Comment: Supreme Court was more divided than it might appear

Aside from a few high-profile cases, the court’s 6-3 split is clear and even the conservative majority is splintered.

By Adam Winkler / Special to The Washington Post

Some Supreme Court watchers would have you believe this was a term of narrow, moderate decisions mostly free of ideological rancor.

Indeed, the court has issued some compromise or near-unanimous rulings: upholding the Affordable Care Act (again), protecting the free speech rights of public-school students and curtailing the ability of the NCAA to limit benefits to student athletes. But although the justices did find a measure of consensus in some high-profile cases, a look just below the surface reveals deep fissures.

Begin with cases on the so-called shadow docket: orders and summary decisions issued by the court after expedited briefing and without oral argument. Although often issued at odd hours of the night and escaping public attention, these decisions resulted in several important rulings on contentious issues, and sparked plenty of ideological animosity and division. In a series of voting rights cases, the court’s majority shot down accommodations provided to voters on account of the pandemic — including curbside voting and extending the deadline for absentee ballots — over impassioned dissents by the liberal justices, who accused their colleagues of disenfranchising voters.

A similar split appeared in death penalty cases on the shadow docket. After a 17-year hiatus, the Trump administration resumed capital executions last summer using a new and controversial protocol — using a single drug, rather than the usual three — that challengers claimed caused extreme pain and suffering. The federal government executed 13 people, with the Republican-appointed majority turning aside every challenge, rarely with any explanation and often over the bitter dissents of the Democratic-appointed justices.

The shadow docket cases not only exposed the rifts among the justices; they also significantly reshaped the law. Historically, the shadow docket is used to grant extraordinary relief in straightforward cases that can be resolved by settled legal doctrine. This term, however, the Court’s majority used what the minority said was a series of “separate opinions and unreasoned orders” to significantly expand religious liberty, overturning covid-inspired limitations on large, in-person religious gatherings. The impact of the Court’s shadow docket rulings was described by a lower court panel of Republican-appointed judges as “a seismic shift in Free Exercise law.”

The shadow docket aside, the Supreme Court’s cases this term featured several significant decisions that demonstrated disunity. In two immigration cases, the Court’s conservative bloc, over the dissent of their liberal colleagues, made it easier to detain and deport noncitizens. Another 6-3 decision overturned a California law allowing unions limited access to farms to organize otherwise hard-to-reach migrant laborers, prompting the dissenters to warn of the consequences for a variety of health and safety laws that require temporary access to private property.

As the term wound down, the Court also issued 6-3 decisions upholding Arizona’s voter restrictions and striking down California’s law requiring charities to disclose their major donors. The liberal justices were again left to issue forceful dissents, which accused the majority of allowing racial discrimination in voting and needlessly calling into question basic campaign finance disclosure laws.

Other cases were unanimous in name only, masking stark disagreements. Although officially 9-0, the Court’s decision to limit the authority of police to enter a home in hot pursuit of a suspect led Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, in a separate concurrence that reads like a dissent, to castigate the majority decision as “absurd and dangerous.” While Roberts and Alito agreed the police search in this case was unconstitutional, they objected that the Court had placed too many barriers in the way of police chasing down criminal suspects.

Perhaps most notably, this term revealed new ideological divides among the conservatives themselves. Whereas Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Neil Gorsuch often urged the court to drastically and rapidly shift the law in a conservative direction, Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared to want to move at a more incremental pace. (It’s too early to know where Barrett fits in.)

This was apparent in one of the biggest cases of the term, involving a Catholic adoption agency that refused on religious grounds to place children in LGBTQ families. The justices unanimously sided with the agency, but on narrow, fact-specific grounds. In a spirited separate opinion more than five times as long as the majority opinion, Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch, complained: “Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed; as am I.”

To the extent there was any moderation or ideological consensus among the justices, it isn’t likely to last long anyway. The justices have agreed to hear a number of contentious, highly partisan issues next term, which begins in October. With the conservative majority poised to cut back abortion rights and expand individuals’ ability to carry guns on the streets, don’t be surprised next June if talk of surprising compromises has vanished and observers once again lament the justices’ deep, irredeemable divisions.

Adam Winkler is a professor at UCLA School of Law, where he teaches legal ethics and other subjects.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

toon
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, June 24

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Making adjustments to keep Social Security solvent represents only one of the issues confronting Congress. It could also correct outdated aspects of a program that serves nearly 90 percent of Americans over 65. (Stephen Savage/The New York Times) -- NO SALES; FOR EDITORIAL USE ONLY WITH NYT STORY SLUGGED SCI SOCIAL SECURITY BY PAULA SPAN FOR NOV. 26, 2018. ALL OTHER USE PROHIBITED.
Editorial: Congress must act on Social Security’s solvency

That some workers are weighing early retirement and reduced benefits should bother members of Congress.

Kristof: Bombing of Iranian nuclear sites leaves 3 key unknowns

We don’t know how Iran will respond, if the attacks were successful or if they can lead to a new regime.

Harrop: With success against Iranian targets, time to step back

Trump’s call to strike was right, as is his declaration to shift the conversation to negotiations.

Stephens: Trump made right call to block Iran’s nuclear plans

While there are unknowns, the bombing leaves Iran with few options other than negotiation.

Comment: Immigration crackdown has economic fallout for all

Undocumented workers are a major source of labor in many fields. Replacing them won’t be easy; or cheap.

Comment: Trump isn’t first president to treat press badly

It doesn’t excuse excluding the AP from the Oval Office, but presidential cold shoulders are nothing new.

THis is an editorial cartoon by Michael de Adder . Michael de Adder was born in Moncton, New Brunswick. He studied art at Mount Allison University where he received a Bachelor of Fine Arts in drawing and painting. He began his career working for The Coast, a Halifax-based alternative weekly, drawing a popular comic strip called Walterworld which lampooned the then-current mayor of Halifax, Walter Fitzgerald. This led to freelance jobs at The Chronicle-Herald and The Hill Times in Ottawa, Ontario.

 

After freelancing for a few years, de Adder landed his first full time cartooning job at the Halifax Daily News. After the Daily News folded in 2008, he became the full-time freelance cartoonist at New Brunswick Publishing. He was let go for political views expressed through his work including a cartoon depicting U.S. President Donald Trump’s border policies. He now freelances for the Halifax Chronicle Herald, the Toronto Star, Ottawa Hill Times and Counterpoint in the USA. He has over a million readers per day and is considered the most read cartoonist in Canada.

 

Michael de Adder has won numerous awards for his work, including seven Atlantic Journalism Awards plus a Gold Innovation Award for news animation in 2008. He won the Association of Editorial Cartoonists' 2002 Golden Spike Award for best editorial cartoon spiked by an editor and the Association of Canadian Cartoonists 2014 Townsend Award. The National Cartoonists Society for the Reuben Award has shortlisted him in the Editorial Cartooning category. He is a past president of the Association of Canadian Editorial Cartoonists and spent 10 years on the board of the Cartoonists Rights Network.
Editorial cartoons for Monday, June 23

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

In this Sept. 2017, photo made with a drone, a young resident killer whale chases a chinook salmon in the Salish Sea near San Juan Island, Wash. The photo, made under a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) permit, which gives researchers permission to approach the animals, was made in collaboration with NOAA Fisheries/Southwest Fisheries Science Center, SR3 Sealife Response, Rehabilitation, and Research and the Vancouver Aquarium's Coastal Ocean Research Institute. Endangered Puget Sound orcas that feed on chinook salmon face more competition from seals, sea lions and other killer whales than from commercial and recreational fishermen, a new study finds. (John Durban/NOAA Fisheries/Southwest Fisheries Science Center via AP)
Editorial: A loss for Northwest tribes, salmon and energy

The White House’s scuttling of the Columbia Basin pact returns uncertainty to salmon survival.

Comment: MAGA coalition may not survive U.S. attack on Iran

Split over Trump’s campaign promise of no ‘forever wars,’ his supporters are attacking each other.

Stephens: Here’s one path for Trump in dealing with Iran

The U.S. should bomb a nuclear facility at Fordo, but then follow with a carrot-and-stick offer.

Ask voters what they want done on immigration

Immigration Ask voters what they want done What a fine collection of… Continue reading

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.