New Supreme Court mandate attacks guns, abortion and religious expression

Judge Barrett kept a relatively low profile during her first tenure on the bench, when the court, working remotely, found common ground on several notable decisions. These included a 7-2 decision that dismissed another major challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

Judge Barrett’s record as a law professor and appellate judge, and the record to come, portends a distinct turning point for the court on some of the more controversial issues.

Following his elevation, the court agreed to hear appeals that explicitly call for the quashing of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that women had the constitutional right to terminate pregnancy under certain circumstances, or to overturn century-old laws that restrict the carrying of concealed weapons. .

Previously, the court has consistently refused appeals proposing to eliminate abortion rights or expand access to firearms, suggesting that there were not five judges ready to consider such measures.

The gun case, challenging a New York state law limiting concealed gun licenses to those with “good cause,” slated for November and could see court extend Second Amendment rights to allow handguns in public. In 2008 and 2010 decisions, the court recognized a constitutional right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense.

In December, Mississippi will advocate to reinstate its law banning abortions after 15 weeks, which lower courts overturned under Supreme Court precedents that allow women to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability or the possibility of life. outside the uterus. Mississippi argues that the simplest solution would be to remove the precedents that its law violated.

In September, the court refused to block an even more restrictive abortion law in Texas, in a 5-4 vote, with Justices Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh part of a Tory majority who cited procedural reasons as to why the court did not intervene. Chief Justice John Roberts found himself in dissent with the three Liberal justices, a roster that suggested his ability to moderate court actions since Judge Barrett replaced Judge Ginsburg is eroding.

The decrease in the Liberal presence in court has put 83-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer in the spotlight. The person Bill Clinton nominated has come under pressure from the left to step down, while Democrats maintain a very slim Senate majority that could confirm a like-minded successor.

Several upcoming cases reflect the court’s concern for religious expression. In November, judges will consider a claim by a convicted Texas inmate that the state must let its pastor lay hands on him while he is executed; prison authorities say the demand is disruptive.

A December argument challenges Maine’s public education system, which relies on state tuition vouchers for private schools. Half of the state’s school districts lack students to justify their own schools, so the state reimburses tuition fees at secular private schools. Parents who prefer religious schools argue that the tuition reimbursement program is discriminatory; the state says this should be seen as equivalent to operating its own schools, which could not be sectarian.

And last Thursday, the court agreed to consider whether the city of Boston, which sometimes allows outside groups to display their banners on flag poles outside City Hall, violated the First Amendment by rejecting a “Christian flag”.

Like other workplaces coming back to life after coronavirus shutdowns, some things at the High Court will be different. Only staff, lawyers and accredited journalists can enter the courthouse, while the public can listen live for the first time via a link on the court’s website. Lawyers are advised to wear N-95 or KN-95 masks in the courtroom “except when making a case,” but only those with negative Covid-19 tests are allowed to enter.

Judge Kavanaugh, despite his January vaccination, tested positive Thursday and had to skip a ceremony Friday at the courthouse. The court said it would participate in the next arguments.

Although the court has not scheduled any potential blockbusters for its first set of arguments, as of Monday it has included cases involving notorious prisoners.

On Wednesday, the tribunal will hear the government’s proposal to prevent Guantanamo detainee Abu Zubaydah from obtaining depositions from former Central Intelligence Agency contractors who designed the torture program he allegedly suffered on a “Black site” in Poland. Mr Zubaydah wants testimony for a court case in Poland, which follows a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that Polish authorities violated their treaty obligations. The United States, saying the testimony could reveal state secrets such as the presence of the black site in Poland, argues that Zubaydah’s request should be quashed.

The following Wednesday, the Justice Department will call for the reinstatement of the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, convicted of the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 that left three dead and hundreds injured. A federal appeals court overturned the death sentence after finding that the trial judge made several errors, including insufficient jury scrutiny over pre-trial publicity.

Write to Jess Bravin at [email protected] and Brent Kendall at [email protected]