Several pivotal cases were decided this term. While there were a few “wins” in that the outcomes could have been far worse, it’s hard not to feel that these reprieves may only be temporary, subject to the composition of the Court.
First, the not-terrible news:
Mifepristone is Still Accessible (for now)
SCOTUS temporarily stopped the terrible mifepristone decisions out of the Northern District of Texas and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from going into effect. That the decision in these cases was a relief rather than an expected outcome — this case should never have gone forward — shows how extreme courts can be and how fraught of a situation we’re in for future cases related to abortion access. Litigation continues, and we will likely see the question of the approval of mifepristone at the Supreme Court again.
Learn more in our discussion of these cases:
- Is your head spinning from the whiplash of the mifepristone case? We’ve got you covered
- An attempt to prevent people from accessing a safe and effective method for abortion.
Haaland v. Brackeen
SCOTUS upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act, 7-2. Congress passed ICWA in 1978 in response to the horrifying history of separating Native and Indigenous children from their families – a continuation of the centuries of genocide and forced assimilation meant to destroy Native and Indigenous cultures and communities. ICWA establishes standards for removing Native and Indigenous children from their families and establishes a preference that Indigenous children be placed with extended family members or in Native and Indigenous foster homes. Its dismantling would have been devastating. Justices Alito and Thomas dissented from the majority opinion protecting tribal sovereignty because, as we know, they are dorks.
Moore v. North Carolina
In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS rejected an extreme and antidemocratic legal theory out of North Carolina that would have upended how federal elections work in the United States. Legislators in North Carolina argued that state legislatures have exclusive power to set election rules and are not bound by state constitutions or subject to review by state courts. This theory was bonkers and antithetical to the way our democracy works. That three justices dissented from the decision (Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch) is extremely concerning. Again, they are dorks.
Allen v. Milligan
In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS preserved a vital provision of the Voting Rights Act after weakening it in previous terms. This case challenged Alabama’s redistricting map for its seven U.S. House of Representatives seats. Plaintiffs argued that the map diluted the votes of the state’s Black residents. However, it’s worth noting that the Court had allowed problematic maps to be used in the 2022 election, so fixing it now is kind of late.
The decisions in these cases were positive. But all that really means is that SCOTUS followed the law and did its job, clearing the lowest possible bar.
Now for the very bad:
Biden v. Nebraska:
The Court rejected President Biden’s policies to forgive student debt for millions of people. The soaring costs of higher education and large amounts of debt carried by borrowers is well documented. And student debt is a racial justice issue. Conservative politicians have decried the “unfairness” of loan forgiveness (but don’t seem to mind their PPP loans being forgiven). But to challenge the program, someone had to have standing to bring a lawsuit. Six states sued, alleging injury vis a vis loan servicer MOHELA, but MOHELA did not participate in the case – sketchy! The 6-3 decision expands the notion of what an injury is, giving the courts (and SCOTUS) more power. The Biden administration will pursue other ways to relieve student debt, but this same Court will ultimately review them, so it’s not looking too hopeful.
303 Creative v. Elenis
The Court sided with a wedding website designer who sought to deny services LGBTQ+ couples. By a 6-3 vote, SCOTUS found that Colorado law violated the designer’s right to free speech in that the government would be forcing her to abandon her religious beliefs against marriage equality. Disturbingly, the majority did not once reference Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage across the United States. Justice Sotomayor points out in her dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, that this is a case about discrimination against queer people. An individual’s religious beliefs are not a license to discriminate. It is incredibly alarming that this decision comes during increased legislative attacks on LGBTQ+ communities. And just as troubling — the same people behind the mifepristone lawsuit are behind this one — Alliance Defending Freedom. And one of the bases for this lawsuit — a request to design a website for a gay couple — was apparently faked.
That’s right.
The gay couple mentioned in the case to gain standing never existed in the first place.
Again, SKETCHY!
Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
Again, SCOTUS went against decades of precedent in gutting affirmative action in higher education in a pair of decisions by the six-justice supermajority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson observed in her dissent: “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” Justice Sotomayor wrote, “The court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society.” Voluminous research shows that students of color, particularly Black and Latinx students, are underrepresented on college campuses. Moreover, diverse student bodies benefit all students. Yet colleges continue to have programs like legacy admissions that overwhelmingly benefit white students. Expect more litigation exploring issues like college essays in the future.
These damaging decisions were issued by Justices with virtually no oversight while mired in ethical issues and protected by lifetime appointments.
But there is hope!
Read more about how we can repair our Court and turn things around.
 |
Jenny Blasdell Chief of Staff |