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
Unions Cheer After Judge Halts Trump Order on Federal Workers' Collective Bargaining Rights
"Today's court order is a victory for federal employees, their union rights, and the American people they serve," said the head of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Apr 25, 2025
Labor unions representing federal workers celebrated on Friday after a U.S. district judge blocked President Donald Trump's March executive order intended to strip the collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of government employees.
The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) swiftly took action over what union national president Doreen Greenwald called "an attempt to silence the voices of our nation's public servants," filing a lawsuit in in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.
Judge Paul Friedman, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, granted a preliminary injunction on Friday, blocking implementation of the executive order (EO), which aimed to restrict workers' rights under the guise of protecting national security.
CNNreported that during a Wednesday hearing, Friedman questioned "Trump's motive in issuing the order" and "the administration's contention that certain agencies have national security as their primary function, citing the National Institutes of Health, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Department of Agriculture."
Also reporting on the hearing earlier this week, Politicodetailed:
Attorneys representing the NTEU mentioned that the Trump administration, after issuing the EO, immediately sued an NTEU-affiliate union in Kentucky and Texas—federal districts dominated by Republican appointees.
Shortly after Friedman's hearing Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves, who is hearing the government's case in Kentucky, denied a request from a local NTEU chapter to postpone oral arguments that are scheduled for Friday. Reeves is an appointee of President George W. Bush. A decision in those cases could affect the NTEU's lawsuit before Friedman.
Still, the NTEU welcomed Freidman's Friday decision to halt what it called an "anti-union, anti-federal employee executive order" while also preparing for the Trump administration to "quickly appeal."
"Today's court order is a victory for federal employees, their union rights, and the American people they serve," said Greenwald. "The preliminary injunction granted at NTEU's request means the collective bargaining rights of federal employees will remain intact and the administration's illegal agenda to sideline the voices of federal employees and dismantle unions is blocked."
"NTEU will continue to use every tool available to protect federal employees and the valuable services they provide from these hostile attacks on their jobs, their agencies, and their legally protected rights to organize," she pledged.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation's largest federal workers union, also applauded Friday's news.
"AFGE congratulates our union siblings at NTEU on their important victory in the D.C. District Court today," said national president Everett Kelley. "This ruling is a major step toward restoring the collective bargaining rights that federal employees are guaranteed under the law."
Kelley added that "AFGE looks forward to arguing our own case against this unlawful executive order in federal court. We are confident that, together, these efforts will secure the full relief federal employees deserve—and send a clear message that no administration is above the law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Says Trump Arrest of Wisconsin Judge Is About One Thing Only: 'Unchecked Power'
"Let's be clear. Trump's arrest of Judge Dugan in Milwaukee has nothing to do with immigration. It has everything to do with his moving this country toward authoritarianism."
Apr 25, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders led congressional progressives on Friday in condemning the Trump administration's arrest of a county judge in Wisconsin for allegedly helping an undocumented man evade capture by federal immigration agents.
FBI agents arrested 65-year-old Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who faces felony charges of obstruction and concealing an individual, whom she is accused of giving refuge in her chambers as federal officers sought to arrest him.
In a statement accusing President Donald Trump of "illegally usurping congressional powers," Sanders (I-Vt.) said: "Let's be clear. Trump's arrest of Judge Dugan in Milwaukee has nothing to do with immigration. It has everything to do with his moving this country toward authoritarianism."
"Trump continues to demonstrate that he does not believe in the Constitution, the separation of powers, or the rule of law."
"He is suing media that he dislikes. He is attacking universities whose policies he disagrees with. He is intimidating major law firms who have opposed him," Sanders continued. "He is ignoring a 9-0 Supreme Court decision to bring Kilmar Abrego García back from El Salvador, where he was illegally sent. He is threatening to impeach judges who rule against him."
"Trump's latest attack on the judiciary and Judge Dugan is about one thing—unchecked power," the senator asserted. "He will attack and undermine any institution that stands in his way. Trump continues to demonstrate that he does not believe in the Constitution, the separation of powers, or the rule of law. He simply wants more and more power for himself."
"It is time for my colleagues in the Republican Party who believe in the Constitution to stand up to his growing authoritarianism," Sanders added.
Other progressive lawmakers also condemned Dugan's arrest, with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) calling this "a red alert moment" that we "all must rise against."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said on the social media site X: "Judge Dugan's arrest is outrageous and a fear tactic to our independent judiciary. Trump has always thought he was above the law, but now he's enabling his goons to push that limit as far as it can go. His reckless deportations and flaunting of the Constitution will fail."
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.)
said on social media that "arresting judges is the kind of crackdown you see in a police state."
"This is how dictators take power," Lee warned. "They manufacture crises, undermine our institutions, and erode our checks and balances. If they'll come for one, they'll come for all."
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) said that "Trump's playbook is simple: punish anyone who stands in his way."
"This ain't law and order—it's a rise of authoritarianism in real time," she added.
The FBI arrested a Wisconsin judge who stood up for due process for immigrants. This is unprecedented. All of us need to stand up and speak out against arresting judges in this country. We are living in dangerous times.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Ro Khanna ( @khanna.house.gov) April 25, 2025 at 11:07 AM
Accusing the Trump administration of a "shocking" willingness to "weaponize federal law enforcement," Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) contended that the FBI "coming into a community and arresting a judge is a serious matter" that would require a "high legal bar."
Moore added, "I am very alarmed at this increasingly lawless action of the Trump administration," including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has "been defying courts and acting with disregard for the Constitution."
Advocacy groups including Voces de la Frontera, Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression (MAARPR), and Milwaukee Turners led a Friday afternoon protest against Dugan's arrest outside the Milwaukee County Courthouse.
HAPPENING NOW: A HUGE crowd of protesters have gathered outside a Milwaukee courthouse to support Judge Hannah Dugan after her arrest earlier today
[image or embed]
— Marco Foster ( @marcofoster.bsky.social) April 25, 2025 at 1:46 PM
"To refer to this heinous attack as alarming would be an understatement," MAARPR said in a statement accusing FBI Director Kash Patel of "intentionally being public with his announcement and accusations" and "seeking to bypass Dugan's due process and label her as a criminal before she even has an opportunity to speak up."
"It's no coincidence that Patel and the FBI have acted this way when the agency has a long history of bypassing any due process," the group said. "They are seeking to send a clear message: Either you play along with Trump's agenda, or pay the consequences."
MAARPR continued:
During this period of racist and political repression, we must stand together to denounce today's actions by the FBI. What happened to Dugan is not new. The FBI and other agencies have been emboldened in recent months, snatching people off the streets, separating families, terrorizing communities, breaking doors down of pro-Palestine activists, and contributing to the unjust deportation of immigrants who don't have criminal records. What is new is that they have gone after a judge.
"The conditions we face are scary, but it will be the people united who can put an end to this terror by the FBI, ICE, and all other agencies committing such acts of injustice," the group added. "The people united will stand against Trump and his agenda."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Wants $27 Billion for Trump's Golden Dome 'Fantasy' While Working to Gut Working-Class Safety Net
"$27 billion for a golden defense dome, yet Republicans want to cut Medicaid," wrote one observer. "Vote accordingly in 2026."
Apr 25, 2025
As Republicans in Congress push forward with a sweeping tax and spending plan that could be be paid for in part by deep cuts to Medicaid and to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the GOP plans to add a defense package to that bill which will include "an initial $27 billion boost" for the Golden Dome desired by U.S. President Donald, according to Thursday reporting from Reuters.
Trump has said he wants an "Iron Dome for America"—something akin to Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defense. In a speech earlier this year he referred to it as a "Golden Dome."
Experts who spoke to NPR recently said that building a Golden Dome would be more complicated than Israel's Iron Dome for multiple reasons. Dylan Spaulding, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, earlier this week called the Golden Dome idea a "complete fantasy."
According to Reuters, which cited "a document" and a congressional aide, the $27 billion would be a part of a $150 billion defense package Republicans plan to introduce. "It will be part of Trump's sweeping tax cuts bill, which will cut taxes by about $5 trillion and add approximately $5.7 trillion to the federal government's debt over the next decade," per the outlet. The measure, if passed, will also fund the construction of 14 warships and increase homeland security spending.
"The $27 billion investment in Golden Dome will fund the building of more missile interceptors and the purchase of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) antiballistic missile batteries, according to the congressional aide. THAAD is made by Lockheed Martin," the defense contractor, Reuters reported.
According to reporting from the outlet last week, billionaire "Elon Musk's SpaceX and two partners have emerged as front-runners to win a crucial part of the Golden Dome program that would track incoming missiles."
Bob Peterson, a senior research fellow for strategic deterrence at the right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, applauded the move. Peterson shared Reuters' reporting and wrote on Friday: "This is an important start to building Golden Dome. I sincerely hope this passes so that missile defense will protect all Americans from our adversaries."
Not everyone is enthusiastic about the spending.
One observer wrote on social media: "Golden Dome missile defense shield? WTF. $27 billion for a golden defense dome, yet Republicans want to cut Medicaid and Social Security. Vote accordingly in 2026."
"More than 180 companies are interested, but Musk's Space X just so happens to be the 'front-runner' for the contracts," wrote Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), reacting to earlier reporting from Reuters about Musk's potential involvement in the project. "Shut this corrupt deal down. No cuts to Medicaid and Social Security to pay for more Musk contracts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular