Supreme Court deals with California's consecutive losses

The Supreme Court pronounced Tuesday a judgment against California, making consecutive rulings against the state in high profile cases on President Trump's travel ban policy and a state law governing pregnancy centers.

Decisions 5-4 – with Trump-nominated judge Neil Gorsuch voting against California in both cases – suggest limits to the legal resistance of the state of gold as long as the Conservatives control a majority in the high Court.

Both decisions overturned favorable rulings for the California Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, the San Francisco-based court known for its liberal orientation, which has proved a more fertile ground for cases of l & # 39; State.

Courts have become the front line of increasingly acrimonious fighting between California's Democratic leaders and the Trump administration over the past year and a half. State Attorney General Xavier Becerra has filed more than two dozen lawsuits against the federal government, often joining other liberal states, and the federal government has fought back.

But most of California's cases are still ongoing in the court system, and few have gone to the Supreme Court so far. Legal duels cover topics ranging from sanctuary cities to health care to environmental regulations up to the 2020 census.

Legally, at least, none of Tuesday's decisions mean much to the heavy role of California lawsuits. The decision to ban travel, which states a broad power for the president to determine who can enter the United States, does not necessarily apply to sanctuary policy issues or if the administration may compel States to implement it, said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University. And the Trump administration was not a party in the business of the pregnancy center.

"When we talk about judicial resistance in California, we are talking about a wide range of very different issues," Somin said. "These decisions are not a sort of general judgment on all the legal arguments California and other states make."

Still, the decisions recall that the conservative majority on the court could be a bulwark against the much vaunted legal mistrust of the state, and that victories in more liberal lower courts do not last forever.

"It really matters who's in the Supreme Court, and it was extremely important that President Trump could name Neil Gorsuch," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "We have a conservative supreme court, and to the extent that some of these additional issues will be submitted to the Supreme Court, that does not seem very good for California."

In addition, the decision to ban travel could be seen as a warning to lower courts not to issue blanket injunctions and attempt to establish a national policy, said Eugene Kontorovich, a professor of Law at Northwestern Law School. use the courts to block federal policies.

The fight against the travel ban, launched the first weekend of the Trump presidency, was one of the most resentful. After the administration decided to block the entry into the United States of many travelers from several Muslim-majority countries, Californians and elected state officials rushed to airports in sign of protest. Becerra, who had started his job three days earlier, quickly joined other states to sue.

Federal officials revised the travel ban policy twice – prompting further lawsuits from California and other liberal states – and the Ninth Circuit ruled in December that the final version of the ban exceeded the authority of Trump. But the Supreme Court disagreed, saying the president had broad powers to define immigration policy.

"One day this nation and the court will look back and regret this decision that legalized discrimination," Becerra said of the High Court's decision in a statement. "We will continue to fight actions that illegally target people based on their background or faith."

In the Pregnancy Center case, the court overturned a California law requiring pro-life pregnancy centers to issue notices informing their clients that free or low-cost abortions and other services were being offered to them. low-income women. The majority ruled that the law violated the centers' freedom of speech, overturning a Ninth Circuit decision of October 2016.

Conservative activists and leaders applauded both decisions on Tuesday. The Pregnancy Center's case "ended the abortion industry campaign forcing pro-life advocates to act as a sales team for abortion", said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America.

Overall, California has had some success in its ongoing legal battle with Trump – in particular, a lawsuit filed by Becerra has led to a federal judge blocking the administration's efforts to unravel the DACA program, which protects young people without – Papers of the deportation.

And most federal cases never reach the Supreme Court, which could be a good thing for California's efforts.

If the court continues to issue very divided judgments with Republican-appointed judges supporting the Trump administration and judges appointed by Democrats backing California, this would give weight to a disturbing trend of apparent judicial partisanship, he said. Levinson.

"We are witnessing this terrible blur of lines, with what looks more like a Republican decision than a Democratic decision rather than a conservative or liberal decision," she said. "It's not like that it has to be."