by Hampton Jackson
LCS Intern
Staying current on legal issues is a great way to enhance your professional development. And one great way to do this is by following critical judicial opinions and publishing your own decision analysis. For students who came to law school to work in developing areas of law, now is a great time to schedule a meeting with your LCS counselor to discuss how you can contribute to jurisprudence.To inspire your creative legal minds, below are brief summaries of important, recent decisions from the US Supreme Court's last term. To access full copies of the decisions, visit here. Another great resource to check out on current Constitutional trends is the American Constitutional Society's "What's Next?" Conference Call.
Same-Sex Marriage
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, found that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to license same-sex unions, and to recognize a same-sex marriage lawfully licensed in another state. Same-sex marriages were already legal in 36 states; the Court's decision expanded the recognition of same-sex marriages to all states, and resolved the dispute between federal appeals courts over states' recognition of interstate marriages.
In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas, argued that the issue of same-sex marriage should have been left to the states because the issue did not have Constitutional foundation. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito also wrote dissents citing various objections to the Constitutional protection of same-sex marriage.
Lethal Injection
Three people on death row challenged the constitutionality of the use of the drug midazolam in Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol. Writing for the majority, Justice Alito stated that the people on death-row failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. First, the Court held that all Eighth Amendment method-of-executions claims require petitioners to identify an alternative method of execution that provides a lesser risk of pain, which the petitioners did not. Second, the petitioners failed to establish that Oklahoma's use of the sedative involved a substantial risk of severe pain.
Justice Sotomayor, in her dissenting opinion, argued that the Eighth Amendment should bar the use of the drug because it was unreliable and possibly exposed inmates to excruciating pain. Justice Breyer also wrote a dissenting opinion in which he discussed the constitutionality of the death penalty in general. He cited the lack of reliability, the arbitrary nature of the punishment, and the lack of penological purpose as reasons why the punishment is unfair, cruel, and unusual.
Health Care Subsidies
The Court held the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act may provide tax credits to help poor and middle-class individuals purchase health insurance. The six justice majority concluded the disputed phrase in the Affordable Care Act does not have to be interpreted literally, as meaning subsidies are unavailable in states that have not set up healthcare exchanges. Dissenting Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas argued that the phrase should be interpreted literally, and that Congress should determine the problem.
If the court had ruled against the Affordable Care Act, roughly 6.4 million people in 34 states would have lost their subsidies. In addition, people who purchased health insurance without government subsidies would likely have experienced increased insurance costs. The New York Times published an interesting article on the possible effects of the Court's decision.
Foreign Affairs
In an important separation-of-powers case, the Court held that the President has the exclusive power to recognize foreign states. The decision struck down Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003, which allowed the State Department to record "Israel" as the place of birth for American children born in Jerusalem. Justice Kennedy, writing for the six justice majority, argued the Constitution gives the president exclusive authority to determine the United States' recognition of a foreign state.
