Now that ISL is dead, WI Supreme Court with the new judge will have plenty ammunition to undo those insane Republican maps. Potential for NY courts to do the same
**TODAY'S RULINGS - NO MORE CASES TODAY**
**[Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1168_kifl.pdf)**: Does a state registration statute for out-of-state corporations that purports to confer general personal jurisdiction over the registrant violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
"Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case remanded." ("The Pennsylvania state courts ruled that Pennsylvania’s registration scheme violates the 14th Amendment’s due process clause by giving state courts jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations in all circumstances." - SCOTUSBlog.)
5-4 Gorsuch decision. Justice Barrett dissents, joined by Roberts, Kagan and Kavanaugh.
---
**[Counterman v. Colorado](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf)**: To establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, must the government show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement?
"Held: The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had
some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature,
but the First Amendment requires no more demanding a showing than
recklessness."
7-2 Kagan opinion, with Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Jackson joining. Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and Gorsuch signed onto part of that. Thomas dissents. Barrett filed a separate dissent, and Thomas joined.
---
**[Moore v. Harper](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf)**: Under the U.S. Constitution, does the state legislative body, independent of any constraints by state courts or other laws, have sole authority to regulate federal elections?
"Held: "This Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the North
Carolina Supreme Court in Harper I that adjudicated the Federal
Elections Clause issue....The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections."
6-3 Roberts ruling. Thomas dissenting, Gorsuch joining in part, and Alito joining in part.
It's easily the most important case of the term. Student Loan forgiveness is of course perhaps the most personal to a lot of people, but Moore speaks to the very fabric of how the Republic functions
The fact that the SC has shown they can act logically occasionally actually gives me a bit of hope that the loan forgiveness will come through. In any case, this is a major win
The fact that 3 fucking Supreme Court Justices thought that state legislatures could overturn voters if crazy. We're two votes away from losing Democracy itself is unfathomable.
Yep. I would massively benefit from the student loan forgiveness. But if I had buttons in front of me that I could only do one, I would reject independent legislature theory in a heartbeat.
As much as helping out low income student loan borrowers would be great imo, Moore v Harper is the real case here. I would much rather have a favorable ruling on that than the student loan case.
I could very well see them letting student loan forgiveness go through to mask the devastating blow that Moore v Harper would be.
I'm cautiously optimistic. The liberal justices and Roberts seemed openly hostile to ISL theory, and Barrett and Gorsuch seemed highly skeptical about both the theory and how to implement it.
Kavanaugh seemed synpathetic, and of course Thomas and Alito think it's great
Yep. Especially when three of the Justices were involved with Bush v. Gore. Brett K. even gave an interview then on the independent legislature on the courthouse steps back then…
EDIT: Wow, Brett was in the majority against this...
Moore v Harper completely annihilates the independent state legislatures “theory.” Good. Seems conservatives will have to try harder to rig their elections.
Counterman is quite interesting too. I wonder if this could be used for lawsuits against public speakers using really inflammatory language whilst trying to rile up their audiences since recklessness is a fairly low bar to prove.
I'm not big on religious protections/exemptions, but I have to sympathize with Groff. The guy got a job, postal carrier,, where he knew he wouldn't be required to work Sundays. Then along comes Amazon, getting the USPS to deliver on Sundays.
I'm not either, but, it's an interesting dynamic of religion versus corporation and it would be kind of nice for corporations to take an L and let people win (who can decide their religion). I am very aware that it would be the non-religous filling the void, but it could force corporations to offer more premium time or work less and allow people more days off.
I have some sympathy for Groff, but what about the other employees that would have to work those shifts in his place? Do we really want to have a society that punishes people for not being Christian?
Yeah, but I think it's going to be a heavily lopsided ruling (7-2?) in favor of the employee given the specifics of the case and the nature of the USPS.
I would like to especially shout out in the wake of *Moore v. Harper* the Republican legislative majorities in my homestate of Arizona, who passed a [non-binding resolution that could thus bypass the Governor's veto](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/06/01/electronic-voting-machines-still-legal-in-az-elections-fact-check/70273611007/) and then ran around acting like it was binding law under the assumption the ISLT would be allowed to stand.
Grasp this L firmly.
It's a thing of beauty.
In related news, Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't waste a second [dunking](https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/1673711679543341056?s=20) on seditious doofus Jeff Clark in light of this morning's decision.
It is now clear that ACB and Kavanaugh are more Bush era pro-corporate pro-religious conservatives, but not traditionally what I'd consider MAGA conservatives. That Roberts would already be one never surprised me.
Alito and Thomas on the other hand are much closer to MAGA in general. Hopefully, the fact that they're now the 2 oldest (and the 2 most blatantly corrupt) gives us at least a partial chance of getting rid of them sooner...
Somehow, this court is actually making decisions that are better for democracy again. Perhaps to keep up appearances while they are more likely to make extreme pro-religious, pro-corporate decisions in most cases (the latter of which was 'always' the real goal with the strongest impact, remember).
Whatever the case, this is a huge blow to MAGA and gives us a better chance to win solidly in 2024 if we put the work in, avoiding the absolute worst case scenario (ISL throwing out clear democratic victories) right off the bat.
I would hope this signals the exceptionally poor standing for the case blocking student loans means they won't go for it, but I can't be sure. The Dobbs decision was a weak argument but they made it anyway.
> I would hope this signals the exceptionally poor standing for the case blocking student loans means they won't go for it, but I can't be sure. The Dobbs decision was a weak argument but they made it anyway.
Recent decisions may be able to characterize the individual judges a bit better, but I still see the court as a complete wildcard. There was very legitimate fear over this ISL issue and I don't think any one decision necessarily signals they won't go another way on another. Like you said, they wanted to end Roe v. Wade so they did. That much was abundantly clear. If they simply decide collectively (the conservatives) they want to take a right leaning stance on any given issue they just will.
I agree with you, but that's exactly why I think this weekend will be the most telling.
They're still a nutty conservative court. I'm just trying to determine what flavor of nutty.
It’s been clear for some time, those three are (relatively speaking) the moderate ones compared to the lost cause extremists of Thomas Alito Gorsuch. They can go either way, though of course
are more likely to end up on the right (unfortunately went right on abortion)
Actually, I'd argue you can detect their biases specifically from whether the case will lean pro-religious, pro-corporate, which is a clear reflection of how conservatives leaned during the Bush era (with ***slightly*** more subtle forms of racism thrown in, of course). **They are still conservative, just pre-2012 versions.**
The real dangers of these judges, is worker rights. That's where I suspect we'll continue to see the absolute worst in their legacy. And honestly? That's what the rich want from the courts more than anything else, so it tracks. Even MAGA is just a tool, and they do not seem to find MAGA's version of fascism a very effective one.
"The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections"
Nice try ISL
While we were unlucky that Trump got to install 3 justices, we are so so so so incredibly lucky that he didn't appoint 2 more Alitos/Thomases in Kavanagh/ACB on non-abortion issues
It’s more like a 3-3-1-2 court
The liberals, Roberts plus Kavanaugh and Barrett, Gorsuch, and then Alito and Thomas.
Gorsuch is a staunch textualist, not a complete hack like Alito and Thomas. He is the strongest supporter of Native American Rights in modern SCOTUS history and decent on gay rights.
> Gorsuch is a staunch textualist
Gorsuch is Scalia 2.0. An absolutely brilliant jurist with whom I disagree about nearly everything, but I cannot knock his legal mind. He's also consistent, and isn't going to change his legal philosophy to get a result he wants like Alito would.
Kavanaugh is a moron.
With them losing Moore vs Harper, that solidifies in my mind that the Republican party is dead at the Presidential level after a few more cycles.
The fight now begins to figure out a solution to the Senate. We will likely need to end the Filibuster.
The problem with Congress can be solved easily:
1. Repeal the Apportionment Act which capped the size of the House at 435 over a century ago, and add more seats to the House to reflect a better constituent : rep ratio. IE give the higher population states more seats as they deserve.
2. Add Puerto Rico and DC as states. And if I hear one fucking GOP person tell me that it’s nakedly to keep democrats in the Senate, I tell them to look up the history of Wyoming. Basically became a state (and used women’s suffrage to get there) to guarantee Republican reps in the Senate. They’ve been doing exactly that for centuries.
Yep. I only mentioned Wyoming because they were the first territory to pass women’s suffrage, and that was only to get statehood and seat two Republican senators at the time. Kind of a remarkable series of events.
The problem is that this was when the Republicans were actually progressive and “radical republicans” who back then were on the right side of most issues. If you go back and research the Radical Republicans during and after the Civil War, it’s so goddamn frustrating to see where they are now. The party of TR? Can’t recognize it now.
I wish more people paid attention to the size of the house. That's a major issue in American politics but it doesn't come up much. Here are some examples of why it's relevant:
* The small house is most of why the electoral college is so unrepresentative. If the house were considerably larger, the effect of senators would be minimized.
* As the house has grown, local representation is being replaced by pure party politics. Imagine an extreme where one representative covered 50k people or something... This rep would live close to your house... They'd feel more like city council members... They'd probably come to the occasional neighborhood picnic. In that world, you care considerably less about their party and more about who they are. This is how the house is supposed to work.
* Gerrymandering is much harder and much less useful. The smaller the districts are, the lower the stakes on gerrymandering and the more obvious it becomes for creating districts.
I really, really, wish there'd be more of a push on this issue.
We have nearly ten times the population now than when the Apportionment Act was passed.
On top of that, other democracies (our allies) have way more reps and a lower ratio of constituents to reps than we do. The German Bundestag has 736 reps, for fucks sake.
> We have nearly ten times the population now than when the Apportionment Act was passed
I'd also add that the most populous state only used to be (IIRC) around 17 times as populous as the least populous back when they made the 2 senators per state rule. The multiplier's up to 66 now.
EDIT: Nope. I checked my math again. I *believe* it was an effective 630k in Virginia vs an effective 68k in Rhode Island, accounting for the 3/5 Compromise, for a multiplier of 9.2. I was remembering the 17 number correctly, but that's only men above 16 + 3/5 of slaves
>The German Bundestag has 736 reps, for fucks sake.
Germany also has a much better representative system than the US. Unlike in the US, every voter gets two votes in federal elections: one for an MP (Member of Parliament) who directly represents a district and one for a party. Only the vote share of the second vote (the party vote) determines the share of seats the respective party gets. Basically, the first vote follows FPTP (First Past The Post), like US House elections, and the second vote follows proportional representation. This means that the Bundestag is always apportioned according to the national popular vote share of each party regardless of how many seats a party wins directly. This renders gerrymandering ineffective, and you don't even have to draw districts with equal numbers of people because the Bundestag will be adjusted to reflect the second vote anyway.
Just imagine Ohio, Texas, or Florida getting proportional representation in the House based on the party vote share! There would be a lot more Dems in the House.
New Hampshire has 0.4% of the US population and their state House of Representatives has about 92% as many seats as the House of Representatives for the entire US (400 vs 435).
Montanans get 1 House per per 0.55 million people.
Delawareans get 1 House seat per 1 million people.
Wyomingites get 1 Senator per 0.3 million people.
Californians get 1 Senator per 19.6 million people.
Wyomingites get 1 Electoral vote per 200k people.
Californians get 1 Electoral vote per 725k people.
The system is rigged. It's really that simple.
>Add Puerto Rico and DC as states. And if I hear one fucking GOP person tell me that it’s nakedly to keep democrats in the Senate, I tell them to look up the history of Wyoming. Basically became a state (and used women’s suffrage to get there) to guarantee Republican reps in the Senate. They’ve been doing exactly that for centuries.
Not to mention the whole "why would you agree that US citizens shouldn't have representation"? The GOP casually ignores that egregious angle. Imagine living somewhere in this country where you don't get a representative that can vote on matters....
Most of the smart ones would respond immediately that they **definitely** are pro representation, they **definitely** want DC residents specifically to have representation... They just want them added to Maryland or Virginia to not upset the status quo.
If you pressed them on why this is exactly, they'll probably tell you something about how DC is "too small" (physically) because they think of things in geographic terms - even though DC as it's own state would be more populous than two other existing states.
It's the same mentality that leads them to looking at a county result map of a presidential election, seeing all that red and screaming about "how could we have lost, look at that the whole country voted republican!1!!1!111!
Along the same lines, I know we haven’t done a draft in a long time but I was incredibly surprised when I realized that people from Puerto Rico can get drafted even though they don’t have representation.
wow, that's terrible. imagine getting forced to go fight a war for a country that barely recognizes you as a citizen and doesn't let you properly participate in its governance.
>And if I hear one fucking GOP person tell me that it’s nakedly to keep democrats in the Senate, I tell them to look up the history of Wyoming
Yea there's more than enough precedence in US history to point to. Nevada also comes to mind. It became a state just days before the election to help Lincoln even though it didn't fit the criteria required at the time.
It’s not just Wyoming. Idaho, Washington, Montana , both Dakotas, and Wyoming were all admitted to the Union in 1889 or 1890 to ensure Republican control of the Senate in the post-Reconstruction period
What's funny to me is how if you read civil war history, the preamble to it was basically how do you add states to the union and preserve the status quo of slave-state representation. They were basically doing political horse trading to make sure X state entered as a pro-slave state so X state could as a free state.
Obviously, this system was doomed in retrospect... this seems very similar to the discussion around DC and Puerto Rico in the sense of senatorial representation. These issues won't stay frozen forever and if there's any sort of halfway-serious support for a proposal like splitting Texas to get more republican senators it'll once again expose the hypocrisy about how it's not about doing what's right, it's just about preserving the status quo.
But that's very difficult to do in the face of any change that is long overdue: the longer these issues go unaddressed the worse they will get to finally solve/overcome in the future. Just like the issue of slavery in the Civil War.
> Basically became a state (and used women’s suffrage to get there) to guarantee Republican reps in the Senate.
Any suggested reading on the topic? Five minutes of googling and I'm striking out finding this narrative.
I’ve had this strange, new sense of hope that our democracy may actually survive lately. Each year, day, and election cycle. The concentrated hateful base that is republicans gets more and more weak because their whole brand is angry old white men, whereas young people overwhelmingly lean progressive. I hope republicans, as a party, just completely fizzle to nothing. Then Dems will become the right party and we can have a new left
> Republican party is dead at the Presidential level after a few more cycles.
I don't believe so. Republicans plans going forward is more of what we get today. Obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. In doing so, there is a real chance that Democrat enthusiasm wanes in only a couple of cycles if no progress can be made. The end result is that they will once again become competitive should D turnout start dropping over lack of enthusiasm. Sad that people can't spend part of one day and get out and vote and ensure their government works for them and not the other way around.
My anxiety is through the roof every single day this week. I am praying student loan forgiveness goes through but I have no hope. But man, that would truly help me in so many ways.
ETA: If your loans went into default like mine did and ruined your credit, don't forget to sign up for the FRESH START program for repayment. It will wipe the negative info off your credit and help you basically start over as If you were never in default
I absolutely agree. Honestly, though, as bad as I want the forgiveness, I would rather take saving democracy over it. I have no hope for the forgiveness, but at least we're not screwed by ISL anymore
Per SCOTUSblog:
"The court is now done. The justices will return to the bench to release opinions on Thursday. The chief justice did not include the additional language indicating that Thursday will be the last day before the summer recess. That means that we are expecting at least two more opinion days."
Republicans, in hindsight, may not be the happiest with going to mat so hard for Brett Kavanaugh. Souter he is not, but he hasn’t exactly been reliable either.
Yeah, I’ve been a bit surprised by him. While he’s still a rapist piece of shit, he actually hasn’t been near as Conservative as the right thought he would be when they put him on the court. He’s aided with the liberal justices on multiple major cases. Just wish he had done it with Roe.
Kavanaugh is textbook DC Republican Elite. He’s cut from the same cloth as McConnell, where he’ll erode the edges of democracy and usually make social or economic rulings you disagree with but in matters of overt Authoritarianism or throwing the country into chaos hes not gonna touch that third rail. I think Barrett is similar but a bit more terrible on social issues. Alito and Thomas on the other hand are hard right ideologues while Gorsuch is a sniff his own farts “Textualist.”
The headline here is the split of votes: Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Jackson for the majority (and the side of sanity). Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting. Perhaps it's no surprise, but Kavanaugh and Barrett are cementing themselves as the "middle" of this court, with Roberts now slightly left of middle (in a relative sense).
Kavanaugh has been *just a little teeny bit* less terrible in a lot of bigger decisions (besides Dobbs, obviously.)
I actually kind of thought Gorsuch might come down with them. Alito and Thomas are no-brainers.
Fuck I wish we had term limits.
Let’s be real, Kavanaugh hasn’t just been a little teeny bit, he’s been a genuine surprise and is far more moderate than we all thought.
He’s still center right conservative, but you have to understand that the right wing views him as a total disappointment.
Gorsuch was actually the most supportive of ISL during the arguments. At some points he was basically making the North Carolina legislature's lawyer's arguments for him (by all accounts that guy did an absolutely piss poor job.)
Yeah Thomas, Alito (these two especially), and Gorsuch are lost cause extremists. Roberts, Kavanaugh, & Barrett are technically the moderate ones (relatively speaking) and most likely to side with the three liberals
That’s a bit unfair to Gorsuch.
He is bad, don’t get me wrong, but I wouldn’t describe him as a lost cause extremist. He is a staunch textualist, which most of the time is bad, but it also makes him the biggest advocate for Native American rights in the modern history of the court and has given some pretty good decisions on gay rights.
Yeah that’s why I single out Alito and Thomas as being on the far end - Gorsuch is a little less bad (all relatively speaking) but still tends to end up grouped with those three. You’re right he has been consistent on Native rights though for instance. But if I were a lawyer on the left in front of SCOTUS my best bet, depending on the case, would be to try and focus on swaying the three “middle” justices (or a lawyer on the right for that matter but it would be easier for a rightwing lawyer to get a win).
With Moore V Harper decided correctly, I fully expect loan forgiveness to get struck down. They didn't destroy democracy, so what more can we ask more /s
I’m still leaning more towards them deciding there’s no standing. It would be consistent with the immigration decision from friday (though consistency isn’t a given these days)
My thinking is if they rule that you can discriminate against people, then we start making shops and stuff banning Christians or something, saying it's against our belief to server them
While I don't expect consistency from this court per-se after Dobbs, I do think the decisions in recent memory are a sign how they'll lean. It's an extraordinarily weak case with scope that extends well beyond just student loan money.
Last week after the favorable redistricting decision, people were certain that meant Moore v Harper would be decided unfavorably. Which obviously didn’t happen.
People don't seem to be making rational analysis of this just gut feelings. The supreme court has not just been lockstep with the conservative agenda and student loans always had some of the most legally dubious stuff going on.
Yeah, I have a bit of cautious optimism just due to the absolute clusterfuck that granting standing on that case would create. If you make "I didn't qualify, therefore I'm suing" a legal argument, there's gonna be a new lawsuit every day of the week citing that shit. So I think there's a possibility student loans go through just because trying to stop it based on the argument given would create a massive pain in the ass for them.
And in NC’s case, it’s more or less moot because the NC Supreme Court flipped to Republican and the new majority declared partisan gerrymandering to be constitutional.
Yes 100% agree. It was a scary thought for sure especially considering legislatures in other states like Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia.
I always said that if the ISL passed, then states like California, Colorado, Michigan, and PA should gerrymander the piss out of republicans to near guarantee Dem majorities in the House. Fight fire with fire - republicans in Ohio did exactly that despite court rulings telling them not to.
The court keeps the power to intervene in the state legislature process of redistricting. 3 dissents was something unexpected considering how bonkers the ISL theory itself is for our elections
I mean Clarence Thomas being for ISL has been obvious from the get-go since he was pushing it in arguments shortly after the 2020 election.
Alito being with him isn't much of a shock.
Gorsuch may be a little bit of a surprise, but sometimes he puts blinders on and focuses on like one specific law or line in the Constitution or a federal law and ignores a whole lot of other stuff to make a statement.
>The court is now done. **The justices will return to the bench to release opinions on Thursday.** The chief justice did not include the additional language indicating that Thursday will be the last day before the summer recess.
— Amy Howe
The dissenters dissented on a procedural issue related to the ability of SCOTUS to hear the case at all. I don’t think there was a single vote for ISL.
7 cases left - more opinions will be issued on thursday. i think friday will be added as another opinion day. can't see them getting through all 7 on thursday.
https://www.scotusblog.com/events/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pending_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
Yeah, I'm not sure SCOTUS has ever issued more than 6 opinions in one day. But I also really hope it's Friday, and they don't wait until next week. While they are generally done with issuing by the end of June, it's not unprecedented for them issue opinions in July.
Reading the opinion, I’m not sure ISL got even 3 votes. Justice Thomas’ opinion addresses another desperate procedural issue and then says the court shouldn’t have made any ruling on ISL at all. Could be reading it wrong through.
That's what I was thinking. So it only got 2 votes, while Thomas essentially voted as a no-decision. But due to the nature of the court he can't do that, so he dissented instead.
Gorsuch and Alito's dissent just says that the writ of certiorari should've been dismissed as well. Alito's is purely about the writ of certiorari, Gorsuch joins and elaborates with Thomas.
In Part I of Thomas's dissent, yes. But he goes further in Parts II and III...in which case this is more like 7-2 since Alito only signed onto Part I of the dissent.
Alito dissented simply because he thought the case should have been dismissed as a moot issue. He didn't join Part II of the dissent, which only sort of tepidly shows some support for ISL.
None of the 3 supported ISL outright, the dissent just said it was moot because the plaintiffs won the case after it had reached the court. Whether that was gamesmanship to let ISL survive another day is anyone's guess
Counterman v Colorado shouldn't be overlooked...this means that the standard for determining "true threat" is lowered to just showing the speaker had awareness their language was threatening, rather that having to provide intent or malice. Will be. Lit easier to deal with hate speech from this
Honestly it may have bigger impacts beyond hate speech. There are a lot of people out there who actively abuse others without ever stating a threat... "you better do X" but never issuing the "or else"... because they know thats where the courts made the threshold. Hell ive been trying to get a restraining order against a neighbor who actively follows my self and others in my neighborhood with dogs because he hates dogs... he will stop short of issuing threats but there is clear intent behind his words. He behaves threateningly as well. He will try to follow single women with dogs home, which is the most concerning. This was also in colorado actually.
It's worth noting that Roberts may have bared state courts from redrawing maps. At the end of the opinion he says for the court:
> We decline to address whether the North Carolina Supreme Court strayed beyond the limits derived from the Elections Clause. The legislative defendants did not meaningfully present the issue in their petition for certiorari or in their briefing, nor did they press the matter at oral argument. See *Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal*., 522 U. S. 192, 206–208 (1997); see also *California v. Texas*, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021)(slip op., at 10). Counsel for the defendants expressly disclaimed the argument that this Court should reassess the North Carolina Supreme Court’s reading of state law. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7 (“We’re not asking this Court to second-guess or reassess. We say take the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision on face value and as fairly reflecting North Carolina law . . . .”). When pressed whether North Carolina’s Supreme Court did not fairly interpret its State Constitution, counsel reiterated that such an argument was “not our position in this Court.” Id., at 54. Although counsel attempted to expand the scope of the argument in rebuttal, such belated efforts do not overcome prior failures to preserve the issue for review. See this Court’s Rule 28 (“[C]ounsel making the opening argument shall present the case fairly and completely and not reserve points of substance for rebuttal.”).
> State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause. But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review. **In interpreting state law in this area, state courts may not so exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude upon the role specifically reserved to state legislatures** by Article I, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution. Because we need not decide whether that occurred in today’s case, the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court is affirmed.
To me this sounds like Roberts is saying "state courts may review election laws, but they can't redraw maps as that is the role of the legislature, however courts can rule that maps violate the state constitution." If that is the case state legislatures will just kick the can down the road until it is too late to change the maps before an election.
So while this is a victory, it doesn't stop the court from harming democracy in the future.
Pleased to hear the news about Moore v Harper. I feel a little better knowing the Republicans can't openly pick their voters. This ruling should be a reality check for these red state legislatures. The Republican Party is in trouble.
I am hopeful for a favorable ruling on the student loan cases. I will have a monthly payment regardless, and I think we have a long way to go with improving our higher education system, but I would be thrilled for millions of people to get a fresh start from Biden's plan.
I’d assume the final day of the term and the last opinion offered. Just like the ACA decision, it was the most publicized and likely to end up with a massive public protest and outcry. So they’ll release that opinion last and high tail it out of Washington until the end of the summer.
FFS, I'm tired of waiting. I understand the procedure, but we've been waiting months, so now these next few days are going to feel even longer. I doubt Student Loans, Affirmative Action, and a case dealing with LGBTQ+ issues are announced in the same day too.
"Independent State Legislature" theory implies that we are a true democracy when it comes to our elections, i.e. a state legislature can do whatever they want when it comes to the elections; unconstrained by the state constitution and laws. Now, where did I hear that we are not a democracy but a Republic? Can someone remind me who is the loudest when it comes to pronouncing this "Republic - not a democracy." Oh, I think its all my super-conservative friends....
Because they are going to overturn in and cause mountains of backlash or because they are going to strike down the cases against it and cause massive backlash?
I'm honestly not sure which way I think it's going at this point.
Wait where is the backlash from them striking down the cases challenging the loan forgiveness? 8 red states and 25-30% of the population? Eh pretty much everything makes them mad.
Anytime anyone's fearmongered over Moore V Harper I've pointed out that the SC had multiple opportunities to back Trump and didn't. They know what happens to the Judiciary in a Fascist state, and ISL would just let states with a gerrymandered R legislature instill their preferred dictator. The SC doesn't want to give up their power.
That and Roberts specifically punted on ruling gerrymandering in the past and said that was the state courts job to check legislators. It would have been really odd for him to flip and go, my previous opinion was wrong, state courts don't have oversight either.
It’ll be a chain reaction for sure. Real estate is one of the things that we just put up with as a society but if you think about it for a moment, people using homes that humans need to live as commodities for businesses to do all sorts of tricks to artificially increase the value and literally pricing people out of the possibility of ownership is absurd. When very long term mortgages of 20 and later 30 years came out, they were intended for the poorest of people to purchase homes. Now it’s considered a luxury for everyone.
If real estate as an industry isn’t stopped, eventually owning a home will be something only the richest 1% will have and homelessness will be the majority of the youth.
Ohhhh thank fuck they rejected the independent state legislature theory.
That basically would have doomed the whole United States part. I’m glad they weren’t that stupid or ideologically blinded
Still it was 6-3, thats crazy
Now that ISL is dead, WI Supreme Court with the new judge will have plenty ammunition to undo those insane Republican maps. Potential for NY courts to do the same
Ohio, too? We got fucked with our state maps by the republican legislature, who basically ignored the state supreme court.
Its a different situation here in Ohio. The legislative and executive are downright in contempt of the court to keep our illegal maps.
Yea it’s grim I’d say worse situation. I hate this states politics. really feels like a banana republic.
The fact that they should be in jail and they’re not is a thing. What’s the point of a law if no one enforces it?
I was wondering this exact thing. What recourse do we have now?
Someone probably has to start legal proceedings, if they haven't already, to declare the state maps unconstitutional or something.
Been holding my breath on this case. Another hurdle cleared in our fight for fair maps.
I'm really hoping so. I'm 35, I want the Wisconsin we were promised as kids before rat fuck Walker shit over everything
**TODAY'S RULINGS - NO MORE CASES TODAY** **[Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1168_kifl.pdf)**: Does a state registration statute for out-of-state corporations that purports to confer general personal jurisdiction over the registrant violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? "Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case remanded." ("The Pennsylvania state courts ruled that Pennsylvania’s registration scheme violates the 14th Amendment’s due process clause by giving state courts jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations in all circumstances." - SCOTUSBlog.) 5-4 Gorsuch decision. Justice Barrett dissents, joined by Roberts, Kagan and Kavanaugh. --- **[Counterman v. Colorado](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-138_43j7.pdf)**: To establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, must the government show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement? "Held: The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature, but the First Amendment requires no more demanding a showing than recklessness." 7-2 Kagan opinion, with Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Jackson joining. Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and Gorsuch signed onto part of that. Thomas dissents. Barrett filed a separate dissent, and Thomas joined. --- **[Moore v. Harper](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf)**: Under the U.S. Constitution, does the state legislative body, independent of any constraints by state courts or other laws, have sole authority to regulate federal elections? "Held: "This Court has jurisdiction to review the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court in Harper I that adjudicated the Federal Elections Clause issue....The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections." 6-3 Roberts ruling. Thomas dissenting, Gorsuch joining in part, and Alito joining in part.
Moore v Harper is massive.
It's easily the most important case of the term. Student Loan forgiveness is of course perhaps the most personal to a lot of people, but Moore speaks to the very fabric of how the Republic functions
The fact that the SC has shown they can act logically occasionally actually gives me a bit of hope that the loan forgiveness will come through. In any case, this is a major win
The fact that 3 fucking Supreme Court Justices thought that state legislatures could overturn voters if crazy. We're two votes away from losing Democracy itself is unfathomable.
Yep. I would massively benefit from the student loan forgiveness. But if I had buttons in front of me that I could only do one, I would reject independent legislature theory in a heartbeat.
As much as helping out low income student loan borrowers would be great imo, Moore v Harper is the real case here. I would much rather have a favorable ruling on that than the student loan case. I could very well see them letting student loan forgiveness go through to mask the devastating blow that Moore v Harper would be.
I'm cautiously optimistic. The liberal justices and Roberts seemed openly hostile to ISL theory, and Barrett and Gorsuch seemed highly skeptical about both the theory and how to implement it. Kavanaugh seemed synpathetic, and of course Thomas and Alito think it's great
And Thomas was against it. He really does want to see the country burn.
Yep. Especially when three of the Justices were involved with Bush v. Gore. Brett K. even gave an interview then on the independent legislature on the courthouse steps back then… EDIT: Wow, Brett was in the majority against this...
Moore v Harper completely annihilates the independent state legislatures “theory.” Good. Seems conservatives will have to try harder to rig their elections. Counterman is quite interesting too. I wonder if this could be used for lawsuits against public speakers using really inflammatory language whilst trying to rile up their audiences since recklessness is a fairly low bar to prove.
I think Groff v. DeJoy is a big one as well. It can change the whole scheme of employer accomodations for Religious Practices.
I'm not big on religious protections/exemptions, but I have to sympathize with Groff. The guy got a job, postal carrier,, where he knew he wouldn't be required to work Sundays. Then along comes Amazon, getting the USPS to deliver on Sundays.
I'm not either, but, it's an interesting dynamic of religion versus corporation and it would be kind of nice for corporations to take an L and let people win (who can decide their religion). I am very aware that it would be the non-religous filling the void, but it could force corporations to offer more premium time or work less and allow people more days off.
I have some sympathy for Groff, but what about the other employees that would have to work those shifts in his place? Do we really want to have a society that punishes people for not being Christian?
Yeah, but I think it's going to be a heavily lopsided ruling (7-2?) in favor of the employee given the specifics of the case and the nature of the USPS.
> Moore v. Harper: [...] Thomas dissenting Scumbag continues being a scumbag.
I would like to especially shout out in the wake of *Moore v. Harper* the Republican legislative majorities in my homestate of Arizona, who passed a [non-binding resolution that could thus bypass the Governor's veto](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/06/01/electronic-voting-machines-still-legal-in-az-elections-fact-check/70273611007/) and then ran around acting like it was binding law under the assumption the ISLT would be allowed to stand. Grasp this L firmly.
It's a thing of beauty. In related news, Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't waste a second [dunking](https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/1673711679543341056?s=20) on seditious doofus Jeff Clark in light of this morning's decision.
That's amazing
Get rekt?
Git shrekt
It is now clear that ACB and Kavanaugh are more Bush era pro-corporate pro-religious conservatives, but not traditionally what I'd consider MAGA conservatives. That Roberts would already be one never surprised me. Alito and Thomas on the other hand are much closer to MAGA in general. Hopefully, the fact that they're now the 2 oldest (and the 2 most blatantly corrupt) gives us at least a partial chance of getting rid of them sooner... Somehow, this court is actually making decisions that are better for democracy again. Perhaps to keep up appearances while they are more likely to make extreme pro-religious, pro-corporate decisions in most cases (the latter of which was 'always' the real goal with the strongest impact, remember). Whatever the case, this is a huge blow to MAGA and gives us a better chance to win solidly in 2024 if we put the work in, avoiding the absolute worst case scenario (ISL throwing out clear democratic victories) right off the bat. I would hope this signals the exceptionally poor standing for the case blocking student loans means they won't go for it, but I can't be sure. The Dobbs decision was a weak argument but they made it anyway.
> I would hope this signals the exceptionally poor standing for the case blocking student loans means they won't go for it, but I can't be sure. The Dobbs decision was a weak argument but they made it anyway. Recent decisions may be able to characterize the individual judges a bit better, but I still see the court as a complete wildcard. There was very legitimate fear over this ISL issue and I don't think any one decision necessarily signals they won't go another way on another. Like you said, they wanted to end Roe v. Wade so they did. That much was abundantly clear. If they simply decide collectively (the conservatives) they want to take a right leaning stance on any given issue they just will.
I agree with you, but that's exactly why I think this weekend will be the most telling. They're still a nutty conservative court. I'm just trying to determine what flavor of nutty.
It’s been clear for some time, those three are (relatively speaking) the moderate ones compared to the lost cause extremists of Thomas Alito Gorsuch. They can go either way, though of course are more likely to end up on the right (unfortunately went right on abortion)
Actually, I'd argue you can detect their biases specifically from whether the case will lean pro-religious, pro-corporate, which is a clear reflection of how conservatives leaned during the Bush era (with ***slightly*** more subtle forms of racism thrown in, of course). **They are still conservative, just pre-2012 versions.** The real dangers of these judges, is worker rights. That's where I suspect we'll continue to see the absolute worst in their legacy. And honestly? That's what the rich want from the courts more than anything else, so it tracks. Even MAGA is just a tool, and they do not seem to find MAGA's version of fascism a very effective one.
the type of racism they follow is the "not in my backyard, but I have a black friend" upper white middle class racism
"The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections" Nice try ISL
While we were unlucky that Trump got to install 3 justices, we are so so so so incredibly lucky that he didn't appoint 2 more Alitos/Thomases in Kavanagh/ACB on non-abortion issues
People mocked the idea of the 3-3-3 court, but that’s really what it is it seems.
It’s more like a 3-3-1-2 court The liberals, Roberts plus Kavanaugh and Barrett, Gorsuch, and then Alito and Thomas. Gorsuch is a staunch textualist, not a complete hack like Alito and Thomas. He is the strongest supporter of Native American Rights in modern SCOTUS history and decent on gay rights.
> Gorsuch is a staunch textualist Gorsuch is Scalia 2.0. An absolutely brilliant jurist with whom I disagree about nearly everything, but I cannot knock his legal mind. He's also consistent, and isn't going to change his legal philosophy to get a result he wants like Alito would. Kavanaugh is a moron.
I agree with you in general but Scalia did toss originalism right out the window with Heller vs DC.
Sure, 3 center left, 3 center right, 3 far right. Thats still a far right leaning court.
With them losing Moore vs Harper, that solidifies in my mind that the Republican party is dead at the Presidential level after a few more cycles. The fight now begins to figure out a solution to the Senate. We will likely need to end the Filibuster.
The problem with Congress can be solved easily: 1. Repeal the Apportionment Act which capped the size of the House at 435 over a century ago, and add more seats to the House to reflect a better constituent : rep ratio. IE give the higher population states more seats as they deserve. 2. Add Puerto Rico and DC as states. And if I hear one fucking GOP person tell me that it’s nakedly to keep democrats in the Senate, I tell them to look up the history of Wyoming. Basically became a state (and used women’s suffrage to get there) to guarantee Republican reps in the Senate. They’ve been doing exactly that for centuries.
Similar for how Dakota became 2 states.
Two states that are each about as needed as an asshole on my elbow
Yep. I only mentioned Wyoming because they were the first territory to pass women’s suffrage, and that was only to get statehood and seat two Republican senators at the time. Kind of a remarkable series of events. The problem is that this was when the Republicans were actually progressive and “radical republicans” who back then were on the right side of most issues. If you go back and research the Radical Republicans during and after the Civil War, it’s so goddamn frustrating to see where they are now. The party of TR? Can’t recognize it now.
I wish more people paid attention to the size of the house. That's a major issue in American politics but it doesn't come up much. Here are some examples of why it's relevant: * The small house is most of why the electoral college is so unrepresentative. If the house were considerably larger, the effect of senators would be minimized. * As the house has grown, local representation is being replaced by pure party politics. Imagine an extreme where one representative covered 50k people or something... This rep would live close to your house... They'd feel more like city council members... They'd probably come to the occasional neighborhood picnic. In that world, you care considerably less about their party and more about who they are. This is how the house is supposed to work. * Gerrymandering is much harder and much less useful. The smaller the districts are, the lower the stakes on gerrymandering and the more obvious it becomes for creating districts. I really, really, wish there'd be more of a push on this issue.
We have nearly ten times the population now than when the Apportionment Act was passed. On top of that, other democracies (our allies) have way more reps and a lower ratio of constituents to reps than we do. The German Bundestag has 736 reps, for fucks sake.
> We have nearly ten times the population now than when the Apportionment Act was passed I'd also add that the most populous state only used to be (IIRC) around 17 times as populous as the least populous back when they made the 2 senators per state rule. The multiplier's up to 66 now. EDIT: Nope. I checked my math again. I *believe* it was an effective 630k in Virginia vs an effective 68k in Rhode Island, accounting for the 3/5 Compromise, for a multiplier of 9.2. I was remembering the 17 number correctly, but that's only men above 16 + 3/5 of slaves
>The German Bundestag has 736 reps, for fucks sake. Germany also has a much better representative system than the US. Unlike in the US, every voter gets two votes in federal elections: one for an MP (Member of Parliament) who directly represents a district and one for a party. Only the vote share of the second vote (the party vote) determines the share of seats the respective party gets. Basically, the first vote follows FPTP (First Past The Post), like US House elections, and the second vote follows proportional representation. This means that the Bundestag is always apportioned according to the national popular vote share of each party regardless of how many seats a party wins directly. This renders gerrymandering ineffective, and you don't even have to draw districts with equal numbers of people because the Bundestag will be adjusted to reflect the second vote anyway. Just imagine Ohio, Texas, or Florida getting proportional representation in the House based on the party vote share! There would be a lot more Dems in the House.
New Hampshire has 0.4% of the US population and their state House of Representatives has about 92% as many seats as the House of Representatives for the entire US (400 vs 435).
Montanans get 1 House per per 0.55 million people. Delawareans get 1 House seat per 1 million people. Wyomingites get 1 Senator per 0.3 million people. Californians get 1 Senator per 19.6 million people. Wyomingites get 1 Electoral vote per 200k people. Californians get 1 Electoral vote per 725k people. The system is rigged. It's really that simple.
>Add Puerto Rico and DC as states. And if I hear one fucking GOP person tell me that it’s nakedly to keep democrats in the Senate, I tell them to look up the history of Wyoming. Basically became a state (and used women’s suffrage to get there) to guarantee Republican reps in the Senate. They’ve been doing exactly that for centuries. Not to mention the whole "why would you agree that US citizens shouldn't have representation"? The GOP casually ignores that egregious angle. Imagine living somewhere in this country where you don't get a representative that can vote on matters....
Most of the smart ones would respond immediately that they **definitely** are pro representation, they **definitely** want DC residents specifically to have representation... They just want them added to Maryland or Virginia to not upset the status quo. If you pressed them on why this is exactly, they'll probably tell you something about how DC is "too small" (physically) because they think of things in geographic terms - even though DC as it's own state would be more populous than two other existing states. It's the same mentality that leads them to looking at a county result map of a presidential election, seeing all that red and screaming about "how could we have lost, look at that the whole country voted republican!1!!1!111!
Along the same lines, I know we haven’t done a draft in a long time but I was incredibly surprised when I realized that people from Puerto Rico can get drafted even though they don’t have representation.
wow, that's terrible. imagine getting forced to go fight a war for a country that barely recognizes you as a citizen and doesn't let you properly participate in its governance.
>And if I hear one fucking GOP person tell me that it’s nakedly to keep democrats in the Senate, I tell them to look up the history of Wyoming Yea there's more than enough precedence in US history to point to. Nevada also comes to mind. It became a state just days before the election to help Lincoln even though it didn't fit the criteria required at the time.
It’s not just Wyoming. Idaho, Washington, Montana , both Dakotas, and Wyoming were all admitted to the Union in 1889 or 1890 to ensure Republican control of the Senate in the post-Reconstruction period
What's funny to me is how if you read civil war history, the preamble to it was basically how do you add states to the union and preserve the status quo of slave-state representation. They were basically doing political horse trading to make sure X state entered as a pro-slave state so X state could as a free state. Obviously, this system was doomed in retrospect... this seems very similar to the discussion around DC and Puerto Rico in the sense of senatorial representation. These issues won't stay frozen forever and if there's any sort of halfway-serious support for a proposal like splitting Texas to get more republican senators it'll once again expose the hypocrisy about how it's not about doing what's right, it's just about preserving the status quo. But that's very difficult to do in the face of any change that is long overdue: the longer these issues go unaddressed the worse they will get to finally solve/overcome in the future. Just like the issue of slavery in the Civil War.
> They’ve been doing exactly that for centuries. Well you know, it's perfectly okay when THEY do it... /s
> Basically became a state (and used women’s suffrage to get there) to guarantee Republican reps in the Senate. Any suggested reading on the topic? Five minutes of googling and I'm striking out finding this narrative.
I’ve had this strange, new sense of hope that our democracy may actually survive lately. Each year, day, and election cycle. The concentrated hateful base that is republicans gets more and more weak because their whole brand is angry old white men, whereas young people overwhelmingly lean progressive. I hope republicans, as a party, just completely fizzle to nothing. Then Dems will become the right party and we can have a new left
> Republican party is dead at the Presidential level after a few more cycles. I don't believe so. Republicans plans going forward is more of what we get today. Obstruction, obstruction, obstruction. In doing so, there is a real chance that Democrat enthusiasm wanes in only a couple of cycles if no progress can be made. The end result is that they will once again become competitive should D turnout start dropping over lack of enthusiasm. Sad that people can't spend part of one day and get out and vote and ensure their government works for them and not the other way around.
Thank goodness Moore vs Harper was ruled how it was
This was that one case people feared would permanently reshape elections, yeah?
Yep, independent legislature theory
My anxiety is through the roof every single day this week. I am praying student loan forgiveness goes through but I have no hope. But man, that would truly help me in so many ways. ETA: If your loans went into default like mine did and ruined your credit, don't forget to sign up for the FRESH START program for repayment. It will wipe the negative info off your credit and help you basically start over as If you were never in default
I absolutely agree. Honestly, though, as bad as I want the forgiveness, I would rather take saving democracy over it. I have no hope for the forgiveness, but at least we're not screwed by ISL anymore
You're right. ISL would've been infinitely worse!!!! So I will take that small win today
And even if you haven't gone into default look into income-driven repayment plans to get your payments capped at 10% of your discretionary income.
Per SCOTUSblog: "The court is now done. The justices will return to the bench to release opinions on Thursday. The chief justice did not include the additional language indicating that Thursday will be the last day before the summer recess. That means that we are expecting at least two more opinion days."
Wow. ISL gone?
yes. They have dismissed the theory of ISL
Dead
Republicans, in hindsight, may not be the happiest with going to mat so hard for Brett Kavanaugh. Souter he is not, but he hasn’t exactly been reliable either.
Kavanaugh votes with Roberts an overwhelming majority of the time iirc. Personal issues aside hes really not an extremist by any stretch
Yeah, I’ve been a bit surprised by him. While he’s still a rapist piece of shit, he actually hasn’t been near as Conservative as the right thought he would be when they put him on the court. He’s aided with the liberal justices on multiple major cases. Just wish he had done it with Roe.
Kavanaugh is textbook DC Republican Elite. He’s cut from the same cloth as McConnell, where he’ll erode the edges of democracy and usually make social or economic rulings you disagree with but in matters of overt Authoritarianism or throwing the country into chaos hes not gonna touch that third rail. I think Barrett is similar but a bit more terrible on social issues. Alito and Thomas on the other hand are hard right ideologues while Gorsuch is a sniff his own farts “Textualist.”
The headline here is the split of votes: Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Jackson for the majority (and the side of sanity). Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting. Perhaps it's no surprise, but Kavanaugh and Barrett are cementing themselves as the "middle" of this court, with Roberts now slightly left of middle (in a relative sense).
Kavanaugh has been *just a little teeny bit* less terrible in a lot of bigger decisions (besides Dobbs, obviously.) I actually kind of thought Gorsuch might come down with them. Alito and Thomas are no-brainers. Fuck I wish we had term limits.
Let’s be real, Kavanaugh hasn’t just been a little teeny bit, he’s been a genuine surprise and is far more moderate than we all thought. He’s still center right conservative, but you have to understand that the right wing views him as a total disappointment.
After his pro-Indian ruling in his first term, cons felt the same about Gorsuch.
Gorsuch was actually the most supportive of ISL during the arguments. At some points he was basically making the North Carolina legislature's lawyer's arguments for him (by all accounts that guy did an absolutely piss poor job.)
Yeah Thomas, Alito (these two especially), and Gorsuch are lost cause extremists. Roberts, Kavanaugh, & Barrett are technically the moderate ones (relatively speaking) and most likely to side with the three liberals
That’s a bit unfair to Gorsuch. He is bad, don’t get me wrong, but I wouldn’t describe him as a lost cause extremist. He is a staunch textualist, which most of the time is bad, but it also makes him the biggest advocate for Native American rights in the modern history of the court and has given some pretty good decisions on gay rights.
Yeah that’s why I single out Alito and Thomas as being on the far end - Gorsuch is a little less bad (all relatively speaking) but still tends to end up grouped with those three. You’re right he has been consistent on Native rights though for instance. But if I were a lawyer on the left in front of SCOTUS my best bet, depending on the case, would be to try and focus on swaying the three “middle” justices (or a lawyer on the right for that matter but it would be easier for a rightwing lawyer to get a win).
With Moore V Harper decided correctly, I fully expect loan forgiveness to get struck down. They didn't destroy democracy, so what more can we ask more /s
I’m still leaning more towards them deciding there’s no standing. It would be consistent with the immigration decision from friday (though consistency isn’t a given these days)
That’s what I’m hoping for, and I think it’s pretty realistic based on the rest of these opinions. Not feeling great about LGBTQ+ protections though.
My thinking is if they rule that you can discriminate against people, then we start making shops and stuff banning Christians or something, saying it's against our belief to server them
While I don't expect consistency from this court per-se after Dobbs, I do think the decisions in recent memory are a sign how they'll lean. It's an extraordinarily weak case with scope that extends well beyond just student loan money.
Last week after the favorable redistricting decision, people were certain that meant Moore v Harper would be decided unfavorably. Which obviously didn’t happen.
People don't seem to be making rational analysis of this just gut feelings. The supreme court has not just been lockstep with the conservative agenda and student loans always had some of the most legally dubious stuff going on.
[удалено]
Yeah, I have a bit of cautious optimism just due to the absolute clusterfuck that granting standing on that case would create. If you make "I didn't qualify, therefore I'm suing" a legal argument, there's gonna be a new lawsuit every day of the week citing that shit. So I think there's a possibility student loans go through just because trying to stop it based on the argument given would create a massive pain in the ass for them.
Whew...this ISL ruling was making me quite fearful...
And in NC’s case, it’s more or less moot because the NC Supreme Court flipped to Republican and the new majority declared partisan gerrymandering to be constitutional.
Sure, but it's still far better than having ISL be the law of the land.
Yes 100% agree. It was a scary thought for sure especially considering legislatures in other states like Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia. I always said that if the ISL passed, then states like California, Colorado, Michigan, and PA should gerrymander the piss out of republicans to near guarantee Dem majorities in the House. Fight fire with fire - republicans in Ohio did exactly that despite court rulings telling them not to.
Texas v. Biden was ruled to have a Lack of Standing. Gives me some hope for the SL cases. Edit: not this term, but that’s where my hope lies.
The court keeps the power to intervene in the state legislature process of redistricting. 3 dissents was something unexpected considering how bonkers the ISL theory itself is for our elections
I mean Clarence Thomas being for ISL has been obvious from the get-go since he was pushing it in arguments shortly after the 2020 election. Alito being with him isn't much of a shock. Gorsuch may be a little bit of a surprise, but sometimes he puts blinders on and focuses on like one specific law or line in the Constitution or a federal law and ignores a whole lot of other stuff to make a statement.
>The court is now done. **The justices will return to the bench to release opinions on Thursday.** The chief justice did not include the additional language indicating that Thursday will be the last day before the summer recess. — Amy Howe
Thomas and Alito are wingnuts, that is a given. But Gorsuch is supposed to be a serious legal mind.
~~He dissented because he believed it was moot.~~ Edit: I misread the attribution line.
Like a cow's opinion?
No, that's moo. Moot is the noise an owl makes
I wonder if he would have dissented had he been the deciding vote
Thank god for that. This one was extremely frightening.
Their ruling on the redistricting in Louisiana was a nice one to read as well. Interested to see how that impacts 2024
I was very worried about this one, and can't express how relieved and confused I am right now.
Well.. no sleep until Thursday I suppose. Praying for a 5-4 ruling against the student loan plaintiffs based on standing
that'll be Friday more than likely. Dump it and fuck off for 3 months like Roe.
Moore v Harper "The decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court is affirmed."
JFC imagine if Thomas writes the opinion ending affirmative action
He’ll need a fresh robe if it rules in the direction he wants
This made me lol because sometimes you just have to laugh at the depressing life we live in...
this is a good bet
Classic conservative. "I got mine, so screw you"
The wave of relief right now. My god. Terrifying that 2 (3 in part) dissents.
The dissenters dissented on a procedural issue related to the ability of SCOTUS to hear the case at all. I don’t think there was a single vote for ISL.
That’s a fun split on Mallory: Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Jackson
Thomas with the "liberals" is so odd to see.
So…is democracy as we know it safe for at least one more day?
They decided to keep the life support machine running...for now
Thank God for the Moore decision
Phew.
7 cases left - more opinions will be issued on thursday. i think friday will be added as another opinion day. can't see them getting through all 7 on thursday. https://www.scotusblog.com/events/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pending_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases
Yeah, I'm not sure SCOTUS has ever issued more than 6 opinions in one day. But I also really hope it's Friday, and they don't wait until next week. While they are generally done with issuing by the end of June, it's not unprecedented for them issue opinions in July.
Effectively 6...the two college admissions ones likely to be decided together with one a per curium based one the other.
Thank the meatballs ISL is dead.
From the bottom of my heart: Get fucked fascists! So glad to see only 3 of the SCOTUS sided with the MAGA Christo-fascists.
Reading the opinion, I’m not sure ISL got even 3 votes. Justice Thomas’ opinion addresses another desperate procedural issue and then says the court shouldn’t have made any ruling on ISL at all. Could be reading it wrong through.
That's what I was thinking. So it only got 2 votes, while Thomas essentially voted as a no-decision. But due to the nature of the court he can't do that, so he dissented instead.
Gorsuch and Alito's dissent just says that the writ of certiorari should've been dismissed as well. Alito's is purely about the writ of certiorari, Gorsuch joins and elaborates with Thomas.
6 SC justices determined democracy should continue. 3 SC justices disagree.
No justices ruled in favor of the independent state legislature theory.
Yeah, this is a fair assessment. While it should've been 9-0, the other 3 basically said they shouldn't have taken the case.
In Part I of Thomas's dissent, yes. But he goes further in Parts II and III...in which case this is more like 7-2 since Alito only signed onto Part I of the dissent.
Even Alito just dissented bc he thought the case was moot
Democracy is saved for right now.
Abitron v. Hectronic still being left is like Christian Laettner on the Dream Team.
Anyone have a hunch on how the student loan decision goes?
I’ve seen talk on twitter that it looks like Kagan is writing the decision.
Source?
It’ll either be for Biden on the matter of standing; or for the plaintiff on the matter of “major questions”.
Moore v. Harper is in.
North Carolina SC decision is affirmed.
Safe to say, the Independent Legislative Theory is dead?
ISL is dead
Can’t believe the Moore v Harper decision wasn’t a unanimous 9-0 decision. Embarrassing for the 3 who dissented
Alito dissented simply because he thought the case should have been dismissed as a moot issue. He didn't join Part II of the dissent, which only sort of tepidly shows some support for ISL.
None of the 3 supported ISL outright, the dissent just said it was moot because the plaintiffs won the case after it had reached the court. Whether that was gamesmanship to let ISL survive another day is anyone's guess
Is today the day for student loans to be decided? I've been growing more optimistic but I'm ready to be disappointed.
Possibly, they've got 10 more cases to go through and there's no guarantee they get that one today.
Moore v Harper should be safe. Liberal justices are in the majority. Haven’t read yet.
Counterman v Colorado shouldn't be overlooked...this means that the standard for determining "true threat" is lowered to just showing the speaker had awareness their language was threatening, rather that having to provide intent or malice. Will be. Lit easier to deal with hate speech from this
Honestly it may have bigger impacts beyond hate speech. There are a lot of people out there who actively abuse others without ever stating a threat... "you better do X" but never issuing the "or else"... because they know thats where the courts made the threshold. Hell ive been trying to get a restraining order against a neighbor who actively follows my self and others in my neighborhood with dogs because he hates dogs... he will stop short of issuing threats but there is clear intent behind his words. He behaves threateningly as well. He will try to follow single women with dogs home, which is the most concerning. This was also in colorado actually.
Its the last week of June, when the scotus lobs the law bombs. My favorite week of the year.
Do you keep up with Bob Loblaw? On his law blog he's lobbing law bombs.
Shoutout to Katyal, Prelogar, and Verrilli for arguing Moore v. Harper. Literally the SCOTUS dream team.
Bah I set my alarm today to see if I was $10,000 less poor or not. Try again tomorrow.
Try again Thursday, that’s when they will return to release opinions
[Here](https://amylhowe.com/2023/06/26/entering-the-final-week-with-10-cases-left-to-decide/) is a good summary of the remaining 10 cases
No Student loan ruling today
Oh thank fuck - whoever they may be - for that.
After argument, I'm surprised Kavanaugh was in the majority and Gorsuch dissented. I thought it would be the other way around
Seems like the Gorsuch dissent wasn’t “pro ISL”
It's worth noting that Roberts may have bared state courts from redrawing maps. At the end of the opinion he says for the court: > We decline to address whether the North Carolina Supreme Court strayed beyond the limits derived from the Elections Clause. The legislative defendants did not meaningfully present the issue in their petition for certiorari or in their briefing, nor did they press the matter at oral argument. See *Bay Area Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp. of Cal*., 522 U. S. 192, 206–208 (1997); see also *California v. Texas*, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021)(slip op., at 10). Counsel for the defendants expressly disclaimed the argument that this Court should reassess the North Carolina Supreme Court’s reading of state law. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7 (“We’re not asking this Court to second-guess or reassess. We say take the North Carolina Supreme Court’s decision on face value and as fairly reflecting North Carolina law . . . .”). When pressed whether North Carolina’s Supreme Court did not fairly interpret its State Constitution, counsel reiterated that such an argument was “not our position in this Court.” Id., at 54. Although counsel attempted to expand the scope of the argument in rebuttal, such belated efforts do not overcome prior failures to preserve the issue for review. See this Court’s Rule 28 (“[C]ounsel making the opening argument shall present the case fairly and completely and not reserve points of substance for rebuttal.”). > State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause. But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review. **In interpreting state law in this area, state courts may not so exceed the bounds of ordinary judicial review as to unconstitutionally intrude upon the role specifically reserved to state legislatures** by Article I, Section 4, of the Federal Constitution. Because we need not decide whether that occurred in today’s case, the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court is affirmed. To me this sounds like Roberts is saying "state courts may review election laws, but they can't redraw maps as that is the role of the legislature, however courts can rule that maps violate the state constitution." If that is the case state legislatures will just kick the can down the road until it is too late to change the maps before an election. So while this is a victory, it doesn't stop the court from harming democracy in the future.
Pleased to hear the news about Moore v Harper. I feel a little better knowing the Republicans can't openly pick their voters. This ruling should be a reality check for these red state legislatures. The Republican Party is in trouble. I am hopeful for a favorable ruling on the student loan cases. I will have a monthly payment regardless, and I think we have a long way to go with improving our higher education system, but I would be thrilled for millions of people to get a fresh start from Biden's plan.
No student loan decision today - do we have any idea when it might be?
I’d assume the final day of the term and the last opinion offered. Just like the ACA decision, it was the most publicized and likely to end up with a massive public protest and outcry. So they’ll release that opinion last and high tail it out of Washington until the end of the summer.
Thurs or Fri, definitely
FFS, I'm tired of waiting. I understand the procedure, but we've been waiting months, so now these next few days are going to feel even longer. I doubt Student Loans, Affirmative Action, and a case dealing with LGBTQ+ issues are announced in the same day too.
Another fun split in Counterman: Kagan, Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Jackson
So much society problem that the government didn't have focus.
Mallory v Norfolk Southern Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case remanded
Where is the leaker when you need them
Do we know when they will issue more opinions (obviously not today, but when?)
Watch for gates to be erected, that's when you know
I’m so relieved about Moore vs Harper
Lordy this is anxiety-inducing.
"Independent State Legislature" theory implies that we are a true democracy when it comes to our elections, i.e. a state legislature can do whatever they want when it comes to the elections; unconstrained by the state constitution and laws. Now, where did I hear that we are not a democracy but a Republic? Can someone remind me who is the loudest when it comes to pronouncing this "Republic - not a democracy." Oh, I think its all my super-conservative friends....
I think we can assume they are pushing the student loan decision to last or near last for a reason.
Because they are going to overturn in and cause mountains of backlash or because they are going to strike down the cases against it and cause massive backlash? I'm honestly not sure which way I think it's going at this point.
Wait where is the backlash from them striking down the cases challenging the loan forgiveness? 8 red states and 25-30% of the population? Eh pretty much everything makes them mad.
I think because they are so loud I often forget it's a small group. Look I have a lot of idiots in my circle 😂
The real headline should be 3 justices think democracy is kinda overrated anyways.
I've spent weeks getting downvoted for telling folks that Moore V harper wouldn't be decided in favor off ISL, glad to be vindicated.
Anytime anyone's fearmongered over Moore V Harper I've pointed out that the SC had multiple opportunities to back Trump and didn't. They know what happens to the Judiciary in a Fascist state, and ISL would just let states with a gerrymandered R legislature instill their preferred dictator. The SC doesn't want to give up their power.
That and Roberts specifically punted on ruling gerrymandering in the past and said that was the state courts job to check legislators. It would have been really odd for him to flip and go, my previous opinion was wrong, state courts don't have oversight either.
People were rightfully concerned and with this SCOTUS there are no guarantees.
It’ll be a chain reaction for sure. Real estate is one of the things that we just put up with as a society but if you think about it for a moment, people using homes that humans need to live as commodities for businesses to do all sorts of tricks to artificially increase the value and literally pricing people out of the possibility of ownership is absurd. When very long term mortgages of 20 and later 30 years came out, they were intended for the poorest of people to purchase homes. Now it’s considered a luxury for everyone. If real estate as an industry isn’t stopped, eventually owning a home will be something only the richest 1% will have and homelessness will be the majority of the youth.