Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (decided June 27, 2016): strikes down Texas requirement that doctors performing abortions have privileges at local hospitals (a pretext for making it hard to obtain doctors to perform abortions) and requiring abortion clinics to meet standards of ambulatory surgery centers (irrelevant) as placing an “undue burden” on women inconsistent with Roe (probably no longer good law after Dobbs)
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (decided June 27, 2022): violation of Free Exercise Clause to terminate football coach for kneeling after games “to offer a quiet prayer of thanks” at a time when students and players were free to go elsewhere (Sotomayor’s dissent calls this impermissible “official-led prayer” and attaches photo of what looks like forty players kneeling around the praying coach) (I wonder what Jesus would say about this, Matt 6:5-6)
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 600 U.S. 122 (decided June 27, 2023): The Court continues to limit the reach of its surprise decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 2014, that suing a corporation that is merely “doing business” in a state violates Due Process. First it relied on an obscure venue provision to allow suit against an out of state railroad (BNSF Ry. Co. v. Tyrrell, 2017). Here it holds that registering to do business in a state implies consent to be sued in it. It’s risky not to register, of course, if you want to set up an office there. This reminds me of the Court’s gradual escape from its decision in Pennoyer v. Neff, 1878, that you can’t be sued unless you’re served with papers within state lines. (Suit was for exposure to carcinogens.)
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (decided June 27, 1977): strikes down on First Amendment grounds prohibition on attorney advertising (thus subjecting us to decades of angry-looking TV actors pretending to be lawyers -- grrr!! snarl!! woof!! woof!!)
Ruan v. United States, 597 U.S. 450 (decided June 27, 2022): In his last majority opinion, Breyer holds that doctors convicted of running a narcotics racket could not be convicted under the Controlled Substances Act if they were objectively authorized to prescribe those substances, and it was up to the Government to rebut beyond a reasonable doubt that they were acting in an unauthorized manner (21 U.S.C. §841).
Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66 (decided June 27, 2023): First Amendment does not protect what speaker knows are recklessly stated physical threats (stalker of female singer kept sending Facebook messages saying, e.g., “Staying in cyber life is going to kill you” and “You’re not being good for human relations, Die.”; she kept blocking him but he kept opening new accounts)
McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (decided June 27, 2005): Ten Commandments posted on walls of county courthouse violated Establishment Clause (county executive had stated in public that the Decalogue was the basis of the civil code) ( -- what? I thought statements of purpose by heads of government were irrelevant -- see Trump v. Hawaii, 2018)
Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (decided June 27, 2005): Ten Commandments display outside state capitol did not violate Establishment Clause (you can look up the photo; it’s a small monument, easily passed by)
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (decided June 27, 1997): Brady Law provision requiring local sheriffs to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment (no, not the Ten Commandments)
Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (decided June 27, 1977): upholds regulation that women could not serve in “contact” positions in male prisons because sex offenders would be more likely to assault them (hiring only men was a “bona fide occupational qualification”, or “bfoq” -- did the Justices really say “b-fock” at conference?)
Republican Party v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (decided June 27, 2002): First Amendment violated by Minnesota law forbidding candidates for judicial office from giving views on issues
Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (decided June 27, 1960): ends the “silver platter” doctrine (wherein evidence illegally seized by state police could be used in federal prosecutions)
תגובות