SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"Hard not to read this as a veiled warning about Roe v. Wade," tweeted law professor Nicholas Bagley of the new ruling. (Photo: Phil Roeder/Flickr/cc)
Fears for Roe V. Wade After Supreme Court Issues Decision Overruling a 40-Year Precedent
"Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next," wrote Justice Breyer in dissent
May 13, 2019
The U.S. Supreme Court's liberal justices sounded alarm on Monday after the court issued a ruling overturning a four decades-old precedent.
"Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent (pdf), in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
Some observers expressed fear one of the those caes could be Roe v. Wade.
From Justice Breyer's dissent in Franchise Tax Board. Hard not to read this as a veiled warning about Roe v. Wade. https://t.co/Sgt7CxA9sm pic.twitter.com/rdVbPTTkrt
-- Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) May 13, 2019
The new decision is in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which centers on the issue of "sovereign immunity."
Per The Hill:
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's conservative justices found that a state cannot be sued by a private party in another state court system without that state's consent. The ruling overturns a previous 1979 decision that found the Constitution does not shield the states from private lawsuits in other states.
Civil rights lawyer Sasha Samberg-Champion broke down the ruling in a Twitter thread, and offered his thoughts on what it may say about the conservative court's approach to what is called "stare decisis":
This is exactly right. https://t.co/jHIXKx3DRg
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
This is the entirety of the majority's reasoning as to why it is appropriate to overturn a decades-old precedent. Consider how much of this reasoning would apply to, say, the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. pic.twitter.com/LsySFALFUw
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
There _should_ be high bar for the Court to disregard stare decisis -- something more than "we think our precedent was wrongly decided" -- or else stare decisis is meaningless. The cavalier way the Court approached that analysis here suggests that stare decisis won't matter much.
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
"No significant change in factual circumstances or evidence of unworkability warranted the Court's unusual decision to disturb this long-standing precedent," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in a statement.
"Right now," she said, "we are witnessing coordinated attacks on Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, and more across the country. The forces driving these cases are banking on a Supreme Court majority that will be willing to reopen guiding precedent and remake the law."
"This action by the Supreme Court sends a dangerous message that its precedents are fair game and that prior rulings may not be adhered to," added Clarke. "This action also suggests that it's open season when it comes to precedents that have long safeguarded civil rights and reproductive freedom in our country."
This post has been updated to correct the spelling of Justice Stephen Breyer's name.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The U.S. Supreme Court's liberal justices sounded alarm on Monday after the court issued a ruling overturning a four decades-old precedent.
"Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent (pdf), in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
Some observers expressed fear one of the those caes could be Roe v. Wade.
From Justice Breyer's dissent in Franchise Tax Board. Hard not to read this as a veiled warning about Roe v. Wade. https://t.co/Sgt7CxA9sm pic.twitter.com/rdVbPTTkrt
-- Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) May 13, 2019
The new decision is in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which centers on the issue of "sovereign immunity."
Per The Hill:
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's conservative justices found that a state cannot be sued by a private party in another state court system without that state's consent. The ruling overturns a previous 1979 decision that found the Constitution does not shield the states from private lawsuits in other states.
Civil rights lawyer Sasha Samberg-Champion broke down the ruling in a Twitter thread, and offered his thoughts on what it may say about the conservative court's approach to what is called "stare decisis":
This is exactly right. https://t.co/jHIXKx3DRg
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
This is the entirety of the majority's reasoning as to why it is appropriate to overturn a decades-old precedent. Consider how much of this reasoning would apply to, say, the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. pic.twitter.com/LsySFALFUw
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
There _should_ be high bar for the Court to disregard stare decisis -- something more than "we think our precedent was wrongly decided" -- or else stare decisis is meaningless. The cavalier way the Court approached that analysis here suggests that stare decisis won't matter much.
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
"No significant change in factual circumstances or evidence of unworkability warranted the Court's unusual decision to disturb this long-standing precedent," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in a statement.
"Right now," she said, "we are witnessing coordinated attacks on Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, and more across the country. The forces driving these cases are banking on a Supreme Court majority that will be willing to reopen guiding precedent and remake the law."
"This action by the Supreme Court sends a dangerous message that its precedents are fair game and that prior rulings may not be adhered to," added Clarke. "This action also suggests that it's open season when it comes to precedents that have long safeguarded civil rights and reproductive freedom in our country."
This post has been updated to correct the spelling of Justice Stephen Breyer's name.
The U.S. Supreme Court's liberal justices sounded alarm on Monday after the court issued a ruling overturning a four decades-old precedent.
"Today's decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent (pdf), in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
Some observers expressed fear one of the those caes could be Roe v. Wade.
From Justice Breyer's dissent in Franchise Tax Board. Hard not to read this as a veiled warning about Roe v. Wade. https://t.co/Sgt7CxA9sm pic.twitter.com/rdVbPTTkrt
-- Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) May 13, 2019
The new decision is in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which centers on the issue of "sovereign immunity."
Per The Hill:
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's conservative justices found that a state cannot be sued by a private party in another state court system without that state's consent. The ruling overturns a previous 1979 decision that found the Constitution does not shield the states from private lawsuits in other states.
Civil rights lawyer Sasha Samberg-Champion broke down the ruling in a Twitter thread, and offered his thoughts on what it may say about the conservative court's approach to what is called "stare decisis":
This is exactly right. https://t.co/jHIXKx3DRg
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
This is the entirety of the majority's reasoning as to why it is appropriate to overturn a decades-old precedent. Consider how much of this reasoning would apply to, say, the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. pic.twitter.com/LsySFALFUw
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
There _should_ be high bar for the Court to disregard stare decisis -- something more than "we think our precedent was wrongly decided" -- or else stare decisis is meaningless. The cavalier way the Court approached that analysis here suggests that stare decisis won't matter much.
-- Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
"No significant change in factual circumstances or evidence of unworkability warranted the Court's unusual decision to disturb this long-standing precedent," said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in a statement.
"Right now," she said, "we are witnessing coordinated attacks on Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, and more across the country. The forces driving these cases are banking on a Supreme Court majority that will be willing to reopen guiding precedent and remake the law."
"This action by the Supreme Court sends a dangerous message that its precedents are fair game and that prior rulings may not be adhered to," added Clarke. "This action also suggests that it's open season when it comes to precedents that have long safeguarded civil rights and reproductive freedom in our country."
This post has been updated to correct the spelling of Justice Stephen Breyer's name.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.