Five big upcoming Supreme Court decisions

[Peter1469]

The ABA submitted an amicus brief in the Catholic case.

Supreme Court rules for Catholic foster agency that refuses to place children with same-sex couples

The ABA had submitted an amicus brief arguing that Catholic Social Services must adhere to the government’s nondiscrimination policies.

So this is the Court's reasoning:

Roberts said the case is not governed by the 1990 Supreme Court decision in Employment Division v. Smith, which applies when laws burdening religion are neutral and generally applicable. Smith said such laws are reviewed using a lower level of scrutiny, making them likely to survive a free exercise challenge.In this case, Philadelphia’s policies are not neutral and not generally applicable, so the highest level of scrutiny applies, Roberts said.


Roberts pointed to the city’s foster care contract, which gives the city “sole discretion” to grant an exemption to its policy of nondiscrimination. Because of the discretionary system, Philadelphia’s nondiscrimination requirement is not generally applicable, Roberts said.


Since Smith doesn’t govern, Philadelphia’s policy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, Roberts said. And the city has no compelling reason why it has a particular interest in denying an exception to Catholic Social Services but not to others.

So the case turned on which level of scrutiny applies to the case.

Determining a Level of Scrutiny

The court must determine whether it will be skeptical of government action, or be less nit-picky. That depends on the sensitivity of the issue. Certain liberties are more highly protected than others. Certain classes of people are more highly protected than others. These factors raise suspicion.


The court will evaluate various factors that are likely to raise suspicion to determine the level of scrutiny.


Spectrum

You can consider the levels of scrutiny as existing on a spectrum: where Rational-Basis Review is at one end and Strict Scrutiny is at the other.

[MMC]

The Democrats along with the Lame Stream media focused on how BO care was a major win for Deviant Joe. While not wanting to talk about his losses. Especially the Unanimous Ruling where JoeyBs Deviants lost.



Naturally JoeyB was given a few words to say about BO care. Then the AG of Texas spokeup and told The Deviants. He is just getting started in going after BO Care.

[Chris]

‘Alito was just pissed’: Trump’s Supreme Court breaks down along surprising lines

...Leading the charge from the right in both cases Thursday was Justice Samuel Alito, who penned caustic opinions taking his colleagues to task for issuing narrow rulings that seemed to him to be aimed at defusing political tensions rather than interpreting the law.

“After receiving more than 2,500 pages of briefing and after more than a half-year of post-argument cogitation, the Court has emitted a wisp of a decision that leaves religious liberty in a confused and vulnerable state. Those who count on this Court to stand up for the First Amendment have every right to be disappointed—as am I,” Alito wrote in the foster-care case, notwithstanding the Catholic charity’s unanimous victory.

In the Obamacare dispute, Alito sarcastically accused the majority of repeatedly indulging in flights of legal sophistry to avoid the politically unpalatable step of striking down the landmark health care law.

"No one can fail to be impressed by the lengths to which this Court has been willing to go to defend the ACA against all threats,” Alito wrote. "A penalty is a tax. The United States is a State. And 18 States who bear costly burdens under the ACA cannot even get a foot in the door to raise a constitutional challenge. Fans of judicial inventiveness will applaud once again. But I must respectfully dissent.”

...

[Standing Wolf]

The ABA submitted an amicus brief in the Catholic case.

Supreme Court rules for Catholic foster agency that refuses to place children with same-sex couples




So this is the Court's reasoning:



So the case turned on which level of scrutiny applies to the case.

My reading of the decision is that the clause in the foster care contract that granted the city the power to make exemptions to its nondiscrimination policy is ultimately what doomed the city's case. Roberts' speculation that other contracted groups might have been granted exemptions from the policy would really only be pertinent if any other groups actually had been, or even if any had attempted to receive an exemption.

[Chris]

Supreme Court rules against NCAA caps on student-athlete education-related gifts and benefits

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the NCAA in a long-running dispute over a cap on education-related gifts and benefits that schools may provide student-athletes.

The unanimous decision, upholding lower court rulings, says the cap on a relatively narrow list of education-related benefits -- such as scholarships for graduate school, computers, musical instruments, and tutoring expenses -- violates federal anti-trust law and must be lifted....