The Supreme Court begins its new term in the shadow of the Kavanaugh fight

Meanwhile, the judges know that even if Kavanaugh is not confirmed, President Donald Trump will probably appoint another Conservative and the court is still ready to take a right turn.

"I think that a more accurate caption for this term is the" calm before the storm, "said Irving Gornstein, executive director of the Georgetown Law Supreme Court Institute, at the same time. a recent event.

"We are moving towards a whole new world, and the only real question is how far we will go and how fast are we going to get there," he said.

Roberts is walking carefully

Just a week ago, the eight judges – four Liberals and four Conservatives – met behind closed doors to discuss the many petitions of certificates that have accumulated over the summer to decide which of the following should be done. to be added to the role of the Court.

It takes four judges to agree to hear a case. But Roberts will act cautiously. He knows that if an eight-member tribunal divides in two against four, the judges only confirm the lower court's decision without setting a precedent.

"In recent years, whenever the court has been reduced, we have seen it act more cautiously by agreeing to review fewer cases and by looking for narrow reasons on which to build consensus in the cases that we have. he hears, "said Steve Vladeck, an analyst at CNN's Supreme Court and a professor at the University of Texas Law School.

"Even though Judge Kavanaugh is finally confirmed and he will be appearing before the court at the end of October, I still think we should expect this mandate to be relatively quieter and slower than from last year, "added Vladeck.

In recent years, the long term "conference" has given rise to important grants to start the new term. But this year was different. The number of grants in less publicized cases was low. Petitions on more controversial issues have not been followed.

For example, judges are considering a case involving a 93-year-old war memorial in Maryland. The challengers claim that the monument violates the constitutional clause of the Constitution, as it is placed on public land and has the form of a cross. A court of first instance ruled in their favor, ruling that "the monument here has the main effect of supporting religion and excessively entangling the government in religion".

Supporters of the monument want the judges to intervene and take up the cause, pointing out that there are similar monuments in the Arlington National Cemetery. The court could grant this Monday morning, but could decide to defer a case that could be narrowly divided.

Another pending motion concerns the 8th Amendment, which prohibits life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders. In 2012, the Supreme Court declared that mandatory life sentences were unconstitutional, but it did not categorically prohibit the imposition of punishment. The judges discussed this issue last week but did not vote to resume the case.

There may be controversial issues in one form or another for judges in the weeks and months to come. These include challenges to the Affordable Care Act, the Trump administration 's decision to phase out the deferred action program for child arrivals and cases involving children. LGBT rights and sanctuary cities.

Double jeopardy and death penalty

On Tuesday, the judges will hear a case concerning the death penalty that will be closely monitored to see how the eight judges are divided.

Madison c. Alabama's purpose is to determine whether the execution of a person who suffers from dementia and who no longer remembers committing the crime is a cruel and unusual punishment. This is a case where Anthony Kennedy could have been the deciding vote as he sometimes voted in favor of a reduction in the death penalty. If the judges are divided, this could be a case that will come back once Kavanaugh or another candidate is confirmed.

One of the most interesting cases of the record this fall is Gamble v. United States. On the face of it, this is a technical case concerning the provision of the Fifth Amendment on Dual Criminalization, which states that no one should be tried for the same offense twice in a federal court.

The Supreme Court's case law, however, considers that one can be tried for the same offense in state and federal courts because, for the purposes of the Constitution, the federal and state governments are separate sovereigns with their own authority. even trying the same person for the same offense. This is what is called "the double exception of sovereignty".

The case concerns Terance Martez Gamble, who was convicted in 2008 for second-degree theft in Alabama. Federal and state laws banned him again from having a handgun.

Four years later, however, he was arrested for a broken rear light and the police found a gun in his car.

He was prosecuted under federal and state laws.

He argues that he was sentenced to two convictions and two sentences for a single offense as a criminal in possession of a firearm and that as such, he must spend three years of more in prison. "The Double Jeopardy clause blocks this result," his lawyers argue.

The case could have nationwide implications regarding the ability of national and local prosecutors to also try those convicted (or acquitted) of federal crimes. But some point out that this could have an impact on Trump and the power of grace.

"Some say that if President Trump forgives his loved ones who have been convicted of federal offenses, such as Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn or Paul Manafort, a decision that would eliminate the idea of" separate sovereigns "would prevent states from trying same people to be accountable under state law, "said Vladeck.