SCOTUS - case studies on its impact on public policy Flashcards
UPHOLDING EXISTING POLICY
National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius 2013
this case was a challenge to Obamacare - Florida was the first state to challenge the constitutionality of the act on the grounds that it would have restricted state power.
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with four liberal justices arguing that Obamacare was acceptable by the Constitution’s standards as the mandate for individual insurance was a form of taxation - taxation by the federal govt IS ALLOWED.
this decision stunned Republicans because they thought Roberts was going to vote with the other four justices to invalidate the law but he didn’t.
UPHOLDING EXISTING POLICY
Trump v Hawaii 2018
Trump issued 3 bans on the arrival from certain Muslim-maj countries e.g., exec order 13769 = Muslim ban in 2017
the ban was blocked by lower federal courts.
conservative justices were joined by swing justice, Anthony Kennedy - they ruled the president was justified in preventing those who were deemed detrimental to the interests of the USA.
example of judicial restraint - Chief Justice Roberts argued that there could be no inference that this was religious hostility JUST BECAUSE 5/7 nations had a Muslim majority.
Sonia Sotomayor and RBG wrote a dissenting opinion, criticising the majority opinion.
UPHOLDING EXISTING POLICY
Whole Women’s Health v Hellerstedt 2016
concerned two parts of the state Texas law which imposed strict requirements on abortion providers in the state, which was signed into law in 2013.
5-3 judgement to strike down the law - Justice Breyer (retirement announced in Jan 2022), wrote the maj opinion, concluding that each of the two provisions placed a ‘substantial obstacle’ in the path of women seeking an abortion, which violates the Constitution.
Roe v Wade 1973 decided that the 14th amendment right of liberty included the right of women to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
WWH v Hellerstedt upheld Roe v Wade - which is an example of how SCOTUS abides by stare decisis
REMOVING EXISTING POLICY
US v Texas 2016
Obama passed exec order in Nov 2014 calling for Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) - allowed certain immigrants to be granted a status which didn’t grant them full citizenship but subject them to indefinite delay time to their deportation.
this would have allowed 5 million unauthorised immigrants, who were parents of lawful residents, to remain legally in the USA.
Dec = Texas + 25 other states challenged his actions in federal court claiming Obama needed congressional approval.
federal appeal courts didn’t find in favour of Obama and they declared his actions unconstitutional - SCOTUS reviewed this and there was a 4-4 tie, which left in place the federal appeals court decision to block the plan.
Obama was not happy - he believed that je was trying to bring rationality to the immigration system.
REMOVING EXISTING POLICY
Citizens United v FEC (Federal Election Commission) 2010
CU is a conservative interest group, who wanted to post a film critical of Clinton prior to the 2008 Democrat primaries - however, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 prevented any interest group making election communication within 30 days of a primary.
CU challenged this on their first amendment rights of freedom of expression.
four conservative justices PLUS swing justice Kennedy found in favour of CU - the ruling also established PACs which could raise unlimited amounts of money for campaigning.
REMOVING EXISTING POLICY
McCutcheon v FEC 2014
Federal Election Campaign 1971 restricted the number of direct contributions an individual could make to a political movement.
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2002 also revised amounts that could be contributed.
Shane McCutcheon argued spending caps violated his first amendment rights - four conservative justices PLUS swing Kennedy found in favour of McCut and lifted cap with the total amount an individual can spend in an election. The limit on how much an individual could contribute to individual campaigns stayed the same.
liberal justices like RBG and Elena Kagan argued that the judgement created a loophole which would allow a single individual to donate millions of dollars to a political party or to a campaign.
this, along with the 2010 case, removed existing policy which Obama had approved and replaced them with a new policy that he disliked but couldn’t change.
ESTABLISHING NEW POLICY
Obergefell v Hodges 2015
consolidation of six lower court cases which argued that state bans on same-sex marriage were violations of the 14th amendment - forbidding states from denying the equal protecttion of the law to any person within their jurisdiction.
5-4 favouring the loose constructionist on the court because of swing justice Kennedy.
SCOTUS decided that 14th amendment guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.
ESTABLISHING NEW POLICY
Carpenter v United States 2018
Carpenter was convicted of aiding and abetting (encouraging/assisting) a robbery based on the govt using his cellphone for phone location records.
Carpenter appealed the case to SCOTUS arguing that his fourth amendment right to privacy was infringed because the necessity for warrants for his searches was overridden.
SCOTUS ruled that acquiring cellphone location data needed a warrant.
5-4 decision because the liberal justices were joined by CJ swing Roberts.
SCOTUS created a new law on the use/acquisition of cell phone data.
case also provided clarity over previously ambigous laws.
SHAPING PUBLIC POLICY VIA INACTION
Planned Parenthood of Arkansas v Jegley 2018
appeal to challenge the strict regulation of medically regulated abortion.
state law passed in Arkansas 2015 = abortion providers MUST have contracts with doctors to handle emergencies in using an abortion-inducing drug.
law would have severely restricted access to abortions in the state.
SCOTUS refused to hear the case - following this inaction, Planned Parenthood said it would stop providing medication abortions in the state.
SCOTUS didn’t give a reason for not hearing the case but it hints at an unwillingness of a conservative-leaning court to actively uphold abortion rights
