US Supreme Court will battle to shore up legitimacy

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Church And State ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Gun Control ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Right

Significance Although much of its docket remains to be filled, it has chosen to address some of the country’s most politically contentious topics. It has scheduled arguments on cases that will shape the right to abortion, affect aspects of gun control and free speech, and reconsider the separation of church and state. Impacts The justices will now be in the Supreme Court building rather than working remotely, but with altered rules for oral arguments. In addition to cases already accepted, the Court could choose to hear a case about race-based admissions at Harvard University. The Court’s new conservative majority makes it more probable that several long-standing legal precedents will be overruled. Justice Stephen Breyer, now aged 83, is continuing on the Court despite some calls for him to retire.

US Supreme Court-packing unlikely

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Change ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Presidential Nomination ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Conservative Bias

Significance Rubio's move comes as several candidates for the Democratic Party's 2020 presidential nomination are discussing 'packing' the Supreme Court -- adding justices intended to nullify the perceived long-term conservative bias of the Court following Trump-era appointments. Impacts A constitutional change to limit the Supreme Court to nine justices is unlikely: amendments are purposely hard. Court-packing would not guarantee 'Democratic' or 'Republican' rulings: much depends on the case and how justices feel. Packing the courts would likely increase their politicisation, and potentially slow their deliberative capacity. If Trump wins a second term and Republicans keep the Senate, they will appoint further conservative justices. If the Democrats win the White House and Senate in 2020, they might 'pack' the lower courts.

Democrats will avoid block on US Supreme Court pick

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Personal Influence ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Regulatory Powers

Significance President Donald Trump nominated Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death last year. Congressional Republicans blocked former President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy, Judge Merrick Garland, enabling Trump to name a conservative justice to set the balance of the Court after winning the presidential election. At least one Democratic senator has threatened to block Gorsuch’s appointment via upper house procedure. Impacts Future Democratic presidential candidates from the current Senate may suffer in primaries if they allow Gorsuch’s appointment. Gorsuch will help the White House and Congress severely cut back federal regulatory powers. Congressional Republicans are more likely to defy Trump on personnel and policy as his personal influence wanes ahead of the 2020 elections.

Conservatives will shape US Supreme Court agenda

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Union Membership ◽  
State Level ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Foreign Governments

Significance The Supreme Court opened its 2017–18 term earlier this month, and many of the cases currently scheduled for arguments could have significant implications for individuals, corporations, and foreign governments. The Court has not yet fully determined which cases it will hear this year, but many of those it will hear through the end of 2017 will be closely watched, especially due to the changed political and administrative circumstances surrounding the Court since the end of its 2016–17 term. Impacts A new Supreme Court vacancy could increase Trump’s popularity within his party despite his congressional critics. Democrats would benefit from gerrymandering restrictions, but stronger party structures are needed to win in redrawn districts. Union membership is likely to decline further, given structural economic shifts and state-level governmental pressure.

Israel’s judicial review will weaken

2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
The West ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Rightward Shift ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
To Come ◽  
The Right ◽  
Trump Administration

Subject Rightward shift of the Supreme Court. Significance The Supreme Court has historically checked political power through judicial review. However, under the present government its independence has been challenged by a battle with Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked of the ultra-nationalist Jewish Home party. The right-wing-dominated Knesset (parliament) has in recent months passed several controversial laws affecting the rights of Arab Israelis and Palestinians, which are likely to come before the court. Impacts Expanded Israeli control over the West Bank would reduce the likelihood of a political agreement with the Palestinians. Unchecked pro-settler legislation could create diplomatic crises with partners in Europe and potentially with the Trump administration. Conservative legislation could also constrain minority and individual rights, over such issues as gender, sexuality and freedom of religion. Ultra-nationalist legislation will further alienate US Jewish supporters who believe it undermines democracy in Israel.

US Supreme Court will generate greater controversy

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Court Reform ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Chief Justice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Political Backlash

Significance The decision to hold a hearing on this issue, rather than simply issue a decision, reflects a degree of concern about perceptions of the Court’s legitimacy following the transfer of the country’s currently polarised politics onto the Court through recent appointments. Impacts The conservative majority of the Supreme Court is so dominant that no liberal decisions are likely in the foreseeable future. Chief Justice Roberts will try on occasion to moderate the Court’s conservative decision-making but mostly without effect. The recent report from President Joe Biden’s commission on the Supreme Court will prove ineffectual. Upcoming cases will provoke a political backlash among voters and make Court reform a central preoccupation for some Democrats.

US Supreme Court clarifies liability standard under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 for statements of opinion in registration statements

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 37-42
Author(s):  
Richard Parrino ◽  
Douglas Schwab ◽  
David Wertheimer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Financial Services ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Pension Fund ◽  
Securities And Exchange Commission ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Purpose – The purpose of this article is to examine the US Supreme Court’s much anticipated decision in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers Dist. Council Const. Indus. Pension Fund. In this 2015 case, the Supreme Court announced important principles for interpreting the application of the two bases for liability under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 to statements of opinion expressed in registration statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with public securities offerings. Design/methodology/approach – The article examines the Supreme Court’s articulation of the standards federal courts must apply under Section 11 to determine if opinion statements were untrue statements of a material fact or misleading because they omitted material facts necessary to make the statements of opinion not misleading. The paper identifies a number of the complexities involved in the Supreme Court’s approach and emphasizes the nuanced assessment of the facts surrounding opinion statements courts will be required to undertake by Omnicare. Findings – The Omnicare decision has significant implications for the litigation of Section 11 claims challenging statements of opinion and for the preparation of registration statement disclosures. The Omnicare decision dramatically alters the standards for reviewing Section 11 claims premised on opinions long applied in a number of US federal appellate circuits. The decision is likely to result in more Section 11 claims based on supposedly misleading opinion statements, and potentially in a greater number of Section 11 claims that survive at least an initial motion to dismiss. Omnicare highlights the importance of including in registration statement disclosures meaningful cautionary statements identifying important facts that could cause actual outcomes to differ materially from views expressed in an opinion. Originality/value – Expert guidance from experienced financial services lawyers.

scholarly journals National institute of family and life advocates (NIFLA) : V. Becerra, or the right to be informed about your own reproductive rights.

Soft Power ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 322-346
Author(s):  
Vitulia Ivone
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Reproductive Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Fundamental Issue ◽  
Health Clinics ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Right

The Supreme Court has issued its decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, a 5–4 vote holding that the state of California cannot compel pregnancy-resource centers to advertise for the state’s abortion services. This decision represents a considerable victory for both the right to free speech and the conscience rights of pro-life Americans. The case concerned California’s Reproductive FACT Act, which mandated that both licensed and unlicensed women’s-health clinics (crisis-pregnancy or pregnancy-resource centers) not performing abortions had to provide a pre-written notice to clients. Though the law related specifically to abortion, free speech was the fundamental issue at stake. This paper analyzes the history of abortion in US legislation and the perspective of one of its fundamental civil rights.

US abortion reform is unlikely before 2020

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
African American ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
African American Women ◽  
Low Income ◽  
Content Type ◽  
American Women ◽  
Abortion Debate ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Abortion Laws ◽  
The Right

Significance This comes as several states this year have passed legislation to restrict abortion with few exceptions and often not including incest or rape. This is partly an attempt to get the Supreme Court to intervene and perhaps overturn the 1973 Roe versus Wade case that allowed abortions nationally. Abortion opponents also think now is the right time because the Supreme Court has two new anti-abortion justices. Impacts Abortion opinion will cut across race, class, gender and, partially, party lines; a solution will be difficult. Many low-income people, particularly African-American women, will be negatively affected by restricted abortion. The abortion debate is likely to stoke further violence in public as both sides clash. Roe versus Wade is unlikely to be overturned before 2020. States face public boycotts, such as to tourism, as response to their abortion laws.

Free speech principles are barely relevant

2020 ◽  
pp. 66-82
Author(s):  
Andrew Koppelman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

Some have claimed that accommodation is mandated by free speech. In the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado case, the Supreme Court was offered an impressive array of variations on this claim. Mostly they are bad arguments. Although merchants have the right to announce their disagreement with the law, speech principles cannot resolve the controversy. Free speech could be construed to protect businesses that produce expressive media, such as (some) photographers, but it can’t intelligibly be stretched to help others with equally pressing conscience claims, such as bakers. It thus addresses the issue in a morally arbitrary way.

US Supreme Court hears carefully chosen gun case

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Second Amendment ◽  
The People ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Us Constitution ◽  
The Right ◽  
State Restrictions

Significance The case, which concerns the power of a state to prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns, involves the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. The outcome may see the Court restrict state regulatory power in unprecedented ways. Impacts This case could continue a trend begun in 2008 that has broadened the scope and applicability of the Second Amendment protections. The Court could adopt an ends-and-means evaluation that would permit greater variability for state restrictions on guns. Other interest groups will pursue well-chosen cases before the newly conservative court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document