Supreme Court

A look at the Supreme Court and those who serve on that court.

Why The Supreme Court Probably Doesn’t Care What Most Americans Think About Abortion Or Gun Rights | FiveThirtyEight

Why The Supreme Court Probably Doesn’t Care What Most Americans Think About Abortion Or Gun Rights | FiveThirtyEight

It's also possible that Supreme Court justices mostly care about their reputation among a select group of Americans. Baum and Neal Devins, a professor of law and government at the College of William & Mary, have argued that Supreme Court justices are more interested in how they’re regarded by elites.

This is significant for understanding why the conservative justices’ behavior has become more predictably right-wing. Baum and Devins argue that as elites have grown more politically polarized, the justices’ partisan tendencies have hardened as well. In other words, the people influencing the conservative justices' thoughts are probably much more right-wing than the public at large. On top of that, some of the justices may be willing to risk backlash for the outcome they believe is correct. “Is legitimacy something that’s enough to get a justice to move away from something [he or she] strongly feels?” Baum told me. With the possible exception of Roberts, who is particularly focused on the court’s image, Baum doesn’t think the public’s views will be enough to sway a justice who cares deeply about the issue they’re deciding.

And this might be right. On one hand, it’s not obvious that a single unpopular ruling -- even if it’s high-profile -- would be enough to sow widespread doubt in the Supreme Court’s legitimacy. Take the outcome in Bush v. Gore, where a divided Supreme Court, split along partisan lines, effectively handed the presidency to George W. Bush. The ruling was intensely controversial at the time, but it appears to have had little lasting impact on the court’s image. And although it might be hard to imagine, the same could be true of a decision that overturns or reshapes Roe — particularly if the justices merely limit the constitutional right to abortion, rather than eliminate it.

NPR

Supreme Court Throws Out California Nonprofit Donor Disclosure Law : NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday sided with rich donors and their desire to remain anonymous against a state law aimed at policing the finances of charities and other nonprofits.

By a 6-3 vote along ideological lines, the court struck down California's law requiring nonprofits to file a list of their large donors with the state. The court said the law subjected donors to potential harassment, chilling their speech in violation of the 1st Amendment

Under the California law, the tax-exempt groups were to attach to their filings with the state a copy of their IRS form reporting the names and addresses of all donors who gave more than $5,000 or 2% of the organization's total donations.

Cooper v. Aaron | Oyez

Cooper v. Aaron | Oyez

It's hard to believe that prior to 1958, government agencies were free to ignore rulings the US Supreme Court declaring a law unconstitutional. But US Supreme Court lacks an army or police force, and until President Eisenhower agreed to go along with Cooper v. Aaron and send National Guard to Arkansas to enforce the rulings of US Supreme Court, it wasn't clear if courts could force a government agency to follow the law.
 
Could a future president or state decide to ignore the law as set down by the courts? Things like this happen all the time, but usually there is enough political push-back to outright defiance to courts, that such defiance isn't long lasting or extensive.

U.S. Supreme Court limits police power to enter homes with no warrant | Reuters

U.S. Supreme Court limits police power to enter homes with no warrant | Reuters

The 9-0 ruling directed the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider Edward Caniglia's lawsuit accusing police of violating his constitutional rights by bringing him to a hospital for a mental health evaluation and taking away his guns without a warrant after a 2015 argument with his wife.

Lower courts had ruled that police in the Rhode Island city of Cranston did not violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The case centered on a legal doctrine that gives officers leeway to engage in "community caretaking" to ensure public safety. In its ruling, the Supreme Court, which has previously applied this doctrine to vehicles, said it does not apply to the home as well.

NPR

Supreme Court Seems Ready To Uphold Restrictive Voting Laws : NPR

The U.S. Supreme Court seemed ready on Tuesday to uphold Arizona's restrictive voting laws, setting the stage for what happens in the coming months and years, as Republican-dominated state legislatures seek to make voting more difficult.

This is unfortunate as voting should be as easy as possible to maximize participation, and not to munipulate the output if folks don't agree with the conclusions.