 24, 2019 ruled that there didn't need to be any oversight of the state's re-districting effort after 2020 Census, dealing a setback to Texas' minority rights and voting rights advocates.
Texas Democrats Complain to DOJ over Voting Rights Bill
A Texas House panel chairman on April 29, 2021 has brought the Senate Bill 7, an omnibus bill that significantly restricts voting rights, without any prior notification, leading to complaints by four Democrats in the House Committee on Elections. Rep. Briscoe Cain, Republican chairman of the committee, didn't hold any public hearings on the bill. It was a whisking-away sort of move to rush a controversial measure through the panel without even minimum vetting. Four Democrats wrote U.S. Attorney-General Merrick Garland to investigate into sloppy proceeding within the committee. Hours later, the committee voted 5-4 to clear the bill, but replacing the language of Senate Bill 7 with that of House Bill 6, House's version of voting restriction bill that had been discussed days ago.
Texas House Passes SB 7 with Democrats-championed Amendments
Texas House on May 7, 2021 voted in favor of a controversial bill that Democrats alleged to have aimed at restricting the voting access. The Senate Bill 7 has been amended before sailing through the House with a party-line vote of 78-64. The bill now goes to Senate where Senators either may accept the changes enacted by the House or convene a conference committee meeting to hash out the differences. The bill has been debated late early morning of May 7, 2021 from May 6, 2021, and the final vote was taken on May 7, 2021. Amendments, aimed at loosening the edge of voting restrictions, proposed by Democrats have been accepted. However, a central component of the expanded voting rights, universal mail-in ballot applications, is made unlawful under the bill.
******************************************** SB 1: VOTING BILL ***************************
House Passes Voting Bill in the Second Special Session
House of Representatives on August 26, 2021 passed a restrictive voting bill (Senate Bill 1) in a party line vote of 79-37, with only one Republican--Rep. Lyle Larson, San Antonio--voting with Democrats. House will vote on the bill a second time on August 27, 2021. After that, Senate can accept the House-passed changes or reconcile in a conference committee. The bill bans 24-hour voting and drive-through voting as well empowering partisan poll watchers. The bill also calls for punishment, including a year in jail, if election workers obstruct poll watchers' view and freedom of movement except near voting machine. However, Republicans acceded the Democratic demand to provide assistance to the voters with disabilities if they seek such assistance. There will be requirement of voter ID for absentee ballots. The bill does not include key Democratic demands such as same day registration, curbside voting for COVID-19 and others.
Election Bill out of House Doors
An election bill that Democrats panned as a veiled Jim Crow-era effort to curb the minority voting sailed through the House floor for the second time on August 27, 2021. The margin was 80-41, with a lone San Antonio Republican, Rep. Lyle Larson, joining 40 other Democratic lawmakers to vote against the SB 1.
Voting Bill Awaits Abbott's Signature
The restrictive voting bill was discussed by a House-Senate reconciliation committee, and the bill was slightly modified in the conference committee. Senate on August 31, 2021 passed the SB 1 by 18-13 party line vote, and House passed it by 80-41 votes. A lone Republican, Rep. Lyle Larson, R-San Antonio, voted against the SB 1. The SB 1 now awaits Governor Gregg Abbott's signature. Key features of the Senate Bill 1 are:
* Absentee voters, primarily the elderly and disabled Texans, face new ID requirements, but also will have new mechanism to rectify mistakes in the vote-by-mail applications and ballots.
* Prohibition of 24-hour polling stations
* Prohibition of drive-through voting
* Elections officials are prohibited from sending unsolicited vote-by-mail applications, even to qualified voters, although political campaigns are allowed to send the applications to voters.
* Poll watchers will have free movement other than close to ballot boxes, and election workers who will obstruct the views of poll watchers can face criminal penalties and jail time. Poll watchers, though, need to take a training course and are prohibited from harassing voters.
* The state's largest counties, including Tarrant, Dallas, Denton, Harris and Collin, have to provide livestream of areas where ballots are kept as well as counting areas.
* Early voting should be held between 6AM and 10PM, with counties having 55,000 or more population--current threshold is 100,000---required to offer 12-hour early voting window during weekdays.
* Assistants to disabled voters have to reveal their relationship with the voters and acknowledge, under the perjury clause, that they have not been selected by coercion.
* A candidate can sue the opponent for violating election fraud law
* Election workers face stricter oversight and require tighter adherence with the election law
An amendment that was part of the House-passed bill was stripped of in the conference committee as the Senate sponsor of the SB 1, Sen. Brian Hughes, R-Mineola, objected to the provision, saying that it was too broad and would compromise the prosecution of non-citizens. Rep. Briscoe Cain, R-Deerfield, has pushed the amendment so that voters who are ineligible to vote will not be sentenced to years in jail for exercising their most fundamental right without knowing that they are not entitled to. The amendment is to shield people like Crystal Mason of Tarrant County who has voted in 2016. She didn't know that she could not vote. Mason was sentenced to five years in prison. She is appealing that verdict in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Governor Abbott Signs the Voting Bill; More Lawsuits Filed
Governor Gregg Abbott on September 7, 2021 has signed the SB 1 that prohibits 24-hour and drive-through voting, puts new restrictions on mail-in voting provisions, empowers partisan poll watchers and curbs the authorities of poll workers. Two more lawsuits were filed during the day in addition to three which had been filed last week.
Voting Bill Puts More Onus on Secretary of State
The Office of Texas Secretary of State will gain new dimension, heft and spotlight under the state's newly passed voting bill, according to a September 20, 2021, report carried by The Dallas Morning News. The most problematic will be comprehensive audit of four randomly selected counties, out of which two have to have at least 300,000 residents, implying that every time an audit is undertaken, at least two large, urban and Democrat-dominated Texas counties will be selected for audit. The audit will not only cover the current election cycle, but every single election in the last two years. This will turn in a massively expensive auditing task in every two years.
Fed Files Lawsuit against SB1
The U.S. Department of Justice on November 4, 2021 filed a suit against the newly signed voting bill, SB 1, before it would go into effect in December 2021. The lawsuit challenges two provisions in that bill. The first provision requires the applicants to put either their Driver's License number, or state-issued ID number, or the last four digits of the social security number on the application forms to ask for mail-in ballots. The DOJ contended that it would make many voters, mostly poor and from the communities of color, ineligible for mail-in ballots. The second component is bill's proscription of assistance to voters needing help such as voters with disabilities.
Federal Judge Blocks Part of the Voting Restriction Bill
A federal judge on February 11, 2022 blocked one provision of SB 1 that prohibited election administrators from sending mail-in ballot applications to voters or encouraging voters for seeking mail-in ballot applications, opining that it had contravened with their [election administrators'] freedom of speech. The lawsuit was brought by Harris County Election Administrator Isabel Longoria and Cathy Morgan, a volunteer deputy registrar in Travis and Williamson Counties. In the 2020 election, Harris County sent absentee ballots to voters. Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton argued that state employees could not promote one option over the other. That's where U.S. District Judge Xavier Rodriguez stepped in, and argued that neither Longoria nor Morgan were state employees and thus controlling their communication as an employer was totally "unavailing" to the state. Doing so would violate the rights of free speech of the plaintiffs. The other provisions of SB 1, effective since December 2021, still remain valid.
12% of Mail-in Ballots Rejected
In an ominous sign, 24,636 mail-in ballots, or roughly 12%, have been rejected in the March 1, 2022, Texas Primary Election, according to April 7, 2022, edition of The Dallas Morning News. A total of 10,355 mail-in ballots sent in the Republican Primary and 14,281 ballots in the Democratic Primary have been rejected.
******************************************** SB 1: VOTING BILL ***************************
Gov Names a Trump Backer as the New Secretary of State
Governor Gregg Abbott on October 21, 2021 named Fort Worth lawyer John Scott as the new secretary of state. Scott represented Trump's legal team in its contest against the Pennsylvania results in the 2020 Presidential election.
Governor Signs New Texas Voting Map Bill
Governor Gregg Abbott on October 25, 2021 signed a measure of new voting maps for state and Congressional boundaries that had been passed in the third legislative session, consolidating the Republican domination in state politics for another decade or so, but diluting the growing strength of non-White voters. At least two federal lawsuits have been filed, challenging the new maps.
DOJ Files Lawsuit against Texas' New Redistricting Map
Biden administration on December 6, 2021 filed a lawsuit against the new electoral map drawn by GOP-led legislature and signed by Governor Gregg Abbott. Attorney-General Merrick Garland called the newly drawn map as a tool to "deny or abridge the rights of Latino and Black voters" and called the Texas GOP-led [redistricting] plan as "discriminatory redistricting schemes". The complaint filed at a federal court in El Paso came in the midst of election candidacy filing season that had begun on November 13, 2021 and would last through December 13, 2021.
Abbott Signs a Bill that Makes Voter Fraud Felony Again
Governor Gregg Abbott on June 13, 2023 signed a legislation that would return Texas where it was there for the last half a century before voter fraud had been made a misdemeanor two years ago in the last legislative session. Now, with signing of Governor Abbott of the new legislation on June 13, 2023, voter fraud is to become a felony again with up to 20 years in prison time.
WISCONSIN
US Supreme Court Blocks Wisconsin Voter ID Law
In the run-up to the November 4, 2014, mid-term elections, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked a Wisconsin voter id law that would put onerous burden on state's minority voters. The 6-3 ruling issued by the nation's apex court on October 10, 2014 raised questions about the future of other voter id laws being pushed in dozens of states by the GOP state legislatures.
Supreme Court Refuses to Accept Challenge to Voter ID Law
The U.S. Supreme Court on March 23, 2015 refused to take the challenge to the state's voter ID law, leading to requiring voters to show ID in future polls and giving a victory to the state's Republican Governor Scott Walker, a potential Republican candidate in 2016 presidential election.
Federal Judge Tosses out Several Restrictive Voting Laws
A Wisconsin federal judge on July 29, 2016 tossed out several restrictive election laws. Two liberal groups brought suit against the laws, including a voter ID law, in May 2016. The judge rejected many of the laws, but upheld the voter ID law.
No comments:
Post a Comment