THE SUPREMES DOCKET

Thus far The Donald has not fared as well as his team expected in cases brought to the Supreme Court.  As of 6/27 the three cases below have been decided.

SETTELED:

LGBTQ (Bostock vs. Clayton County)

He has lost in the LGBTQ workplace rights case protecting LGBTQ individuals from workplace discrimination under the Civil Rights act of 1964.  The Civil Rights Act said employers could not refuse to hire employees based on race, religion, sex, or national origin.  The court ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity amounted to discrimination based on sex.

DREAMERS AND IMMIGRATION (Department of Homeland Security vs. Regents of the University of California)

On the Dreamers and immigration Trump used the Jeff Sessions argument that the Obama era policy on dreamers was illegal and used the Department of Homeland Security vs. Regents of the University of California as the tool.  The court said no in a 6-3 ruling which said the President has the right to his action, however he must comply with his administrative procedures act to cite a valid reason for ending the policy. No Donald, it can’t be because they are all rapists and murderers!

SANTUARY CITIES

He also lost a ruling concerning sanctuary cities that basically said he cannot take away funding from a city that do not cooperate with immigration and ICE. 

ABORTION AND CLINICS (June Medical Center vs. Russo)

One again the court that Trump thought he had stacked in his favor ruled against his interest. The court ruled that a state cannot require all doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Previously, the court ruled against a similar suit and struck down a Texas law that required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The court ruled the harm outweighed the benefits because it had the effect of closing more than half of the states’ abortion clinics. Chief Justice John Roberts, who has always been counted on the conservative side of the scale, has again sided with the liberal wing. Roberts is an old fashioned conservative aka- Republican “classic” and has again shown he does not agree with the new, Trump biased brand of conservatism. Might this be a tell-tale of things to come?

ON THE DOCKET:

TRUMP’S TAXES (Trump vs. Mazars USA and Trump vs. Vance)

The question is this: Can a House Committee or a New York Grand Jury require the President’s accounts and bankers to turn over records revealing his personal tax returns and financial transactions?  Trump’s lawyers say that his chief executive status gives him  “absolute immunity” from these demands. 

Democrats in the House of Representatives say that congress has a nearly unlimited right to demand confidential information to carry out its oversight and investigation duties.  The New York prosecutors are looking into how hush-money payments were accounted.  In the past the Justices have decided against presidents that claimed immunity.  Nixon failed with Watergate Tapes.  Clinton failed when he was required to respond to a sexual harassment suit.  Both failed with a unanimous verdict, so there is hope.  The Justices’ questions hinted they may render a split decision.  This is one to watch, if his finances are to be made public, that could show his obvious conflicts of interest and could produce an October surprise.  One can only hope!

RELIGION AND SCHOOLS (Espinoza vs. Montana)

May a state exclude church schools from a state sponsored tuition aid program that supports students in other private schools, or does that amount to unconstitutional discrimination against religion.  Montana law as well as 3/4ths of other states forbids spending tax funds on religion and churches. 

The religious liberty advocates contend the law violates the 1^st amendment’s protection of free exercise of religion.  The Roberts’ court has looked favorably on religious liberty claims in the past.  I have no objection to withholding public funds for private institutions and especially religious institutions.  After all, I don’t want to fund Madrasas for the promotion of Islam or any other religious indoctrination. 

PRESIDENT AND AGENCIES (Seila Law vs. CFPB)

The question before the court is this: Did Congress violate the separation of powers and the president’s executive authority when it created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in 2010, as an “independent bureau,” to be led by a director who is appointed by the president and could not be fired except for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office. “ 

Business interests have fought the CFPB since its inception. It has taken on payday loans and usury.  The administration argues that their semi-independent status is in conflict with the powers of the president over executive agencies.  It’s the Unitary Executive wanting to quell the optics of the CFPB uncovering financial misdeeds.  If the justices agree with the President, there goes any independence in any agency henceforth, as they will be deemed unconstitutional.

The defenders of the CFPB say that congress has the authority to structure the government, including giving a degree of independence to agency heads. 

RELIGION AND BIRTH CONTROL (Trump vs. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the poor vs. Pennsylvania)

The Trump administration is seeking an exemption for religious institutions having to provide contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act citing religious or moral objections from part of the ACA that requires them to provide no cost contraceptives to employees. 

Under Obama, the government exempted churches and religious employers from the contraceptive requirement, but said their health insurers could provide the coverage.  The Trump administration wants to shield more employers and not require insurers to provide the coverage.

 The Little Sisters organization a Roman Catholic charity argues the requirement violates their religious liberty. 

RELIGION AND TEACHERS (Our Lady of Guadalupe vs. Morrissey Berru and St. James School vs. Biel)

The question is: Are Catholic schools in Los Angeles entitled to religious exemption from the Federal anti-discrimination laws because of the duties of their elementary teachers including teaching religion?

Two former teachers that were fired, filed lawsuits alleging discrimination.  The claimants were 5^th grade teachers that held classes that included a daily workbook exercise on religion and therefore they should not be exempt from federal discrimination laws in the same way as a priest would.  Civil rights laws do not include exemptions for employers in institutions affiliated with churches, however the court has recognized “ministerial exceptions”, which holds that the government may not interfere in the hiring or firing of a religious body of people who carry out its religious mission.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE AND STATES (Chiafalo vs. Washington and Colorado vs. Baca)

Can a state require appointed electors to cast their presidential ballots in the Electoral College for the candidate with the most popular support in the state?  Under the Constitution, the winner of the presidency is the candidate with the most electoral votes. 

Last year, a Colorado appeals court ruling said electors have a free-speech right to defy the wishes of their state and vote for any other candidate.  There are many states that require the electors to cast their vote as the state wishes.

The argument against the ruling is, in a close election the renegade vote could tip the election if they voted otherwise.

WHATS TO COME:

THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Within 1 hour of closing the docket, The Trump Administration submitted a lawsuit requesting the Affordable Care Act be found unconstitutional.  The suit claims the individual mandate is illegal.  The impact would invalidate the requirement for insurance companies not to discriminate for pre-existing conditions.  With the Covid-19, there can be lung damage that persists after recovery from the virus.  This action is a promise of the administration.  The program has increased in popularity since its inception.  Last year there were 500,000 new enrollees

BORDER WALL FUNDING

A lower court ruling made the administration’s emergency use of military funds to be used in building Trump’s boarder wall to be an illegal use of congressional authorized monies.

I thought Mexico was supposed to pick up that tab.