Public Interest Career Counselor and Adjunct Professor
Over the
last week, the US Supreme Court rolled out significant rulings that promise to
shape our legal and political landscape. To enhance your own professional
development, consider publishing your own analysis and commentary on the
rulings. If you came to law school to work on controversies like these, make an
appointment at LCS to figure out how. Here are brief summaries of the rulings; you can access copies of the
decisions at www.supremecourt.gov. And to keep informed of Constitutional
trends, check out the American Constitutional Society's "What's
Next?" Conference Call Series: information at http://www.acslaw.org/WhatsNextSeries2014ABORTION CLINICS. The Supreme Court used the First Amendment to strike down a Massachusetts law that restricted demonstrators outside abortion clinics by setting up 35-foot buffer zones. The court upheld an 8-foot buffer zone in Colorado 14 years ago, but the current court tends to favor free speech rights. During oral arguments in January, most justices wondered whether the Massachusetts law went too far in keeping protesters far away from patients.
In an ironic twist, a plaintiff is already poised to challenge the Supreme Court having its own political speech buffer zone after the Court's ruling last week striking down buffer zones protecting healthcare access at clinics providing abortion services. You can read more about this new buffer zone case here: http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-abortion-buffer-zones-decision-2014-6
PRESIDENTIAL POWERS. The Court settled a constitutional showdown between the President and Congressional Republicans, siding with Congress and issuing a ruling favorable to employers. The ruling puts in question hundreds of decisions a federal labor board issued between 2012-13, covering a variety of disputes over union organizing, collective-bargaining agreements and employee-discipline cases.
Republicans in Congress had challenged appointments the President made to a federal labor board without Senate confirmation, because the President claimed lawmakers were in recess. The Senate was meeting every three days in pro-forma sessions. Siding with Congress, the Court's ruling shapes who has the upper hand between future presidents and Congresses when it comes to filling important executive branch posts. The ruling could have implicated past appointments by presidents dating back to George Washington, but "[t]he court's four liberals, joined by conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, declined to nearly eliminate the capability, as a lower court had done. The majority cited two centuries of historical practice in holding that the president may make temporary appointments when the Senate ceases conducting business for at least 10 days." (read more here: http://online.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-rules-nlrb-recess-appointments-invalid-1403791866
LABOR UNIONS. The Supreme Court issued a blow to unions' political and economic power by removing their right to represent workers who do not want to pay union dues.
For decades, the law has allowed unions to collect dues from all private or public employees they are required to represent. Eight home-care workers in Illinois challenged that law, arguing they should not be required to join, even though the union is required to represent them.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM / BIRTH CONTROL: The Affordable Care Act mandates that most employers provide health insurance coverage for contraceptives. Two for-profit companies with religious objections challenged that provision of the law: Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma-based arts and crafts retailer with evangelical Christian owners; and Conestoga Wood Specialties Inc., a Pennsylvania cabinet company with Mennonite owners.
The Court sided with the private companies in a broad-sweeping ruling that gives for-profit, private corporations the ability to opt out of laws based on the religious beliefs of corporate owners. Just how far this ruling will reach, even within the healthcare arena, is hard to tell. Justice Ginsburg raised a few areas of concern related to public health in her dissent. Read more here: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision
CONVERSION THERAPY: The Court declined to review a challenge to California’s law—which local groups National Center for Lesbian Rights and Equality California helped draft, pass, and defend—that protects LGBT children from conversion therapists. The decision clears the way for enforcement of the first law in the nation that protects children from practices aimed at changing their sexual orientation or gender expression.
CELL PHONES: The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that police may not search without a warrant the cell phones of people arrested -- a sweeping endorsement for privacy rights. This decision implicates most of us: a January Pew Research Center survey found more than 90 percent of Americans now own or regularly use a cellphone, and 58 percent have a smartphone.
Lower courts nationwide had been divided over how to apply a 40-year-old high court precedent allowing searches of a suspect's items after arrest. Home searches generally require warrants and are given greater constitutional protection than vehicles or a person in public. This ruling will impact the daily practice of police departments, prosecutors, and all courts nationwide.
