"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
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 are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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.