Oyez! Supreme Court Preview
The Supreme Court kicked off the October Term yesterday – the first Monday of October. Here’s a quick roundup of the big issues up before the Court.
Affirmative action: The court will revisit its 2003 ruling (Grutter v. Bollinger) which upheld certain affirmative-action programs at universities. In the new case, Fisher v. University of Texas, the Court will consider a white student’s challenge to the admissions policy at UT Austin that allows race to trump other merit-based factors. As our own John Yoo recently argued, the Court should overturn Grutter as a “blemish” on our constitutional law.
Gay Marriage: It’s considered likely that the Court will address gay marriage, although the Justices have not made an announcement yet. Actually, there are two distinct issues: (1) can Congress define “marriage” for federal law purposes? and (2) can states define marriage as the union of one man and one woman?
The first issue relates to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). There is at least a decent Tenth Amendment argument that DOMA is unconstitutional. If the federal government wants to make certain benefits contingent on being married, so be it, but the feds have to defer to the states to supply the definition of marriage.
The second issue, which relates to California's Proposition 8, presents a much greater threat to our constitutional order. The liberal argument is that the Constitution requires state recognition of same-sex marriage and, therefore, divests states of their historic power over the definition of marriage. According to the liberal spin, as the Washington Post’s Robert Barnes reports in typically unbiased fashion, the question is “whether society’s growing acceptance of same-sex unions warrants constitutional protection.” I guess society’s “growing acceptance” is somehow reflected by the 37 states that have passed laws defining marriage as limited to a union between one man and one woman. As I have said before, the liberal argument here is pure judicial activism.
ObamaCare, Part II? There is at least a possibility that the Affordable Care Act will come back to the Court this term. The Court is considering a petition by Liberty University to reconsider the university’s challenge to ACA’s employer mandate on religious freedom grounds, but also as exceeding Congress’s power. Although the Court often summarily rejects such petitions, it has kept this one under advisement all summer, and now has asked the Obama administration to respond – raising the likelihood that the Court will agree to revisit this law.
Takings. The case is Arkansas Game and Fish Comm. v. United States. I described this in an earlier post: the issue is whether government regulations that impose recurring flood invasions constitute a “taking” within the meaning of the Takings Clause, even if the flooding isn’t permanent.
Voting rights. Overlapping with the recent Voter ID controversies are a series of cases challenging Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act, which requires states and localities with a history of discrimination to get federal approval of any changes in their voting laws. In a 2009 ruling, the Supreme Court expressed concern about “serious constitutional questions raised by Section 5’s intrusion on state sovereignty.” Clearly this is the case for state and local elections. But even for federal elections, the Constitution gives states the power to define “the times, places, and manner” of choosing congressmen. Granted, Congress has the power to amend such regulations, but that’s very different from forcing states to ask Congress’s permission before changing their voting laws.
Alien Torts. On Monday, the Court heard argument on the scope of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), a venerable 1798 law that allows aliens to bring lawsuits in federal court for violations “of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” As far as we know, it was enacted to cover very minor gaps in the law, like the assault of a diplomat in the U.S., or piracy committed by Americans in international waters. The law was virtually unused until the 1980s, when it was revived as a nifty way to use American courts to pursue alleged human rights abusers.
In the new frontier, the international rights bar is arguing that the ATS gives courts jurisdiction over suits that have no connection to the US; that is, cases in which foreign plaintiffs sue foreign defendants over conduct that occurred outside of the U.S. The case is Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, recently discussed on Law Talk.
In Monday’s argument, the Justices showed skepticism of the expansion of the ATS and their questions sought some principle to limit ATS. Justice Sotomayor seemed inclined to endorse an interpretation put forth by the European Union in an amicus brief. Fair enough: why shouldn’t the EU guide us on the proper interpretation of a 214-year-old American law?
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Mar '12
Re: Oyez! Supreme Court Preview
It's great to have this pre-term review, Adam. I'm left wondering why I haven't seen this sort of thing in other publications in the past. Perhaps I've just missed it. Anyway, thanks.
Apr '12
Re: Oyez! Supreme Court Preview
A lot of important and contentious issues here. I'm so used to bad news from the SC, I'm can't even hope for the best.
Nov '10
Re: Oyez! Supreme Court Preview
I've said it before, but don't get your hopes up with Fisher. Yes, Grutter needs to be overturned, but what's going on at Texas is not the de-facto quota system that makes affirmative action so revolting. What Texas is doing is looking for unique individuals whose experiences might add to the intellectual diversity of the classroom, and sometimes race may be part of the combination. And I cannot stress the phrase "unique individuals" enough here. We're not talking about a Grutter-esque system where kids get bonus points simply for being non-white. What they're looking for are black conservatives, white kids who went to predominantly black schools, etc.
Edited on October 3, 2012 at 6:44amRe: Oyez! Supreme Court Preview
Umbra Fractus: I've said it before, but don't get your hopes up with Fisher. Yes, Grutter needs to be overturned, but what's going on at Texas is not the de-facto quota system that makes affirmative action so revolting. What Texas is doing is looking for unique individuals whose experiences might add to the intellectual diversity of the classroom, and sometimes race may be part of the combination. And I cannot stress the phrase "unique individuals" enough here. We're not talking about a Grutter-esque system where kids get bonus points simply for being non-white. What they're looking for are black conservatives, white kids who went to predominantly black schools, etc. · 16 hours ago
Edited 16 hours ago
I don't know the details of the UT system - I will study them. In the meantime, Ed Whelan at NRO is citing the authors of a new book, Mismatch, to argue that the impact of the UT racial preferences are very significant. What do you think?