Tag: Chief Justice

The Census Case and Our Radical Chief Justice?

 

I’ve been thinking further about the Chief Justice’s opinion in the Census case, Department of Commerce v. New York (full opinion here). I am concerned that his opinion may reflect a truly radical and dangerous idea, in a way that he may not have considered. Though frankly, this seems unlikely, as he is an extremely intelligent and experienced lawyer and judge.

I find the Chief’s reasoning very troubling, and his rationale was shared by none of the other eight Justices. The Chief thought that the substantive decision made by the Secretary of Commerce — to include a citizenship question on the census long form — was perfectly permissible as a general proposition. However, the Chief thought that the possibly bad motives of this particular Secretary made the decision impermissible.

What is John Roberts Up To?

 

Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005.Yesterday, a Washington Post review of Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court and the Constitutionby Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe and his former student Joshua Matz, ended with this observation:

[T]here is one place where Tribe and Matz find real clarity [in the current Court]: the shrinking availability of judicial relief. “One of the defining features of the Roberts Court,” they write, is “its willingness to leave plaintiffs and criminal defendants to whatever justice they can find beyond its doors.”

Setting aside the liberal morality play rhetoric, a number of commentators agree that the Court has been passing on cases that it once would have taken — and not just on Tribe and Matz’s chew toys. For example, some conservatives lament that the current Court has declined to hear one Second Amendment case after another, leaving conflict and confusion in judicial ranks. Then again, business interests are confused that this year the justices declined to hear a class action certification case that seemed to scream out for high court attention. There was intense conflict among the circuits. The judges who authored the appealed decisions seemed, in their written opinions, to be thumbing their noses at very recent high court precedents. What is going on here?