U.S. Supreme Court: A year unlike any in recent memory
By Erwin Chemerinsky
It is 40 years since I started law school, and I cannot
remember a Supreme Court term with so many liberal victories in major cases.
What explains it and what is it likely to mean for the future?
|
U.S. Supreme Court |
The easiest explanation is that Anthony Kennedy voted with
the liberal justices much more often than in any prior term. There were 13
cases that split 5-4 along ideological lines, and in eight of them Justice
Kennedy joined Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor
and Elena Kagan. In five of them, Justice Kennedy joined Chief Justice John Roberts
and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. By contrast,
over the first nine years of the Roberts Court, Justice Kennedy joined the
conservatives about 70 percent of the time when the court was ideologically
split 5-4.
But that explanation does not tell the whole story. There
were a few cases where Justice Kennedy dissented, but the liberal justices were
still in the majority by attracting one or more of the other justices to join
them. Thus another key factor explaining the decisions was the cohesion
of the four most liberal justices – Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. They
voted together in 15 of the 19 5-4 decisions. Therefore, they needed to attract
only one additional vote to get a majority. One reflection of this is that for
the first time the justice most often in the majority was Breyer. He voted in
the majority 92 percent of the time. He also was the justice most often in the
majority in 5-4 decisions.
Does this mean that the Roberts Court has moved to the left?
Not at all. It always is dangerous to generalize from a single term. A year
ago, commentary on the court focused on the unanimity of the term: 66 percent
of the cases were decided unanimously. This year, only 34 percent of the cases
decided after briefing and oral argument were unanimous.
Next year, the court will be deciding cases about
affirmative action, voting rights, First Amendment rights of non-union members
and, most likely, abortion. These are all areas where Justice Kennedy is much
more likely to side with the conservative justices.
Marriage equality
The most high profile case of the term was Obergefell v.
Hodges, where the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that laws prohibiting same sex
marriage violate the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote for the court, joined by Justices Ginsburg,
Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. The court held that
the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two
people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the
same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.
|
Kennedy |
Justice Kennedy explained that
the court long has protected the right to marry as a fundamental right. It is safeguarded under both the due process and equal protection clauses. The court
examined the precedents concerning the right to marry and concluded, that
“[t]his analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the
right to marry.”
The court said that there is no difference between same-sex
and opposite-sex couples when it comes to the importance of marriage for
couples, for their children and for society. The court rejected that a
tradition of discrimination justifies continued discrimination. The court also
rejected the argument that marriage is about procreation and explained that
same-sex couples will procreate whether or not they can marry and their
children should have the benefit of married parents.
Each of the four dissenting justices – Chief Justice Roberts
and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito – wrote dissenting opinions. Each of the
dissenting justices accused the majority of undue judicial activism. Each of
the dissenting justices argued that the issue of marriage equality should be
left to the political process to resolve. Each emphasized the long tradition of
marriage being only for opposite sex couples.
The decision is truly historic and means that same-sex
couples now can marry everywhere in the United States.
Health care
In King v. Burwell, the court ruled that those who
qualify economically and purchase health insurance from exchanges created by
the federal government can receive tax credits.
The goal of the Affordable Care Act was to make sure that
almost all Americans have health care coverage. Prior to the Affordable Care
Act, approximately 50 million Americans were without health care coverage.
To make health insurance affordable, the act provides a
federal tax credit to low- and moderate-income Americans to offset the cost of
insurance policies. The act provides the credit to individuals who enroll in a
health plan “through an Exchange established by the State under Section
1311.” But the act also provides that if a state does not “elect” to create an
exchange, the federal government “shall establish and operate such exchange
within the State.”
Only 16 states have established exchanges to this point. In
the other 34 states, the exchanges are created by the federal government
pursuant to the act. The challengers argued that the statute provides for tax
credits only for those who purchase insurance from a state established
exchange.
The court ruled, 6-3, in favor of the United States and held
that those purchasing insurance from exchanges, whether created by the federal
government or the states, are entitled to tax credits. Chief Justice Roberts
wrote for the majority and acknowledged the ambiguity in the statutory
language. But he said that ruling for the challengers would collapse the health
care exchanges and that Congress surely could not have intended to give states
the ability to undermine the Affordable Care Act by refusing to create exchanges.
Chief Justice Roberts concluded his majority opinion by declaring: “Congress
passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to
destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is
consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.” It is estimated that as
many as 8 million people will continue to have health insurance because of this
decision.
Criminal law and procedure
In Glossip v. Gross, the court ruled, 5-4, that the
protocol used for lethal injection likely does not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In one of the major victories
for the conservative justices, Justice Alito wrote for the court, joined by
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas. The court held
that death-row inmates failed to establish a likelihood of success on the
merits of their claim that the use of midazolam, a sedative, as the first drug
in Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol violates the Eighth Amendment because
it fails to render a person insensate to pain. The court stressed that a person
challenging a method of execution has the burden to show that there are better,
more humane alternatives.
Justice Breyer, in a dissenting opinion, urged the court to reconsider
the constitutionality of the death penalty and presented the arguments as to
why he believes that it is unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote a concurring
opinion sharply disagreeing, defending the death penalty, and attacking Justice
Breyer’s reasoning.
In Ohio v. Clark, the court unanimously ruled that it
did not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Eighth Amendment when the
statements of a 3-year-old boy were introduced against a criminal defendant
without the boy testifying. In response to questions from his teacher, the boy
had said that he had been beaten by his mother’s boyfriend, Darius Clark. In Crawford
v. Washington (2004), the court held that prosecutors cannot use
testimonial statements from unavailable witnesses even if they are reliable.
But in Ohio v. Clark the court ruled that the
statements were not testimonial because they were not made with the primary
purpose of creating evidence for prosecution. This is an important
clarification of what it means for a statement to be “testimonial:” It must
have been made with the primary purpose of creating evidence for the
prosecution.
There were three Fourth Amendment cases. In Heien v.
North Carolina, the court held that the Fourth Amendment is not violated
when a police officer makes a reasonable mistake of law to justify a traffic
stop. In Rodriguez v. United States, the court ruled that a police officer may not extend an already completed traffic stop
for a canine sniff without reasonable suspicion or other lawful justification.
The duration of a traffic stop is limited to that needed to carry out the
functions of the stop: writing out a ticket, checking the validity of the
license and license plates and seeing if there are any outstanding warrants for
the driver or passengers.
Finally, in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, the court declared
unconstitutional Los Angeles Municipal Code Section
41.49, which requires hotel operators to record and keep specific information
about their guests on the premises for a 90-day period and to make those
records available to "any officer of the Los Angeles Police Department for
inspection" on demand. The court said that it is facially unconstitutional
because it fails to provide the operators with an opportunity for precompliance
review.
Freedom of speech
One of the most basic principles of the First Amendment is
that the government cannot engage in content-based restrictions on speech
unless strict scrutiny is met – that is, unless the law is necessary to achieve
a compelling government purpose. The court applied this in Reed v. Town of
Gilbert.
Gilbert, Arizona, has an ordinance that limits outdoor signs
that can be displayed. It prohibits the display of outdoor signs without a
permit, but exempts 23 categories of signs. For example, the ordinance was
permissive as to political signs, but very restrictive as to signs giving
directions to events. A challenge was brought by the Good News Community Church
(Church) and its pastor, Clyde Reed, whose Sunday church services are held at
various temporary locations in and near the town. The church relies on signs to
let people know where worship services are being held.
The court unanimously declared this ordinance
unconstitutional. The Gilbert ordinance is content-based, in that it treats
different types of signs – such as ideological or political signs – differently.
The court noted that, “The restrictions in the Sign Code that apply to any
given sign thus depend entirely on the communicative content of the sign.” The court,
in an opinion by Justice Thomas, said that because the law was content-based it
had to meet strict scrutiny – that is, be narrowly tailored to achieving a
compelling purpose. The court said the ordinance failed this test. The court,
and Justice Alito in a concurring opinion, stressed that content-neutral sign
regulations would be allowed.
Although the strict scrutiny used for content-based laws is
an exacting test, it is not always fatal. In Williams-Yulee v. Florida State
Bar, the court found that a law was content-based, but nonetheless upheld
it. Florida, like 30 other states, has a law prohibiting candidates for elected
judicial office from personally soliciting or receiving funds. In a 5-4
decision, with Chief Justice Roberts writing the opinion for the court that was
joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, the court upheld this
as constitutional. The court began by declaring: “Judges are not politicians,
even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot. And a State’s decision
to elect its judiciary does not compel it to treat judicial candidates like
campaigners for political office.” In upholding the Florida law, the court opened
the door to allowing other regulation of speech in judicial elections.
Although the government cannot engage in content-based
regulation of speech unless it meets strict scrutiny, the court has held that
this does not apply when the government itself is the speaker. This was the
basis for the court’s holding in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of
Confederate Veterans. Texas allows non-profit groups to have the State of
Texas produce license plates with particular messages. The Texas Division of
the Sons of Confederate Veterans proposed a specialty license plate design featuring
a Confederate battle flag, and the board of the Department of Motor Vehicles
rejected this.
The court held that the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles
Board did not violate the First Amendment in rejecting the Confederate flag
license plate. Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion that was joined by
Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, and ruled that license plates
are government speech, and when the government is the speaker it cannot violate
the speech clause of the First Amendment.
Conclusion
Summarizing just these cases is enough to explain why it was
a historic year in the Supreme Court and how much its decisions will affect so
many people, often in the most important and intimate aspects of their lives.
Chemerinsky is a distinguished professor of law, a Raymond
Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law and dean at the University of California
Irvine School of Law