Skip to main content

New top story from Time: The Major Supreme Court Cases to Watch This Fall

https://ift.tt/3A4peT7

The nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court will return to the bench to hear oral arguments on Oct. 4, kicking off what could be one of the most monumental terms in years.

After an unusually busy summer—in which they handed down major rulings on immigration and the federal eviction ban—the justices will hear several historic cases this fall, including ones that could have significant consequences for abortion access and gun rights.

This will be the first full term with the court’s 6-3 conservative supermajority, after Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation on Oct. 26, 2020. Court watchers are following closely for signals of how far to the right the Supreme Court will rule on hot-button issues, and how often some of the Republican-appointed justices will side with the liberals. Russ Feingold, the president of the progressive American Constitution Society and a former Democratic Senator from Wisconsin, argues that the way the court rules on key issues raised this term could determine whether efforts to do “something dramatic” to reform the high court gains momentum in Congress and the American public. President Joe Biden launched a commission in April to study possible Supreme Court reforms—including adding justices or term limits, which some progressives advocated for—but the commission has yet to publish any recommendations.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

“It’s a hugely important term,” says David Cole, the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, “with some of the most contentious issues in American life today squarely before the court.”

Here are the major cases to watch this fall in the upcoming Supreme Court term.

Abortion access

On Dec. 1, the Supreme Court will hear its most significant abortion case in years, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which could determine whether the Supreme Court will go against decades of precedent and overturn 1973’s Roe vs. Wade, which established the Constitutional right to end a pregnancy before a fetus can survive outside the womb.

The case centers on a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy—before viability—except in instances of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities. In its merits brief, the state of Mississippi explicitly asks the Supreme Court to overturn its rulings in Roe and 1992’s Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, which established that laws cannot place an “undue burden” on a person’s ability to seek an abortion. The 5th Circuit struck down the Mississippi law in 2019, and the Supreme Court announced in May that it will hear the case on the question at the heart of Roe: whether all bans on abortions before viability violate the Constitution.

The court considered a different abortion restriction just weeks ago, when it refused to block the enforcement of Texas’ anti-abortion law on Sept. 1, which bans abortions as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The five justices in the majority stressed that their decision was a narrow procedural one and they were not ruling on the legality of the ban itself. Texas’ abortion ban could still be challenged on its merits and eventually wind its way back up to the Supreme Court.

Dobbs and the Texas case could prove pivotal turning points in the decades-long battle over abortion access in the United States. Zack Smith, a legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, says the Department of Justice wrote in an amicus brief in support of affirming Roe that the court needs to address the questions raised in the case head on. “They basically told the court… ‘Look, you either need to reaffirm Roe v Wade… or overrule it,” Smith says. “There is no middle ground here.”

Read more: Texas’ Abortion Law Could Worsen the State’s Maternal Mortality Rate

Gun rights

Another prominent case this term is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which challenges a New York state law that requires anyone who wants a concealed carry permit to first prove to the licensing authority that they have good reason for carrying the weapon, which can include self-defense. The case was filed by two New York men with the backing of a gun rights group after their applications were rejected because a licensing officer determined they had not adequately proven they needed to carry the weapons.

Read more: The Supreme Court Is Taking Up a Case That Could Impact Gun Rights For Millions

The case, which will be argued on Nov. 3, could be the most high-stakes Second Amendment case the court has heard in over a decade, since it ruled in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller that the Constitution grants private citizens a right to keep a firearm in their own home for “traditionally lawful purposes,” including self-defense. The court now must decide whether private citizens have the right to carry that firearm outside of their home, as well.

Separation of church and state

On Dec. 8, the court will hear Carson v. Makin, a case that could have an enormous impact on whether religious institutions can benefit from state funding. Carson deals with a state-backed tuition program in Maine, which grants tuition assistance to families in areas without public high schools so they can instead send their kids to private school. Two families, the Carsons and Nelsons, sued the state in 2018 after they were denied tuition-assistance because they planned to use it to pay for Christian private schools that would use the funding for religious instruction.

The case comes on the back of 2020’s Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, in which the court ruled 5-4 that tax credit-funded scholarships meant to help students attend private schools cannot exclude religious institutions simply because they are religious. In 2020, the 1st Circuit sided with Maine, ruling that while Espinoza made it so religious schools can’t be excluded solely because of their denomination, they can be excluded from receiving tax-payer funding if that funding would go towards teaching religion. The Supreme Court will now evaluate that ruling and determine whether the law violates the religious freedom clauses or equal protection clause of the Constitution.

State secrets

The court will hear two cases this term dealing with the federal government’s right to invoke its state secrets privilege, which allows the government to refuse to release information in litigation if doing so poses a risk to national security.

On Oct. 6, the court will hear United States v. Zubaydah, the first case it’s heard dealing with Guantanamo Bay detainees in over a decade. The case was brought by Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, also known as Abu Zubaydah, who has been detained in Guantamo Bay since 2006 and wants to subpoena CIA contractors in a criminal investigation. Prior to his detention in the U.S. military prison, Zubaydah was held in several CIA “black sites” in foreign countries and subjected to what the CIA referred to as “enhanced interrogation”—tactics that a years-long Senate investigation later deemed constituted torture. Among other tactics, Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in one month and confined to a coffin-sized box for over 11 days, per a Senate report.

In 2017 Zubaydah attempted to subpoena two CIA contractors who he argues knew about his detention and treatment in the early 2000s for a criminal investigation in Poland, where he was held in 2002 and 2003. But the federal government stepped in and told the district court to kill the subpoenas, citing “state secrets” privileges. The district court agreed, but upon appeal the 9th Circuit sent the case back down, directing the lower court to look again at whether state secrets could actually be invoked in this instance. The Supreme Court will now evaluate whether the 9th Circuit was wrong.

Read more: The True Story Behind the Movie The Report

Then on Nov. 8, the court will hear Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, which also deals with questions of when the government can withhold information. The suit was first brought in 2011 by Imam Yassir Fazaga and two Muslim congregants at a California mosque that the FBI had an informant infiltrate in the mid-2000s. Fazaga and the congregants have sued the FBI with the help of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the ACLU, who allege that the FBI targeted them based on their religious identity. The FBI argues that aspects of the investigation are state secrets and the case cannot be litigated without risking national security.

The Supreme Court will not address question of whether the FBI violated Fazaga’s constitutional rights, but rather if the case can be litigated at all, examining the question of whether a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) displaces the FBI’s states secret privileges and allows the case to move forward.

Read more: Who Else Is Spying on Me?’ Muslim Americans Bring the Fight Against Surveillance to the Supreme Court

Death penalty

Several high profile cases involving capital punishment will come before the court this term. On Oct. 13, the court will hear the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was sentenced to death in 2015 for his part in the 2013 Boston marathon bombing, which killed three people and injured hundreds. In 2020, the 1st Circuit converted his death sentence to life without parole, citing constitutional violations during his trial, and the Supreme Court will now determine whether the death sentence should be reimposed.

The case will undoubtedly draw attention because of Tsarnaev’s infamous crime, but his case also raises broader questions about procedure in capital trials. The 1st Circuit ruled that Tsarnaev’s jurors should have been asked more extensive questions about their media exposure to the bombing, and that he should have been allowed to introduce evidence that his older brother—who was involved in the bombing but killed by law enforcement—was also allegedly involved in a triple homicide years earlier. The court’s answers to these questions could impact how high profile capital trials are handled going forward, particularly in jury selection.

Read more: What Happens to the Federal Death Penalty in a Biden Administration?

On Nov. 1, the court will hear the case Shinn v. Ramirez, a procedurally complicated case that could have important implications for how federal courts approach the right to counsel. Two death row prisoners in Arizona, David Ramirez and Barry Jones, have filed for habeas relief in federal court, arguing that they had ineffective counsel during their original trials, and should not be executed. This point was never raised by their attorneys at the state post-conviction level, and the prisoners now argue it should be allowed to be raised in federal court.

In 2012’s Martinez v. Ryan, the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners whose attorneys made a mistake and didn’t raise ineffective trial counsel claims at the state post-conviction level could instead pursue those claims in federal habeas review. But although Martinez allows Ramirez and Jones to raise their claims, this case hinges on whether or not they can present evidence to support them. 1996’s Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) limited prisoners from presenting new evidence in federal court if it was not already brought up in state court. But citing Martinez, the 9th Circuit ruled in 2019 that Ramirez and Jones could present evidence supporting their claims of ineffective trial counsel, because their state-appointed post-conviction attorneys had mistakenly failed to do so. The Supreme Court will now determine whether the 9th Circuit was correct, and whether AEDPA applies in instances where state-appointed post-conviction lawyers failed to produce evidence.

Also on Nov. 1, the court will hear the case of Ramirez v. Collier, which was taken up by the Supreme Court on Sept. 8 after it agreed to stay the execution of John Ramirez scheduled for later that night. Ramirez asked that his Baptist pastor be allowed to “lay hands” on him and pray out loud while he is being executed by the state of Texas. Texas rejected the request, and Ramirez filed suit in federal court in August on religious freedom grounds. The district court and the appeals court declined to halt his execution, but the Supreme Court agreed to do so until it could evaluate his claims.

The case originally came before the court on its “shadow docket,” a term referring to decisions issued outside of its regular oral argument schedule and often used for emergency motions. “It’s somewhat unusual to have a case shifted over from the shadow docket,” says Smith of the Heritage Foundation. “I think the fact that the court did this shows that they are taking religious liberty claims, in all contexts, incredibly seriously.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

L Taraval Improvement Project Update

L Taraval Improvement Project Update By Sevilla Mann Roundtable at the Community Parklet Shares Project Updates  This past week, the SFMTA hosted a media roundtable discussing updates about the L Taraval Improvement Project at the community parklet located in front of the The Rolling Out Café  on Taraval St.   Segment B construction began in February 2022 and is scheduled to be completed Fall 2024. Sewer and water infrastructure work is currently taking place. Future work includes track work, overhead line work, the construction of new boarding islands and streetscape improvements.    On hand to answer questions and provide updates was District Four Supervisor Gordon Mar, SFMTA Board Director Sharon Lai and Director of Transportation Jefferey Tumlin.   The Roundtable  Supervisor Mar opened the discussion by highlighting the many benefits that the local community will receive with the planned infrastructure upgrades along the corridor. These benefits include:   Replacing sew

FOX NEWS: Cincinnati zoo renames sloth habitat after late 1-year-old who loved sloths The sloth habitat at Ohio's Cincinnati Zoo will be named after a toddler who recently passed away.

Cincinnati zoo renames sloth habitat after late 1-year-old who loved sloths The sloth habitat at Ohio's Cincinnati Zoo will be named after a toddler who recently passed away. via FOX NEWS https://ift.tt/3DLAshi

IPL 2020 | KKR, SRH search for first win to get off the mark https://ift.tt/333a9nc

Having suffered defeats in their opening games, the Kolkata Knight Riders and Sunrisers Hyderabad will lock horns on Saturday at the Sheikh Zayed Stadium in Abu Dhabi. While Kolkata faced a tough 49-run loss to defending champions Mumbai Indians, the Sunrisers suffered a monumental batting collapse against Royal Challengers Bangalore, losing the game by 10 runs.

FOX NEWS: Decadent double chocolate mint cookies for National Chocolate Day National Chocolate Day on Oct. 28th calls for a serious dose of chocolate.

Decadent double chocolate mint cookies for National Chocolate Day National Chocolate Day on Oct. 28th calls for a serious dose of chocolate. via FOX NEWS https://ift.tt/3nEJxSB

Muni’s Equity Toolkit Helps Essential Employees Get to Work

Muni’s Equity Toolkit Helps Essential Employees Get to Work By Mariana Maguire The latest data from SFMTA’s new  Equity Toolkit  shows that Muni service changes are helping people in neighborhoods identified by our  Muni Service Equity Strategy  access more jobs and support the city’s recovery.   In winter 2020, we launched the  SFMTA Equity Toolkit  to understand how service decisions are affecting neighborhoods where there is likely a high prevalence of essential workers who rely predominantly on Muni to get to their essential jobs. Our goal is to make better service decisions based on the trends and impacts we see in the Equity Toolkit.   Recently, the greatest increases in access to jobs via Muni have been in Hunters Point and Western Addition. The Hunters Point neighborhood saw the largest gains from the addition of the  15 Bayview-Hunters Point Express , as demonstrated in the table below. Thanks to the return of key Muni lines and increased frequencies on connector routes, I

Powered Scooters Charge City’s Transportation Recovery

Powered Scooters Charge City’s Transportation Recovery By Jason Hyde The SFMTA is releasing its next round of Powered Scooter Share permits on July 1. Scooters remain a sustainable mode of travel and a complement to Muni and public transit service as the city recovers from the pandemic and San Franciscans begin to travel more. The SFMTA’s Powered Scooter Share Program is essential in ensuring that shared scooter operations support the city’s economic recovery in a safe, sustainable, and equitable way.  The SFMTA received four submittals for the permit program and will issue permits to two operators : Spin and Lime. Permits will be in effect for a one-year term, with the option to extend for another year at the discretion of the SFMTA based on compliance with various program metrics. While the new permit program does not set a limit on the number of scooters each operator may deploy, it does limit the overall citywide fleet size at 10,000. Starting at a base of 2,000 scooters per

New top story from Time: 3 Killed in Northern California as Wildfires Force Thousands to Evacuate

https://ift.tt/34at2Uy (SAN FRANCISCO) — Northern California’s wine country was on fire again Monday as strong winds fanned flames in the already scorched region, destroying homes and prompting orders for nearly 70,000 people to evacuated. Meanwhile, three people died in a separate fire further north in the state. In Sonoma County, residents of the Oakmont Gardens senior living facility in Santa Rosa boarded brightly lit city buses in the darkness overnight, some wearing bathrobes and using walkers. They wore masks to protect against the coronavirus as orange flames marked the dark sky. The fire threat forced Adventist Health St. Helena hospital to suspend care and transfer all patients elsewhere. The fires that began Sunday in the famed Napa-Sonoma wine country about 45 miles (72 kilometers) north of San Francisco came as the region nears the third anniversary of deadly wildfires that erupted in 2017, including one that killed 22 people. Just a month ago, many of those

Traffic Collisions have Decreased on San Francisco’s Slow Streets

Traffic Collisions have Decreased on San Francisco’s Slow Streets By Julia Malmo   As a whole, Slow Streets are safer than they were before being designated Slow Streets  Streets that are part of the SFMTA’s  Slow Streets Program have become measurably safer since the program began in 2020, with the number of traffic crashes falling by almost half. On average, these corridors have seen a 48% drop in collisions following their designation as Slow Streets, compared with a 14% drop in collisions citywide over the same period. Slow Streets also are more welcoming for people who walk, bike and roll. Fewer than 1,000 vehicles per day use all but four of the current Slow Streets (20th Street, Minnesota Street, Noe Street, and Page Street).  The goal of the program is to create safe, shared streets that are comfortable and enjoyable for people of all ages and abilities, using any mode of transportation. We now can see how it’s doing in a new evaluation report . When the SFMTA Board appr

New top story from Time: How History Is Repeating Itself for Haitian Migrants Trying to Enter the U.S.

https://ift.tt/3upRk9U In the past 11 years alone, Haitians have suffered natural disasters, rising gang violence, outbreaks of cholera and COVID-19, and political instability, including the recent assassination of President Jovenel Moïse . The crises left many in the hemisphere’s poorest nation feeling they had no option but to leave—despite the difficulties they face in fleeing to other countries. In late September, Americans were confronted with the reality of those difficulties too. An estimated 15,000 people arrived in Del Rio, Texas, during the month, below a bridge connecting the city to Mexico’s Ciudad Acuña. A majority were Haitian nationals, migrants and asylum seekers who ended up living in tents or under tarps, in conditions similar to those in other camps that have formed along the U.S.-Mexico border in recent years. [time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”] Read more: Caught Between U.S. Policies and Instability at Home, Haitian Migrants in Tijuana Are in a State of L

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J कोरोना सकंट में TV सीरियल की शूटिंग शूरू, मास्क लगाकर पहुंचे स्टार्स- निया, पार्थ से लेकर रश्मि-PICS

कोरोना वायरस के चलते जारी लॉकडाउन में टीवी व फिल्मों की शूटिंग बंद थी। कोरोना के खतरे को देखते हुए तमाम सीरियल की शूटिंग रोक दी गई तो वहीं फिल्मों को रिलीज अटक गई। एंटरटेंमेंट इंडस्ट्री को कोरोना के चलते करोड़ों from टेलीविजन की खबरें | Television News in Hindi | TV Serials Update in Hindi – FilmiBeat Hindi http:/hindi.filmibeat.com/television/tv-shooting-starts-kasauti-zindagi-kay-naagin-nia-sharma-parth-samthaan-rashmi-desai-pics-090604.html?utm_source=/rss/filmibeat-hindi-television-fb.xml&utm_medium=23.11.231.156&utm_campaign=client-rss