SCOTUS Thread (News and Discussion) II: Rape Isn't On My Calendar

[Andalusian girls]

reses are pretty rough, they'd tear your twink ass up

[6souls]

https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statu...02624442572803
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/statu...02626955005955

[Cail]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ac2_story.html

The third attempt to derail the Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court suffered the same unsuccessful fate of the first two on Thursday, and jubilant Democrats praised the decision preserving the law that now delivers health-care coverage to millions of Americans.


On a 7-to-2 vote, the court dismissed the latest challenge from Republican-led states and endorsed by the Trump administration. Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s somewhat technical opinion said neither the states nor individual plaintiffs had legal standing to challenge the law, which also survived challenges in 2012 and 2015.


“This ruling reaffirms what we have long known to be true: the Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” tweeted former president Barack Obama. The act is the landmark domestic achievement of his presidency, and is now known by both supporters and detractors as Obamacare.

[Cail]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ac2_story.html

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that Philadelphia was wrong to end a Catholic group’s contract to provide foster-care services because the organization refused to work with same-sex couples.


It was the latest victory for religious organizations at the increasingly conservative court, and the second time it has ruled against governments trying to enforce an anti-discrimination law protecting LGBTQ rights against those claiming religious liberty.


But the opinion, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was narrow enough to draw the support of the court’s three liberals — and the consternation of its three most conservative members for not going further.


Roberts reasoned that because Philadelphia theoretically allows some exceptions to its policy, the city had violated the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise of religion by not extending one to Catholic Social Services, which screens potential foster-care parents.

[Serra]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ac2_story.html

The third attempt to derail the Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court suffered the same unsuccessful fate of the first two on Thursday, and jubilant Democrats praised the decision preserving the law that now delivers health-care coverage to millions of Americans.


On a 7-to-2 vote, the court dismissed the latest challenge from Republican-led states and endorsed by the Trump administration. Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s somewhat technical opinion said neither the states nor individual plaintiffs had legal standing to challenge the law, which also survived challenges in 2012 and 2015.


“This ruling reaffirms what we have long known to be true: the Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” tweeted former president Barack Obama. The act is the landmark domestic achievement of his presidency, and is now known by both supporters and detractors as Obamacare.

The case posed three questions: Have the challengers — 18 states and a couple of individuals — suffered injuries that give them legal standing to bring the challenge?...

Breyer said that answering the first question negated the necessity of deciding the others.

“With the penalty zeroed out, the IRS can no longer seek a penalty from those who fail to comply,” Breyer wrote. So the individual plaintiffs face no government retribution for failing to purchase health insurance, he wrote.

Tl;Dr: Republicans saved the ACA in this case by eliminating the penalty for not having healthcare.

[6souls]

In other SCOTUS news;

In a ruling that could help push changes in college athletics, the Supreme Court on Monday unanimously sided with a group of former college athletes in a dispute with the NCAA over rules limiting certain compensation.

The high court ruled that NCAA limits on the education-related benefits that colleges can offer athletes who play Division I basketball and football can't be enforced.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/...a-compensation

A unanimous Supreme Court said on Monday that student athletes could receive education-related payments, in a case that could reshape college sports by allowing more money from a billion-dollar industry to go to the players.

Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the court.
College sports raise billions of dollars from ticket sales, television contracts and merchandise, and supporters of the students say the players are being exploited and barred from the opportunity to monetize their talents. In 2016, for example, the NCAA negotiated an eight-year extension of its broadcasting rights to March Madness, worth $1.1 billion annually.

"Nowhere else in America can businesses get away with agreeing not to pay their workers a fair market rate on the theory that their product is defined by not paying their workers a fair market rate," Kavanaugh wrote. "And under ordinary principles of antitrust law, it is not evident why college sports should be any different. The NCAA is not above the law."

https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/21/polit...urt/index.html

[Cantih]

Tl;Dr: Republicans saved the ACA in this case by eliminating the penalty for not having healthcare.

[6souls]

SCOTUS is busy this week.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/23/10013...irst-amendment

A former high school cheerleader who was punished by her school because she used profanity to complain on Snapchat about not making the varsity squad has won a case after the court agrees her rant was protected by the first amendment.

By an 8-1 vote, the court declared that school administrators do have the power to punish student speech that occurs online or off campus if it genuinely disrupts classroom study. But the justices concluded that a few swear words posted online from off campus, as in this case, did not rise to the definition of disruptive.

"While public schools may have a special interest in regulating some off-campus student speech, the special interests offered by the school are not sufficient to overcome B. L.'s interest in free expression in this case," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court's majority.

At issue in the case was a series of F-bombs issued in 2017 on Snapchat by Brandi Levy, then a 14-year-old high school cheerleader who failed to win a promotion from the junior varsity to the varsity cheerleading term at her Pennsylvania school.

"I was really upset and frustrated at everything," she said in an interview with NPR in April. So she posted a photo of herself and a friend flipping the bird to the camera, along with a message that said, "F*** the school ... F*** cheer, F*** everything."

Although Brandi Levy is now in college, the school board in Mahanoy, Pa., appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that disruption can come from outside the campus but still have serious effects on campus. It pointed to laws in 47 states that require schools to enforce anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies.

The high court, however, focused on the facts in Levy's case, concluding that while her posts were less than admirable, they did not meet the test of being disruptive.

"We do not believe the special characteristics that give schools additional license to regulate student speech always disappear when a school regulates speech that takes place off campus," Breyer wrote. "The school's regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances."

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/23/99991...hout-a-warrant

Police can no longer enter a home without a warrant when chasing a suspect for a misdemeanor crime.

By a unanimous vote, the court declared that police violated the rights of a California man by pursuing him into his garage for allegedly playing loud music while driving down a deserted two-lane highway late at night.

Writing for the court majority, Justice Elena Kagan said police had no right to enter the man's home without a warrant for such a trivial offense.

"On many occasions, the officer will have good reason to enter – to prevent imminent harms of violence, destruction of evidence, or escape from the home," she wrote. "But when the officer has time to get a warrant, he must do so – even though the misdemeanant fled."

The court's ruling came in the case of Arthur Lange, who was playing loud music in his car late one night, at one point honking his horn several times. A California highway patrol officer, believing Lange was violating a noise ordinance, followed him, and when the motorist slowed to enter his driveway, the officer put on his flashing lights.

Lange, who later said he didn't notice the police car, drove into his garage. The officer, in "hot pursuit," got out of his car and put his foot under the closing garage door sensor to force the door open again. He had no warrant to enter the home, but once inside, he said, he smelled liquor on Lange's breath and arrested him, not only for the noise violation, but also for driving under the influence.

"[P]ursuit of a misdemeanant does not trigger a categorical rule allowing a warrantless home entry," she wrote.

[Cantih]

Police can no longer enter a home without a warrant when chasing a suspect for a misdemeanor crime.

Wanna post that Dr. McNinja page where he explains the police have to give up if he can make it to his office and yell "BASE!".
But don't remember the arc it's in, and spent enough time looking.

[Ksandra]

SCOTUS is busy this week.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/23/10013...irst-amendment

This one I am surprised it got this far. School should have known better.

[Salodin]

I wouldn't go that far. The opinion makes it clear that this was a specific instance for a specific set of circumstances. Not like teachers can't get around it if they're not being petty cheerleaders about it haha.

My fiance had a 3rd grader on TikTok shit talking teachers by name, and from there they also found a bunch of students TikTok who were not being internet safe, so instead of coming down on them for the shit talking, they had an internet safety day and made it about that, while also scaring the shit out of the gossiping girls lol.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Kaslo]

Honestly, I'm surprised there was no discussion about the voluntary nature of cheerleading. It's part of the reason schools can drug test student athletes.

[Salodin]

Idk why this wasn't filed under coaches deciding they weren't a good fit for the team

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[Ksandra]

I wouldn't go that far. The opinion makes it clear that this was a specific instance for a specific set of circumstances. Not like teachers can't get around it if they're not being petty cheerleaders about it haha.

My fiance had a 3rd grader on TikTok shit talking teachers by name, and from there they also found a bunch of students TikTok who were not being internet safe, so instead of coming down on them for the shit talking, they had an internet safety day and made it about that, while also scaring the shit out of the gossiping girls lol.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Except having a "internet safety day" doesn't go against free speech and is not going to be considered a punishment, unlike suspending a student from a team.

We already had this precedence many times about the right to a student's free speech.

[Cail]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...057_story.html

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a legal battle over the rights of transgender students, handing a victory to Gavin Grimm over the Virginia school board that denied him the right to use the boys’ restroom.


As is its custom, the court did not say why it was rejecting the appeal of the Gloucester County school district. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they would have accepted the case.


The court’s decision not to take up the case does not establish a national precedent, nor does it necessarily signal agreement with the lower court that sided with Grimm.

But gay- and transgender-rights activists cheered the high court’s decision to stay out of the long-running dispute. It let stand a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that was a resounding victory for Grimm, who has become a well-known figure in the transgender-rights movement.

[Cail]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...363_story.html

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld two Arizona voting restrictions that a lower court had said discriminated against minority voters, a ruling that suggests that it will be harder to successfully challenge a spate of new laws passed by state legislatures in the aftermath of the 2020 election.


Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote the opinion in the 6-to-3 ruling, with the court’s conservative majority in charge. The court’s liberals joined an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan protesting that the decision weakens the shield provided by the Voting Rights Act (VRA), first passed in 1965 to forbid laws that result in discrimination based on race.


The final day of the Supreme Court’s decision-making brought a second opinion, about the disclosure of donors, decided along the same conservative-liberal divide. It was a partisan close to a term in which the justices had successfully decided many controversial cases without rancor.


The final day also came and went without word from Justice Stephen G. Breyer about his future; liberal activists and some Democrats have openly called on the 82-year-old to step down so President Biden can nominate a successor while Democrats control the Senate.

[Lokus]

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1425944196494602241?s=20

Genuinely surprised it was her. Cue the malding right.

[Cail]

Not sure where to put this but Sirhan Sirhan (who killed RFK) has been granted parole. Decision still has to be approved by the full parole board + governor

[archibaldcrane]

TIL Sirhan Sirhan was a (Christian) Palestinian who killed RFK because he was mad at his support for Israel

[archibaldcrane]

the name always felt a little more egyptian or pakistani or something to me