Supreme Court's conservatives overturn precedent as liberals ask 'which cases the court will overrul
Source: Washington Post
Courts & Law
Supreme Courts conservatives overturn precedent as liberals ask which cases the court will overrule next
By Robert Barnes
May 13 at 12:36 PM
The Supreme Courts conservative majority overturned a 41-year-old precedent Monday, prompting a pointed warning from liberal justices about which cases the court will overrule next. ... The issue in Mondays 5 to 4 ruling was one of limited impact: whether states have sovereign immunity from private lawsuits in the courts of other states. In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled that there is no constitutional right to such immunity, although states are free to extend it to one another and often do.
But the courts conservative majority overruled that decision, saying there was an implied right in the Constitution that means states could not be haled involuntarily before each others courts, in the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote Mondays decision. ... Thomas acknowledged the departure from the legal doctrine of stare decisis, in which courts are to abide by settled law without a compelling reason to overrule the decision.
But he said the courts decision four decades ago in Nevada v. Hall is contrary to our constitutional design and the understanding of sovereign immunity shared by the states that ratified the Constitution. Stare decisis does not compel continued adherence to this erroneous precedent.
As was evident during the confirmation hearings of President Trumps nominees to the Supreme Court Justices Neal M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh liberals are worried about what other court precedents the newly fortified conservative majority will find wrongly decided. ... Justice Stephen G. Breyer clearly had other issues abortion rights, for instance, or affirmative action in mind in his dissent. ... It is dangerous to overrule a decision only because five members of a later court come to agree with earlier dissenters on a difficult legal question, Breyer wrote, adding: Todays decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next.
....
The case is Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt.
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Follow https://twitter.com/scotusreporter
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-courts-conservatives-overturn-precedent-as-liberals-ask-which-cases-the-court-will-overrule-next/2019/05/13/b4d3c4f8-7595-11e9-bd25-c989555e7766_story.html
Supreme Courts conservatives overturn precedent as liberals ask which cases the court will overrule next
Link to tweet
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,829 posts)Kavanaugh sided with the four liberals in favor of consumers, buyers of apps from the Apple Store. This totally pissed off Gorsuch, who argued in his dissent that the majority was upending precedent. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-204_bq7d.pdf
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,586 posts)Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)so when it comes to Roe v Wade, the precedent will already been set that SCOTUS doesn't need to be held to stare decisis?
ancianita
(36,132 posts)Not immediately. But the groundwork looks as if it's being laid.
But the wrong kind -- constitutionally shaky ground.
It's like the Constitution is getting fracked.
It seems as if there will be legal earthquakes in this country.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)I'm not sure the Constitution doesn't protect one state from being hauled into the court of another state, and to me, the federal courts were designed for state on state cases.
No state should be permitted to do so to another state. Unless some states are more equal than others.
TygrBright
(20,763 posts)zaj
(3,433 posts)It's either stated or not
I don't get that. Unless all of conservative legal doctrine is just convenient arguments made at any given moment designed to sound more credible than "we get what we want and we want what gets us power".
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,591 posts)Just remember that was the answer each of the conservative justice candidates gave when asked about Roe v. Wade. "It's settled law."
So was Nevada v. Hall, which was decided 40 years ago.
You can start the countdown clock for the end of Roe v. Wade.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)I wish at least one of the parties had thought it was worth fighting for.
LastLiberal in PalmSprings
(12,591 posts)Omaha Steve
(99,700 posts)iluvtennis
(19,868 posts)AdamGG
(1,294 posts)Hopefully, if he's writing the decisions now, he feels too vital to retire under Trump.
DallasNE
(7,403 posts)This ruling means that no prior ruling is safe from being overturned. Not even those that were decided 9-0, like Nixon on the tapes, are safe.
riversedge
(70,285 posts)AZ8theist
(5,487 posts)Get used to it.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,586 posts)I agree fully with @stevenmazie here. Breyer is talking about constitutional precedents well beyond abortion rights. And Breyers concerns seem amply justified.
Link to tweet
You'll have to unroll this:
My reading of Breyer's ominous rumination today (Todays decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next) is a bit different from most takes I've seen. It's not, I think, just a warning about the fragility of abortion rights. 1/7
Link to tweet
When I look back at 2016 I kept tweeting and saying that SCOTUS was the prize and that is all you have to think about nothing else. You know who I worry about a lot are the Native American People and their Sovereign Land. Donors would love access & that's precedent.
Link to tweet