That 1964 ruling created a higher bar for public figures to claim libel and has been a bedrock of US media law, but the two conservative justices said it's time to take another look.

He added that "thanks to the revolutions in technology, today virtually anyone in this county can publish virtually anything for immediate consumption virtually anywhere in the world."

Gorsuch and Thomas wrote as they dissented when the court declined to take up a case from the son of a former prime minister of Albania who claimed several statements were defamatory in a book that was later turned into the Hollywood film, "War Dogs."

"Not only has the doctrine evolved into a subsidy for published falsehoods on a scale no one could have foreseen, it has come to leave far more people without redress than anyone could have predicted," Gorsuch said.

He added that previous tests courts have used "seem increasingly malleable and even archaic when almost anyone can attract some degree of public notoriety in some media segment."

Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said Gorsuch's public move "is a pretty big deal."

"Sullivan provides crucial protection of the independence of news outlets, whose reporting might otherwise be chilled, even for accurate stories, if it were easier to sue them for defamation," Vladeck said. "The more justices who look poised to potentially revisit that precedent in the coming years, the more alarming Justice Thomas's previously idiosyncratic critiques become."

Thomas said that the court's earlier pronouncements that the First Amendment "required public figures to establish actual malice bears no relation to the text, history or structure of the Constitution."

"The proliferation of falsehoods is, and always has been, a serious matter. Instead of continuing to insulate those who perpetrate lies from traditional remedies like libel suits, we should give them only the protection the First Amendment requires," he wrote.

Thomas often plants seeds on issues he thinks should attract more attention from his colleagues.

In 2019 he, alone, urged the court to take another look at New York Times v. Sullivan calling it a policy-driven decision "masquerading as constitutional law." He has also suggested that Congress should consider whether laws should be updated to regulate social media platforms that he said have come to have "unbridled control" over speech.

Albanian brought First Amendment challenge

The case the court rejected Friday was brought by Shkelzen Berisha, a resident of Albania and son of a former prime minister. He sought to challenge several statements that he said are defamatory in a book called "Arms and the Dudes: How Three Stoners from Miami Beach Became the Most Unlikely Gunrunners in History." It was later turned into the Hollywood feature film "War Dogs" starring Jonah Hill and Miles Teller.

The book says that Berisha met with "dudes" in Albania to arrange the delivery and repackaging of munitions.

In court papers, a lawyer for Berisha argues that the " petition presents an important constitutional question: should the First Amendment continue to shield from liability publishers of false defamatory statements merely because the subject of these statements is deemed a 'public figure' and cannot show that they were made with actual malice."

Lawyers for the authors and their publishers say that Berisha has "100% name recognition" in his country.

"In 2008, it was widely reported that he was part of an arms dealing cabal within the Albanian government involving state-owned weapons" they said and added that the "same cabal reportedly defrauded the U.S. government by setting up a kickback scheme through which Petitioner and others profited from the sale of Albanian ammunition stockpiles needed to equip the Afghan security forces."

They said that there is "no question" that Berisha is a public figure under current law and that he cannot establish actual malice "because the book's reporting was informed by voluminous news reports" about his "corrupt activities."

A district court ruled against Berisha holding that he is a "limited public figure" and that he had to demonstrate actual malice to prevail in his claim.

CNN's Veronica Stracqualursi contributed to this report.

Read more:

Justices Gorsuch and Thomas call to revisit landmark First Amendment case New York Times v. Sullivan - CNN

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L., No. 20-255, (U.S. June 23, 2021), upholding students' free speech rights for the first time since 1969. In an 8-1 decision, the Court strongly reaffirmed the landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), and held the school could not punish a high school cheerleader's off-campus Snapchat message to friends.

Despite the vulgar nature of the message"Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything" with an image of the student and her friend with their middle fingers raisedthe Court found the teenager's critical opinion of school issues worthy of "robust First Amendment protections." Justice Breyer observed it "might be tempting to dismiss B. L.'s words as unworthy of robust First Amendment protections," but concluded "sometimes it is necessary to protect the superfluous in order to preserve the necessary." And he identified a key government interest the school administration apparently overlooked: to prepare students for citizenship "the school itself has an interest in protecting a student's unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off campus." (emphasis added).

The opinion for the Court avoided creating a bright line rule concerning where the speech occurs. "Unlike the Third Circuit, we do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus." Instead, the opinion identified "three features of off-campus speech that often, even if not always, distinguish schools' efforts to regulate that speech from their efforts to regulate on-campus speech."

First, the Court examined the right of the school in loco parentis, noting that "geographically speaking, off-campus speech will normally fall within the zone of parental, rather than school-related, responsibility." Second, the Court held that "courts must be more skeptical of a school's efforts to regulate off-campus speech," noting that "political or religious speech that occurs outside school or a school program or activity" undoubtedly comes with "a heavy burden to justify intervention." Third, the Court reminded educational institutions that "America's public schools are the nurseries of democracy," which "only works if we protect the 'marketplace of ideas'" and "that protection must include the protection of unpopular ideas, for popular ideas have less need for protection."

Justice Breyer's opinion departed from the Third Circuit's reasoning, which had relied extensively on where the Snapchat message was typed and sentin other words, the physical location of the student and/or the student's use of "school-owned, -operated, or -supervised channels."1The U.S. Supreme Court, however, made clear that such explicit holdings were unnecessarythe cheerleader's off-campus, critical speech had not substantially disrupted or targeted school functions, and therefore "d[id] not meet Tinker's demanding standard."

Justice Alito wrote separately (with Justice Gorsuch joining) to clarify the majority's holding. He noted the enormous disparity in treatment that would result if the government could only punish public school students' speech, concluding that attending public schools cannot be conditioned on relinquishing constitutional rights. He asserted that "[i]f today's decision teaches any lesson, it must be that the regulation of many types of off-premises student speech raises serious First Amendment concerns, and school officials should proceed cautiously before venturing into this territory."

Justice Thomas issued a lone dissent, echoing themes he first set forth in his concurring opinion in Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 422-33 (2007)a case involving a student's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" sign at a school-sponsored event. Based on historical analysis and drawing largely on 19th century state court decisions, Justice Thomas concluded that public school students lack First Amendment rights and suggested he would reverse both Tinker and W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (where the Court held that public school students could not be compelled to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance).

Justice Alito directly addressed Justice Thomas's dissent on originalist grounds, noting the dated state court decisions are "of negligible value for present purposes." The concurrence explored the doctrine of in loco parentis upon which the dissent focused, and found it failed to explain the delegation of parental authority that occurs in American schools today. For "whatever [the student's] parents thought about what she did," the concurrence noted, "it is not reasonable to infer that they gave the school the authority to regulate her choice of language when she was off school premises and not engaged in any school activity."

It remains to be seen how the principles articulated by the Court will apply to future controversies involving off-campus speech and "whether or how ordinary First Amendment standards must give way off campus to a school's special need to prevent, e.g., substantial disruption of learning-related activities or the protection of those who make up school community." However, "to justify the prohibition of a particular expression of opinion," the school would have to show that "its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint."

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP filed an amicus brief in the Mahanoy case on behalf of Mary Beth and Joe Tinker, key litigants in the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark 1969 student-speech ruling Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

1 See 964 F.3d 170, 189 (3d Cir. 2020) (holding "that Tinker does not apply to off-campus speechthat is, speech that is outside school-owned, -operated, or -supervised channels and that is not reasonably interpreted as bearing the school's imprimatur").

[View source.]

See original here:

F--- school, f--- softball, f--- cheer, f--- everything, Except First Amendment Protections for Student Speech - JD Supra

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged a new Tennessee law that requires businesses to post a sign alerting customers if they allow people to use restrooms that dont match their biological sex. The ACLU says the state is unconstitutionally compelling speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Republican Gov. Bill Lee signed HB 1182into law on May 17, and it is set to take effect on July 1. Unlike other restroom bills, Tennessees does not dictate who can use a facility or target transgender individuals. Under the law, public or private entities or businesses open to the public that dont restrict restroom access by biological sex must post a boldface notice: This facility maintains a policy of allowing the use of restrooms by either biological sex, regardless of the designation on the restroom.

The Friday complaint slams the new law as anti-transgender in its use of the phrase biological sex and contends it is aimed at transgender individuals even if it doesnt mention them. It also argues the state is unconstitutionally forcing businesses to endorse an anti-transgender message.

Republican Rep. Tim Rudd, who sponsored the bill, said it is not discriminatory because it does not limit who can use a restroom, but protects the privacy of those who prefer not to share a facility with someone of the opposite biological sex. Whether youre a man or woman, dont you want to know who might be waiting on the other side of a bathroom door when you go in? Rudd said. Everyone has a reasonable expectation to the right of privacy and dignity when using the restroom.

But Regent Law School professor Brad Jacob said the case is not so simple: As unsympathetic as I am with the idea that you can just declare yourself to be the opposite sex and then that makes it reality, I think this is a classic First Amendment compelled speech case.

He noted the cases similarity with the Supreme Courts 2018 rulingin NIFLA v. Becerra. The justices struck down a law in California requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post a notice that the state provides free or low-cost services, including abortions, and provide a phone number. They found such a requirement unduly burdened the centers free speech.

States are flushwith legislation related to the transgender issue, including regulating access to single-gender facilities, defending female athletes from having to compete against men who identify as women, and protecting minors from gender transition treatments.

But the Supreme Court does not appear poised to enter the fray. The justices on Monday let stand an August 2020 appeals court rulingagainst a Virginia school boards policy limiting restroom use to members of the same biological sex. Gavin Grimm, a female student who identified as male, sued after the Gloucester County high school denied access to the boys restroom in 2017. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas indicated they would have taken the casefour are required to put a case on the docket.

Conflict between LGBT activists and religious liberty advocates will likely continue, Jacob said, since neither side will go away. We have to find a way of letting each side live their own convictions without trying to beat down the other, he said. Unfortunately, thats not where we seem to be going at the present.

Read more:

Restroom wars and the First Amendment | WORLD - WORLD News Group

A new memorial that honors five slain Capital Gazette staff members was unveiled in a public ceremony in Annapolis on Monday, the third anniversary of a mass shooting in the papers newsroom.

The Guardians of the First Amendment memorial honors Wendi Winters, John McNamara, Gerald Fischman, Rebecca Smith and Rob Hiaasen. The memorial, designed by Moody Graham, features an engraving of the newspapers stark front page the day after the attack: 5 shot dead at The Capital. The victims are represented by five granite towers that stand in front of a brick wall engraved with the amendment that established the freedom of the press.

I want Wendy, Rob, Gerald, Rebecca and John to be remembered with words like guardians. It will give their names weight, the weight they deserve, Phil Davis, a survivor of the shooting, said at the ceremony in Newman Park, joined by victims family members and politicians.

But I also knew these five as people, he said.

Davis called Wendi Winters the center of every conversation who offered unique insight into Annapolis and depicted the city as it truly was. He remembered John McNamara as a reporter whose passion for local sports was infectious, who delighted in sharing basketball history. Gerald Fischman was a stoic yet thorough editor with a command on language; Rebecca Smith was a collaborative, engaged sales assistant who helped out with stories when she could. Davis described Rob Hiaasen as a passionate editor who inspired reporters to take creative risks and focus on the people behind the stories so we can tell stories that will stick with people long after they put the newspaper down.

These are people with families, interests and desires that were all unique and very much in line with furthering the communities that they serve, he said.

Davis noted also that time and corporate interests did not stand still after tragedy. Earlier this year, Tribune Publishing shareholders voted to sell the Capital, the Baltimore Sun and several other Sun-affiliated papers to the hedge fund Alden Global Capital, despite offers from Maryland hotel executive Stewart Bainum Jr.

Alden representatives have said the hedge fund seeks to carve a sustainable path for local news, but its better known for slashing newsrooms throughout the country by selling assets and laying off newsroom staffers. Former Capital journalists Rick Hutzell, Danielle Ohl and Chase Cook took a buyout from Alden this month.

I want a future where there's also a freedom for the people of the press, where humanity takes precedence, Davis, who now works at the Sun, said.

Anne Arundel County Executive Steuart Pittman joined Davis in sharing remembrances and said he sent Alden a letter about the value of journalism.

I hope that they will visit this community soon. I hope that their stockholders hear our story, and work with us to grow, rather than shrink, our newspaper. And if they dont, I hope that we can find a way to recreate what they take away from us, he said.

David Simon, creator of HBOs The Wire and a former Sun journalist who was friends with some of the victims, delivered an address titled The Death of Truth.

I come to you as an emissary from a time when good newspapers were not pitied or mourned by the governing powers but were considered with ruthful wariness and even feared at moments by those in authority, he said.

Jarrod Ramos, 41, pleaded guilty but not criminally responsible by reason of insanity to 23 counts tied to the killings in October 2019. A trial to determine his sanity is set to begin this week. If the gunman is found not criminally responsible, he will be committed to a maximum-security psychiatric hospital rather than a prison.

WAMUs Dominique Maria Bonessi contributed to this report.

Continue reading here:

'Guardians of the First Amendment' Memorial Unveiled In Annapolis - WYPR

I have long been a critic of ABA Model Rule 8.4(g). This regime would empower the state to regulate an attorney's speech that is not connected to any judicial forum. Specifically, the Bar could discipline a lawyer for dinner-time conversation at a bar function, or potentially impose liability for a contentious debate topic. Much of my argument is grounded in the First Amendment. This rule imposes an overt form of viewpoint discrimination. Moreover, phrases like "demeaning" are unconstitutionally vague. However, I have also advanced a parallel argument: the Bar lacks the authority to regulate all facets of an attorney's existence. These state agencies are chartered for specific purposes: the regulation of the practice of the law. The Bar is not roving a commission to impose some progressive sense of civility.

This background brings me to the situation affecting Rudy Giuliani. Recently, the Appellate Division (First Judicial Department) temporarily suspended Rudy's license to practice law. The per curiam decision offered this summary:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that there is uncontroverted evidence that respondent communicated demonstrably false and misleading statements to courts, lawmakers and the public at large in his capacity as lawyer for former President Donald J. Trump and the Trump campaign in connection with Trump's failed effort at reelection in 2020. These false statements were made to improperly bolster respondent's narrative that due to widespread voter fraud, victory in the 2020 United States presidential election was stolen from his client. We conclude that respondent's conduct immediately threatens the public interest and warrants interim suspension from the practice of law, pending further proceedings before the Attorney Grievance Committee (sometimes AGC or Committee).

I understand that schadenfreude is enticing. People enjoy seeing misfortunes fall on Rudy, Sidney Powell, and the rest of the Krakenbrigade. I get it. Still, we all have the responsibility to defend the rights of those we vigorously disagree witheven Rudy.

Here, I write to praise an Op-Ed by Professors Bruce Green and Rebecca Roiphe in the Washington Post. They are not MAGAphiles. To the contrary, they call out Rudy's lies about the election. But they recognize the dangerous, and chilling precedent the New York courts have set. Kudos to Green and Roiphe.

The opinion states:

This disciplinary proceeding concerns the professional restrictions imposed on respondent as an attorney to not knowingly misrepresent facts and make false statements in connection with his representation of a client.

This category resembles the catchall in ABA Model Rule 8.4(g): conduct related to the practice of law. You now see what this expansion of authority is so pernicious.

Green and Roiphe explain that the gravamen of the suspension was based not on statements in court, but statements to the press.

Except for one assertion about the status of a complaint, which he later corrected, Giuliani is not accused of improprieties in court proceedings where he functioned as an advocate. For the most part, the court focused on Giuliani's public statements and justified its interim suspension by citing the risk that Giuliani would continue disseminating "false statements in the media" while the disciplinary process ran its course.

And lawyers retain their First Amendment rights when speaking to the press:

In Giuliani's case, the court gave the First Amendment concerns short shrift, because the case was about his professional improprieties "in connection with his representation of a client." We agree that courts have the right to enforce rules requiring lawyers to be truthful to protect the integrity of a court proceeding or the wellbeing of a client. But it is hard to see how either of those are at issue here . . . .

And that right includes the right to lie about the government:

Lawyers have the right as private citizens to engage in political debate. This includes a right to lie about the government not because lies are desirable, but because it is too dangerous to give the state the power to determine which statements are true or false when it comes to political speech. Robust political debate would be chilled because people would fear misspeaking. Efforts to expose government wrongdoing would be abandoned out of concern about retribution.

To encourage criticism of the government, the First Amendment gives the public breathing room. Lawyers need it too. They should not have to choose between a law license and the license to engage in the same vigorous political speech as other citizens. It is true that lawyers are officers of the court, but they have also historically played an important part in holding government to account. It would be a shame to strip them of this powerful role.

Well said. Here, the courts did not rely on potentially defamatory statements--an issue that is currently being litigated in other courts.

If the ACLU or the NYCLU has said anything about this issue, please tell me; I haven't seen a peep.

On a personal note, it is still difficult for me to fathom Rudy's fall from grace. I grew up in the 1990s on Staten Islandthe borough that helped put the Republican into office. Rudy was a giant. He was well-respected by everyone I knew. He made cameos in movie and TV shows. He was an icon! I still remember when Rudy visited my 4th grade class with his then-wife, Donna Hannover. After September 11, Rudy became a titan of a leader. His regular press conferences brought calm and stability during a hectic time. The sky was the limit for him. Alas, over the past two decades, things have changed.

Update: An earlier version of the post stated that Rudy was not disciplined for anything he did in court. There is one allegation concerning his statements made to a Philadelphia federal court, detailed on pages 11-14, that I had missed.

View original post here:

Rudy's First Amendment Right to Lie to the Press - Reason

(The Center Square) The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa calls Iowas new law that increases penalties for unlawful protest an intimidation tactic.

Gov. Kim Reynolds signed SF 342, known as the Back the Blue Act, into law on June 17. It makes rioting a felony offense, increases penalties on other destructive behaviors, establishes qualified immunity, and increases due process protections for law enforcement, the Governors officesaid.

A lot of our concern about this particular law comes into play is in the ways that we think that it will inhibit people from exercising their First Amendment rights through enhanced penalties through new offenses. And through this, this notion that police cant be held accountable if they abused their power, ACLU of Iowa Executive Director Mark Stringer told The Center Square.

Examples of the enhanced penalties include upping the penalty for unlawful assembly from a simple to an aggravated misdemeanor, he said. That takes it from punishable to up to 30 days in jail to punishable for up to two years.

The law also creates another way to commit this kind of offense. A protester who joins a lawful assembly but then remains after the person knows that it has become an unlawful assembly could face those charges, which Stringer said isnt on its face unconstitutional.

Another ACLU concern is the provision that grants civil liability immunity for drivers who exercise due care and injure a person participating in a protest even if its a lawful protest. That gives immunity if a driver hits a protestor, he said.

Why are we creating a law that basically gives special treatment to a driver who happens to be interacting with a protest as opposed to any other gathering? The whole thing is odd, frankly, Stringer said.

The ACLU of Iowa will wait and see how the law is enforced to determine its next steps, he said.

Our kind of approach is always you have to wait and see how this unfolds. We are not hopeful that it wont impact peoples protesting rights, Stringer said.

On its face, the plain text of the law doesnt criminalize lawful protest, he said.

But we also know just from last summer, that police sometimes respond to lawful protest by arresting protesters with little or no basis, Stringer said.

That happened with several Black Lives Matter protestors and some journalists. The criminal charges were later dropped by prosecutors, or their cases ended in acquittals because there was no evidence against them, he said.

The state has enhanced penalties for protestors and given police less accountability by codifying broad immunity from state law claims brought by people who are harmed by police action, he said.

It comes directly in response to thousands of protesters, most of whom were peaceful, law-abiding, Stringer said.

See the rest here:

ACLU of Iowa Says 'Back the Blue Act' Could Inhibit First Amendment Rights - The Iowa Torch

News Photo by Steve SchulwitzA beret hangs on a white cross at Little Flanders Field in Alpena on Friday. The cross in the cemetery honors a local hero who died while serving our country. On Sunday, our nation celebrates Independence Day and the freedoms made possible from our fallen heroes.

ALPENA The word freedom can mean many different things to people.

Freedom to some is defined as the principles listed in the Bill of Rights. For others it is an idea or wish that never fully holds up to its definition.

In Alpena, a person doesnt have to travel far to see an American flag waving from someones porch or proudly displayed at a business. Red, white, and blue merchandise is widely available at many stores year-round. It is not uncommon to see people wearing apparel with stars and stripes, showing their patriotism.

The News recently talked to residents about what freedom means to them and how it impacts their lives.

Trevor Tagallini, of Hubbard Lake, said freedom is taken for granted because Americans are born with it and know no other way of life without it. He said without the assurances granted to citizens of the United States, life for many would look a lot different.

There are a lot of people that take our freedom for granted, Tagallini said. Were pretty lucky when you think about it. Why do you think people want to come to America from other countries? Its because they dont have the freedoms and rights that we have.

When thinking about rights and freedom, some people think of the First Amendment and Second Amendment.

The First Amendment protects the freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and the right to petition, while the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

Mark Gross, of Alpena, said simple things like owning property, choosing your own partner to marry, the right to a fair trial, and being able to vote are rights that are often taken for granted.

I hear an awful lot of complaining about what we cant do or what we dont have, and very little about what we can do or do have, Gross said. People in other countries would never be able to get away with the crap we do. Is our system perfect? No its not. Are we lucky to have the rights we do have? Yes.

Not everyone agrees that citizens are as free as they believe. Mitch Templeton said peoples right to free speech is being violated daily, especially on social media, and other rights, such as the right to bear arms, are also under attack.

We are told how to behave at every level of our lives by our government and if we question things we are silenced or threatened, Templeton said. I thought a democracy gave everyone an even say in decisions. I think the people need to have more control over their own lives and the lives of their families. Government has too much power and is crooked. We arent free.

Joanne Swift said she is going to enjoy all of the events in Alpena to celebrate the Fourth of July and enjoy time with her family. She said during that time, her mind will also reflect on the men and women who sacrificed their lives to earn and preserve the freedom she now has.

Our independence didnt come without a cost, she said. Im always reminded of that on the Fourth, and every time I say the Pledge of Allegiance, or hear the National Anthem. I think, for the most part, most people do.

Tim Kuehnlein is an instructor of political science and history at Alpena Community College. He said freedom is cherished by Americans, but it also changes with the times.

Freedom, or liberty, is something Americans clearly hold dear. It is a moral imperative of the American creed, Kuehnlein said. Freedom is often illusive, in constant flux, and often with lots of pretense. Freedom is something we strive for in perpetual motion as we push its limits throughout the ages. For freedom to truly exist for anyone for any sustainable length of time requires that the parameters of freedom be respected by everyone relative to one another.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

See the original post here:

Local residents reflect on what freedom means to them - Alpena News

The Supreme Court just completed its first term with former President TrumpDonald TrumpGarland imposes moratorium on federal executions White House releases staff salaries showing narrowed gender pay gap Los Angeles Dodgers to visit the White House on Friday MOREs nominees accounting for a third of the justices.

The dozens of cases decided this term, which included landmark rulings on voting rights and the First Amendment, provided the clearest indication yet of the 6-3 conservative courts increasingly rightward tilt.

Here are five takeaways.

The court is shifting to the right

Many on the right had hoped, and liberals feared, that the 6-3 conservative court would veer sharply to the right.

On Thursday, the final day of the term, those expectations were borne out. With a pair of 6-3 votes that broke along ideological lines, the conservative majority upheld two GOP-backed Arizona voting restrictions and struck down a California law requiring charities to disclose their major donors.

These rulings represent exactly that sharp-right turn that so many expected, said Steve Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Before Thursday, the justices had charted a more incremental rightward shift.

For instance, in one high-profile case this term the court ruled unanimously for a Catholic charity over same-sex couples seeking adoptions but only on relatively narrow grounds.

The justices also spared ObamaCare from its third major Republican challenge in roughly a decade, rebuffing the 18 GOP-led states that sought to invalidate a core piece of the 2010 health care law or see it struck down entirely.

Both of those closely watched cases fizzled out, Schwinn said.

The justices this term also largely maintained continuity in their approach to search-and-seizure cases. The same goes for their First Amendment jurisprudence in a ruling that favored students off-campus speech rights, said Schwinn, noting that those decisions were fairly consistent with the courts past rulings.

Still some room for consensus

The court managed to reach consensus in several hot-button cases despite its rightward lean.

Some experts attributed this to Chief Justice John Robertss judicial minimalism.

Roberts is a champion of this notion of minimalism, which is that the court should decide cases on the narrowest possible grounds, David Cole, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said in a briefing last week. One of the things about deciding cases on the narrowest possible grounds is it makes it easier for more people to agree who have different worldviews.

Cole successfully argued the student speech rights case this term, which garnered an 8-1 victory, with Justice Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasSupreme Court strikes down California donor disclosure rule Supreme Court leaves CDC eviction moratorium intact The Hill's Morning Report - McConnell pressures Dem leaders to follow Biden's infrastructure lead MORE as the lone dissenter.

Overall, the chief justices skill for bridging the ideological divide was still visible this term, some experts said.

The Chief Justice remains successful at pushing for broader unanimity and narrower opinions than people expect, as Fulton (the LGBT adoption case) and the health care case show, said Jonathan Adler, a law professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, in an email to The Hill.

Religious rights groups extend winning streak

The court continued its practice of issuing favorable rulings for religious interests.

In the biggest religion case on the docket, Fulton v. Philadelphia, the justices ruled on narrow grounds that Philadelphia had run afoul of religious protections when it cut ties with a Catholic adoption agency over its refusal to work with same-sex couples seeking adoptions.

The three most conservative justices were prepared to go even further, indicating they would have replaced the courts landmark 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith with a more robust approach to religious liberty claims. Three other justices expressed an openness to doing so in the future, signaling that the 30-year-old precedent set by Smith may be on shaky ground.

The court also sided with religious groups in cases that reached the court through emergency applications, on what is sometimes referred to as its shadow docket, including clashes between houses of worship and public health restrictions put in place amid the coronavirus pandemic.

Some court watchers have expressed concern that the conservative-majority court has become so sympathetic to religious claims that it has effectively elevated those interests above other constitutional protections.

What we've seen over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic is that the Supreme Court has now created a new constitutional test for the protection of free exercise of religion that is more robust than its standard for basically any other fundamental constitutional right, said Elizabeth Reiner Platt, director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia University Law School.

Losing streak continues for voting rights

The court delivered another blow to the 1965 Voting Rights Act by ruling that a pair of Arizona voting restrictions did not run afoul of protections for minority groups.

The 6-3 decision came eight years after the court gutted a separate provision of the landmark law that had effectively given the Justice Department veto power over racially suspect changes to voting procedures in places with a history of discrimination.

The conservative Supreme Court has taken away all the major available tools for going after voting restrictions, said election law expert Rick Hasen, referring to the string of recent voting rights decisions. This at a time when some Republican states are passing new restrictive voting laws.

One Arizona policy that came before the court required provisional ballots cast in the wrong precinct to be discarded. The second measure considered in the case made it illegal for most third parties to deliver ballots for others, a practice critics refer to as ballot harvesting.

Thursdays decision reversed a federal appeals court ruling last year that found the Arizona policies violated the Voting Rights Act because they disproportionately affected minority groups.

The Supreme Court ruling comes as a raft of restrictive GOP-crafted voting limits are introduced and passed across the country, and the high courts decision could make it harder for Democrats and civil rights groups to win court challenges on the grounds that the new measures are racially discriminatory.

A warm-up act?

Court watchers are wondering if this terms trajectory, in which the conservative majority showed a degree of restraint, will give way to an even sharper rightward turn.

Some say its simply too soon to tell. Given the generally slow-moving pace of the law, a single term is a tiny sample size, and this latest term may not have reflected the most illuminating of test cases.

It was not a docket this year with that many cases defined by ideology, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.

By contrast, he said, the courts next term could prove more revealing, and more politically influential given the 2022 midterms on the horizon.

The next term, which starts in October, already features cases with greater potential for the kind of explosive ideological clashes that the court managed to side-step several times in its latest term.

I think this term will be regarded in hindsight as the warm-up act for next years docket, which will have abortion, gun rights and maybe affirmative action, Chemerinsky said.

See the original post:

Five takeaways from the Supreme Court's term | TheHill - The Hill