SCOTUS 2020

Major Decisions and Developments of the U.S. Supreme Court

Morgan Marietta

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9783030538507
• eBook ISBN: 9783030538514
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Public Law
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Each year, the Supreme Court of the United States announces new rulings with deepconsequences for our lives. This third volume in Palgrave's SCOTUS series describes, explains, and contextualizes the landmark cases of the US Supreme Court in the term ending 2020.With a close look at cases involving key issues and debates in American politics and society, SCOTUS 2020 tackles the Court's rulings on LGBT discrimination, abortion regulation, subpoenas of the Trump administration, the Electoral College, DACA and presidential power, Native rights, cross-border rights, the Second Amendment, church and state, separation ofpowers, criminal justice, and more. Written by notable scholars in political science and law, the chapters in SCOTUS 2020 present the details of each ruling, its meaning for constitutionaldebate, and its impact on public policy or partisan politics. Finally, SCOTUS 2020 offers ananalysis of the current state of ideological and interpretive divisions on the Court.

© The Author(s) 2021

M. Marietta (ed.)SCOTUS 2020https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53851-4_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction: The 2019–2020 Term at the Supreme Court

Morgan Marietta¹

(1)

Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA

End Abstract

The 2019–2020 term of the Supreme Court was the most eventful in decades. The significance and sheer number of the major cases was stunning. This year’s rulings focused on LGBT discrimination, abortion regulation, subpoenas of the Trump administration, the Electoral College, immigration, Native rights, the rights of noncitizens, the Second Amendment, church and state, presidential power over executive agencies, and criminal justice concerns about unanimous juries, the insanity defense, and public fraud. The range of constitutional and legal controversy is remarkable, raising questions about the nature of representation in our elections, religious liberty, restitution for the violation of constitutional rights, the separation of powers between the Congress and the presidency, the role of precedent as a controlling doctrine of constitutional law, the proper way to read the text of laws, and how the Court comprehends evolving social realities.

While many of these controversies were being considered, the Chief Justice presided over the impeachment trial of the President in the US Senate (as Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution requires). The proceedings of the Court were also interrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic, leading to the replacement of the traditional oral arguments in front of the Justices by arguments over the telephone under new rules for questioning.¹ The combined delay led to the final rulings being rendered in mid-July, the first time the Court’s season went this late in two decades. All of this transpired against the backdrop of the 2020 presidential campaign, with many of the major cases having not only constitutional but also powerful partisan implications.

To summarize the year’s major rulings, they

1. 1.
   Expand the prohibition of employment discrimination “on the basis of sex” under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include LGBT employees,
2. 2.
   Allow states to ban “faithless electors” by requiring presidential electors to abide by their state’s popular vote,
3. 3.
   Overturn the Trump administration’s rescission of the Obama administration’s DACA program on the grounds that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires a full disclosure and discussion of the relevant facts including the reliance interests of the DACA recipients who would be affected,
4. 4.
   Overturn state limitations on the participation of religious schools in public benefit programs; uphold exemptions for religious organizations with objections to the Obamacare contraception mandate; and affirm the autonomy of religious schools to select teachers under the “ministerial exception” to employment regulations,
5. 5.
   Disallow noncitizens from bringing suits for damages in federal courts as a remedy for excessive force by US agents when the event occurred beyond US borders,
6. 6.
   Overturn Louisiana’s abortion regulations requiring practitioners to hold admitting privileges at a local hospital, upholding the precedent from Whole Woman’s Health in 2016,
7. 7.
   Allow individual states to limit the boundaries of the insanity defense grounded in competing perceptions of mental illness,
8. 8.
   Limit convictions for fraud under federal law to demonstrable cases of self-enrichment, but not diversion of funds for political purposes as in the Bridgegate controversy,
9. 9.
   Recognize that the Creek Indian reservation in Eastern Oklahoma—established by treaties in the 1800s—has never been disestablished by Congress, meaning that tribal sovereignty continues within Creek Nation boundaries and that major crimes must be tried in federal rather than state court,
10. 10.
    Dismiss a claim of a constitutional violation when the local government has withdrawn the disputed regulation (making the original claim moot, in this case regarding gun regulation under the Second Amendment),
11. 11.
    Disallow nonunanimous juries for criminal convictions under the Sixth Amendment,
12. 12.
    Strike down the congressional limitation of the President to remove the head of a federal agency such as the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau as a violation of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government,
13. 13.
    Allow the President to resist congressional subpoenas that do not have a clear connection to ongoing legislation, and reject the claim of absolute immunity of the President from subpoenas from local prosecutors investigating a possible criminal charge.

Table 1.1

2019–2020 major cases^a

Ch.	Case	Issue	Vote	Majority & Author
2	Bostock	LGBT discrimination (statutory interpretation of Title VII)	6-3	4 liberals +Gorsuch, Roberts (Gorsuch)
3	Chiafalo	The Electoral College (federalism)	9-0	unanimous (Kagan)
4	DHS v. U. of Cal.	Executive power (statutory interpretation, reliance interests)	5-4	4 liberals +Roberts (Roberts)
5	Espinoza	Religious liberty (Free Exercise v. Establishment)	5-4	5 conservatives (Roberts)
	Lady of Guadalupe	Religious liberty (Free Exercise v. employment regulation)	7-2	5 conservatives +Breyer, Kagan (Alito)
	Little Sisters of the Poor	Religious liberty (statutory interpretation of ACA, APA, RFRA)	7-2	5 conservatives +Breyer, Kagan (Thomas)
6	Hernández	Noncitizen rights (restitution for constitutional violations)	5-4	5 conservatives (Alito)
7	June Medical	Abortion regulation (precedent, federalism)	5-4	4 liberals +Roberts (Breyer)
8	Kahler	Insanity defense (social facts, federalism)	6-3	5 conservatives +Kagan (Kagan)
9	Kelly	Public fraud (statutory interpretation)	9-0	Unanimous (Kagan)
10	McGirt	Native rights (statutory interpretation)	5-4	4 liberals +Gorsuch (Gorsuch)
11	NY Rifle & Pistol	2nd Amendment (mootness)	6-3	4 liberals +Kavanaugh, Roberts (unsigned)
12	Ramos	Nonunanimous juries (precedent)	6-3	3 conservatives +3 liberals (Gorsuch)
13	Seila Law	Presidential power (separation of powers)	5-4	5 conservatives (Roberts)
14	Trump v. Mazars	Presidential power re: Congress (separation of powers)	7-2	4 liberals +3 conservatives (Roberts) (Alito, Thomas dissent to the right)
	Trump v. Vance	Presidential power re: state prosecutors (separation of powers)	7-2	4 liberals +Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts (Roberts)

^aIssue describes the broad topic at hand (with major areas of constitutional or legal doctrine in parentheses). Vote describes the majority and dissenting positions among the nine Justices. Majority & Author notes the general ideological grouping among the Justices (with the author of the majority opinion in parentheses). In general, the five conservative Justices are considered to be Chief Justice Roberts (appointed by George W. Bush), Samuel Alito (George W. Bush), Neil Gorsuch (Trump), Brett Kavanaugh (Trump), and Clarence Thomas (George H. W. Bush); the liberal Justices are Stephen Breyer (Clinton), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton), Elena Kagan (Obam...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction: The 2019–2020 Term at the Supreme Court
• 2. Bostock v. Clayton County on LGBT Employment Discrimination
• 3. Chiafalo v. Washington on Faithless Electors
• 4. Department of Homeland Security v. University of California on DACA
• 5. Espinoza, Lady of Guadalupe, and Little Sisters of the Poor on Religious Liberty
• 6. Hernández v. Mesa on Rights and Restitution for Victims of Excessive Force at the Border
• 7. June Medical Services v. Russo on State Regulation of Abortion Clinics
• 8. Kahler v. Kansas on the Insanity Defense
• 9. Kelly v. US on Public Fraud and the Bridgegate Controversy
• 10. McGirt v. Oklahoma on Native Rights
• 11. New York State Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York on Gun Regulation
• 12. Ramos v. Louisiana on Unanimous Juries
• 13. Seila Law v. Consumer Finance Protection Bureau on Separation of Powers
• 14. Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Vance on Presidential Subpoenas
• 15. Ideology and the Court’s Work
• Back Matter