July, 02 2021, 01:35pm EDT

WASHINGTON
Today, People For the American Way released its annual Supreme Court end-of-term report. "The Supreme Court's 2020-21 Term Shows the Damage Caused by Trump-Appointed Justices" summarizes key Supreme Court rulings for the 2020-21 term and offers analysis on notable cases, impacts of the composition of the court, and implications for future rulings--especially regarding voting rights, health care, criminal justice and religious liberty.
This year, the SCOTUS term opened during a pandemic, the 2020 presidential election, and the confirmation of the newly appointed Amy Coney Barrett, which created a 6-3 ultra-conservative majority and made more Americans aware of the critical importance of the Court in our lives.
The PFAW report analyzes the impact of more than 20 cases including, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, California v. Texas, Fulton v. Philadelphia, Tanzin v. Tanvir, Torres v. Madrid, and Niz-Chavez v. Garland.
Read the full report here.
"This Supreme Court is dominated by Trump-appointed justices, with predictably disastrous results for voting rights as well as workers, consumers, and immigrants this term," said President of People For the American Way Ben Jealous. "The harmful rulings coming out of this Court make it critical that Congress pass legislation to protect voting rights and shore up our democracy. We also have to build a strategy to reinforce the importance of fair courts and fair-minded judges, so we can counter the decades-long efforts by the Far Right to pack our courts, including our Supreme court, with ultra-conservative judges."
"This Supreme Court term wrapped up with a one-two punch to voting rights and our democracy, with the rulings in Brnovich v. DNC and Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta," said Paul Gordon, People For the American Way senior legislative counsel and the main author of the report. "While there were some bright spots, including the failure of the Right once again to destroy the Affordable Care Act, the Court's rightward tilt is very pronounced and raises serious concerns about risks to our rights. We believe that as Republican-appointed justices and judges do more and more harm to people and to the country, the long-term movement to improve our courts will only get stronger."
The report also highlights three cases the Court has agreed to hear next term that will affect the rights and lives of millions of people, including: an abortion rights case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health; a case concerning gun rights and the Second Amendment, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett; and one case about equal rights under the Constitution for Puerto Ricans.
SUMMARY OF CASES/HIGHLIGHTED CASES:
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee: On the final day of the term, Trump justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett cast deciding votes in a 6-3 decision to reverse a lower court and approve state practices that had the effect of discriminating against minority voters. The ruling devastates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, an important tool to help fight discrimination in voting. The July 2021 decision was in Brnovich v Democratic National Committee.
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta: On the last day of the term, in a 6-3 decision made possible by the three Trump justices, the Supreme Court struck down a California law requiring nonprofits to report (but not publicly disclose) their major donors to state authorities. But rather than addressing the specific facts before them in Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, the ultra-conservatives issued a sweeping ruling that threatens to undermine traditional campaign contribution disclosure requirements.
Edwards v. Vannoy: In May 2021, the far-right justices made it easier for states to keep people in prison even when the procedures used to convict them are later deemed unconstitutional. Edwards v. Vannoy was decided in the increasingly familiar 6-3 split made possible by the three Trump justices.
Jones v. Mississippi: In Jones v. Mississippi, the 6-3 ultra-conservative majority abandoned two recent precedents that protected minors from unconstitutionally excessive prison sentences-- Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016). They declared that minors can be sentenced to life without parole (LWOP), without addressing whether a juvenile is actually irredeemable, as long as the sentencing judge simply considers the defendant's youth. The abandonment of Miller and Montgomery will help perpetuate racial injustice in the juvenile justice system, where Black youth are treated more harshly than their white counterparts with similar charges and prior records.
Torres v. Madrid: In the March 2021 case of Torres v. Madrid, Justice Gorsuch tried to open a new avenue for law enforcement to escape liability when they wrongfully shoot someone. In a 5-3 decision, the Court closed a loophole and determined that if law enforcement uses any kind of bodily force to apprehend someone but the person is able to flee, that is still considered a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. This is significant for police accountability going forward. (Justice Barrett did not participate in the case because it was argued before she joined the Court).
California v. Texas: Republicans at various levels of government across the country advanced this meritless lawsuit to eliminate every health benefit provided by the Affordable Care Act, including guaranteed health insurance regardless of preexisting conditions. The Supreme Court avoided a decision on the merits, ruling 7-2 in California v. Texas that the case should be dismissed because the parties did not have standing to file the lawsuit in the first place. Millions of people can continue to count on the health care protections that Republicans tried to take away.
Fulton v. Philadelphia: In perhaps the highest-profile religious liberty case of the term, Fulton v. Philadelphia, the Supreme Court ruled for Catholic Social Services (CSS) in a highly anticipated foster adoption discrimination case. However, the narrow nature of the ruling means that, at least for now, federal, state, and local governments remain free to pass and enforce neutral laws prohibiting anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination. While Fulton does not announce a new constitutional right to use religion as an excuse to discriminate or undermine existing or proposed laws prohibiting LGBTQ+ discrimination, the legal issues avoided by the majority will continue to arise in future cases, so the religious right's campaign to redefine religious liberty remains a threat while the Court has an ultra-conservative majority.
Tanzin v. Tanvir: In a positive move for religious liberty, the Court unanimously held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) allows lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual federal employees who violate someone's religious liberty rights under that law. Tanzin v. Tanvir (decided 8-0 because Barrett's nomination was still pending when it was argued) involved three American Muslims who were improperly included on the federal government's "No Fly List." They will be able to sue the FBI agents who allegedly would only remove them from the list if they spied on their fellow American Muslims. People For the American Way Foundation had joined an amicus brief authored by Americans United for Separation of Church and State in support of the victims.
Pereida v. Wilkinson: Trump Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh cast the deciding votes in this 5-3 decision. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), an undocumented non-citizen who is ordered to leave the country is generally eligible to have the order cancelled on the grounds that it would harm their U.S. citizen spouse, children, or parents. But someone convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" is not eligible for that relief. The far-right majority in Pereida v. Wilkinson made it much easier for officials to assume without sufficient evidence that the immigrant has committed such a crime.
Niz-Chavez v. Garland: In an ideologically mixed 6-3 lineup, the Court protected immigrants who receive notice that the government will hold a hearing to make them leave the country, but where the government fails to put all the information the immigrant needs into a single notice.
U.S. v. Arthrex: Trump justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett cast deciding votes to invalidate part of a Congressional law that provides for the appointment of independent patent judges in cases concerning the reconsideration of patents. The 5-4 decision in United States v. Arthrex was a continuation of the ultra-conservatives' agenda over the last several years to weaken Congress' authority. That shift is weakening Congress's ability to create independent entities to perform important tasks without undue political influence, as with last term's Seila Law decision striking down the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because the president could not fire its director without cause. This is part of the conservative project to undermine the social safety net and roll back the New Deal.
Collins v. Yellen: Just two days after U.S. v. Arthrex, this shift in the Court's separation-of-powers jurisprudence continued, with the six-justice majority made possible by the three Trump justices removing the limitations on the new doctrine established only a year ago in Seila Law. In Collins v Yellen, the Court invalidated part of a Congressional law that prevented the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) from being fired at-will by the president. The six justices did this in a way that further weakened congressional authority to insulate agency officials from political pressure.
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid: The Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not be "taken for public use without just compensation." In Cedar Point v. Hassid, the far-right majority made possible by the Trump justices expanded the meaning of the Takings Clause in a way that limits organized labor in this particular case, and that threatens any number of government protections that affect monied interests. At issue was a California effort to protect farm workers from the type of widespread and notorious exploitation that Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta worked hard to oppose. Because many of these workers are migrants, they can be uniquely hard to reach in traditional ways. To make sure they are aware of their right to organize, a state regulation requires growers to give union organizers limited access to their property for temporary periods. Justice Breyer expressed concern over the ruling's impact on "the large numbers of ordinary regulations" that permit temporary entry onto a property owner's land - what the ultra-conservative majority calls an "invasion" of their property. These include inspections for food safety, preschool licensing verification, the welfare of children in foster homes, environmental protections, safety for people living in assisted living facilities, and more.
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez: In a 5-4 decision that Trump's three justices made possible, the Supreme Court made it much harder for victims of corporate malfeasance to use class action lawsuits to hold companies accountable when they violate the rights of vast numbers of people. Decisions like this are why corporate interests spent so many millions of dollars to put Trump's nominees on the federal bench. The ruling also highlights the importance of every seat on the Supreme Court as we continue our fight for our courts.
People For the American Way works to build a democratic society that implements the ideals of freedom, equality, opportunity and justice for all. We encourage civic participation, defend fundamental rights, and fight to dismantle systemic barriers to equitable opportunity. We fight against right-wing extremism and the injustice it fosters.
1 (800) 326-7329LATEST NEWS
Fetterman to Return Menendez Donation... in 'Envelopes Stuffed With $100 Bills'
"The jorts-and-hoodie senator has the only rational anti-corruption position here, while all the fancy-suit senators complaining about dress codes but saying nothing about Menendez now look ridiculous," said one journalist.
Sep 25, 2023
In addition to calling for U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez's resignation over federal bribery charges, Sen. John Fetterman is planning to return $5,000 that the New Jersey Democrat gave to Pennsylvania Democrat's 2022 campaign.
"We are in process of returning the money," Fetterman spokesperson Joe Calvello toldThe Messenger on Monday, "in envelopes stuffed with $100 bills."
While a Menendez spokesperson did not respond to the outlet's request for comment, the embattled senator—who on Friday temporarily stepped down as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee—was defiant on Monday in response to demands for him to resign from the chamber, publicly saying that "not only will I be exonerated, I will still be New Jersey's senior senator."
"Think of the ink spilled and beds wet about how John wearing a Dickies shirt and shorts will destroy the decorum of the Senate, but yet no one can muster calling for Menendez to resign."
Menendez and his wife are accused accepting bribes in the form of "cash, gold, payments toward a home mortgage, compensation for a low-or-no-show job, a luxury vehicle, and other things of value" in exchange for helping three businessmen and the Egyptian government.
According to the indictment unsealed Friday, federal agents who raided the Menendez home found various pieces of possible evidence, including "over $480,000 in cash—much of it stuffed into envelopes and hidden in clothing, closets, and a safe."
Fetterman on Saturday was the first senator to join a growing number of House Democrats and Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy in calling for Menendez—who is up for reelection next year—to resign now.
Menendez is "entitled to the presumption of innocence under our system," Fetterman said, "but he is not entitled to continue to wield influence over national policy, especially given the serious and specific nature of the allegations."
In a series of posts on social media Monday, Calvello noted that "more senators, both Republicans and Democrats, have forcefully denounced how John Fetterman dresses than have called for Menendez to resign for being corrupt."
As House Republicans have continued to risk a government shutdown in recent days, GOP lawmakers and right-wing pundits have been melting down on social media and cable news over a relaxation of the Senate dress code that they have blamed on Fetterman, known for sporting more casual attire on Capitol Hill.
"This is a perfect snapshot of what is wrong with Washington and why people outside the beltway have no faith in D.C.," Calvello added. "Think of the ink spilled and beds wet about how John wearing a Dickies shirt and shorts will destroy the decorum of the Senate, but yet no one can muster calling for Menendez to resign."
The Lever's David Sirota declared Monday that "the jorts-and-hoodie senator has the only rational anti-corruption position here, while all the fancy-suit senators complaining about dress codes but saying nothing about Menendez now look ridiculous."
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) on Monday afternoon became just the second senator to urge his indicted colleague to willingly exit the chamber. He simply said that "Sen. Menendez has broken the public trust and should resign from the U.S. Senate."
Monday night, Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) became the third, saying: "Sen. Menendez is entitled to the presumption of innocence. But the people of New Jersey and the United States Senate are entitled to an effective senator. The shocking and specific allegations against Sen. Menendez have wholly compromised his capacity to be that effective senator. I encourage Sen. Menendez to resign."
This post has been updated with comment from Sen. Peter Welch.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Want to Cancel All Student Lunch Debt—A 'Term So Absurd That It Shouldn't Even Exist'
U.S. Sen. John Fetterman said the aim of the bill is to "stop humiliating kids and penalizing hunger."
Sep 25, 2023
As children across the United States have started a new academic year over the past month, many families have had to contend with federal lawmakers' refusal to guarantee universal free meals and the resulting "lunch shaming"—which three U.S. Senate Democrats hope to partially combat with new legislation to cancel student lunch debt nationwide.
"'School lunch debt' is a term so absurd that it shouldn't even exist," Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) declared in a statement Monday. "That's why I'm proud to introduce this bill to cancel the nation's student meal debt and stop humiliating kids and penalizing hunger."
"It's time to come together and stop playing political games with Americans' access to food," he added. "September is Hunger Action Month and I'm proud to be introducing this bill to help working families now, while we work to move our other priorities to combat food insecurity in our nation."
Fetterman—who chairs the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry's Subcommittee on Food and Nutrition, Specialty Crops, Organics, and Research—is leading the fight for the School Lunch Debt Cancellation Act with Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
"No child in Rhode Island—or anywhere in America—should be penalized for not being able to afford school lunch. It's that simple," asserted Whitehouse. "Our legislation will eliminate lunch debt in schools, supporting every child's access to a healthy meal and positioning them for long-term success."
Welch agreed, saying: "Our students shouldn't have to worry about how they're paying for lunch—full stop. I'm proud to partner with my colleagues Sen. Fetterman and Whitehouse on this commonsense bill, and urge my colleagues to stand with us."
Congress initially responded to the Covid-19 pandemic by enabling public schools to provide free breakfast and lunch to all 50 million children nationwide, but Republicans blocked the continuation that policy last year. Instead, lawmakers passed the Keep Kids Fed Act, a bipartisan compromise that increased federal reimbursement rates for programs serving low-income students. However, as Common Dreamsreported in January, only around a quarter of districts that responded to a survey from the School Nutrition Association said those levels are sufficient, and 99.2% had concerns about raised rates expiring.
Further burdening American families trying to feed children amid food companies' price gouging, congressional Republicans and right-wing Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) also killed the pandemic-era expansion of the child tax credit—a move that contributed to the U.S. child poverty rate more than doubling in 2022 compared with the previous year, according to data released this month.
"Prior to the pandemic, some schools had resorted to tactics that embarrassed kids, such as stamping their hands to remind parents of unpaid bills and substituting cold cheese sandwiches for hot meals," Civil Eatsreported Monday. "Sometimes meals were thrown out in front of the children. And while experts say that fewer districts have resumed these practices—often dubbed 'lunch shaming'—they haven't gone away entirely either."
Crystal FitzSimons, director of school and out-of-school time programs at the Research and Action Center (FRAC), told the outlet, "Schools, families, and states really did not want to go back to having the complicated school nutrition operations where some kids have access to free meals and other kids do not, and they have to struggle with unpaid debt."
The families of almost half a million food insecure children in Pennsylvania collectively owe nearly $80 million in public school lunch debt, according to Fetterman's office. Nationally, more than 30 million kids can't afford their school meals and the total debt is $262 million annually.
California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Vermont have all guaranteed universal free school meals, and Nevada has a policy in place for the 2022-23 school year only. While lawmakers in other states are working to pass similar bills, advocates have called for federal legislation to ensure all schoolchildren are fed.
In addition to the new debt cancellation bill, Fetterman is among the co-sponsors of the Universal School Meals Program Act, reintroduced in May by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.).
"It is downright cruel that we are letting our children in America go hungry," Fetterman said at the time. "No child in America should be worried about if they are going to be able to get breakfast, lunch, or dinner. I am proud and honored to co-sponsor this bill that will finally make sure that our children are fed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US High Schoolers Launch Green New Deal for 'Our Schools and Our Futures'
"Public schools belong to us, and we know we deserve better," said a Sunrise Movement organizer and the youngest school board member in Idaho.
Sep 25, 2023
In the face of right-wing attacks on public schools—including climate education—more than 50 high schools nationwide launched the Green New Deals for Schools campaign Monday.
The campaign, organized by the youth-led Sunrise Movement, is demanding that school boards and districts act to provide buildings powered with renewable energy; free, healthy, local, and sustainable meals; support for finding well-paying, unionized green careers; plans for extreme weather events; and instruction about the climate crisis.
"The Republican Party knows that they don't have the youth vote," Aster Chau, who organizes for Green New Deal for Schools while attending the Academy at Palumbo in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, said in a statement. "They've spent the last few years antagonizing students and teachers—eroding trust in public education—in order to distract from all of the problems they've created in our society. Today, we say no more—these are our schools and our futures."
The push comes as lawmakers in Republican-controlled states have increasingly attempted to mandate what can be taught in the classroom. In Georgia, for example, a "divisive concepts" law prohibits teachers from discussing nine race-related topics. This would include the unequal impacts of the climate crisis, The Guardian pointed out, and has had an overall chilling effect on educators' willingness to raise political issues in the classroom.
"We don't learn about climate change at all," 16-year-old Summer Mathis, who studies at North Cobb High School in Kennesaw, Georgia, told The Guardian.
In Texas, meanwhile, education officials are imposing their views on climate science textbooks, and in Idaho there is an ongoing dispute over whether or not the climate crisis can be included in the curriculum at all. Florida under Gov. Ron DeSantis has approved the use of PragerU Kids materials, which include climate denying and pro-fossil fuel talking points.
"It's really scary knowing that I'm underage, and can't vote to elect the people making these big decisions about our futures."
Beyond curriculum building, there are many things that schools in all states can do to better prepare for and fight the climate crisis.
Currently, public elementary, middle, and high schools use around 9% of the energy consumed by commercial buildings in the U.S., Lisa Hoyos, the national climate strategy director for the League of Conservation Voters, wrote in an op-ed for The Progressive Friday. Switching them all to renewable energy would have the same impact as removing 18 coal plants from the grid.
Schools can also do more to prepare for extreme weather events. In Philadelphia, for example, Chau started school during a heatwave in a building that lacked air conditioning, they told The Guardian.
"Being a youth right now is really scary," Chau said. "It's really scary knowing that I'm underage, and can't vote to elect the people making these big decisions about our futures, not having a say in that."
The new campaign is partly a way to change that.
"For too long, students have been left out of the decision-making spaces within our schools," Shiva Rajbhandari, a Sunrise Movement organizer who is also the youngest school board member in Idaho, said in a statement. "Students are the most important constituents of our school boards, and they deserve to call the shots for their own education. Public schools belong to us, and we know we deserve better."
The campaign comes out of a camp that the Sunrise Movement ran this summer to train hundreds of high school students to advocate for themselves and their communities.
The young people have older allies as well. This week Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass) will reintroduce their Green New Deal for Public Schools Act with hundreds of students present, according to The Guardian.
"Our generation is on the frontlines of this fight," 17-year-old campaign leader Adah Crandall said in a statement, "and it's time for our school districts to take real action."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!