www.abajournal.com Open in urlscan Pro
2606:4700:20::681a:3d0  Public Scan

Form analysis
2 forms found in the DOM

POST https://www.abajournal.com/

<form class="navbar-form navbar-right form-horizontal" role="search" method="post" action="https://www.abajournal.com/">
  <div class="hiddenFields">
    <input type="hidden" name="ACT" value="117">
    <input type="hidden" name="site_id" value="1">
    <input type="hidden" name="csrf_token" value="295cea637401723ddefe8ac06d9b60b4e4aab719">
  </div>
  <div class="row form-group">
    <div class="col-xs-8">
      <input type="text" name="keywords" id="keywords" class="form-control" placeholder="Search">
    </div>
    <div class="col-xs-4">
      <button type="submit" class="btn btn-default" style="background-color:#870000; color:#fff;">Submit</button>
    </div>
  </div>
</form>

GET

<form action="" method="get">
  <select class="form-control" name="topic_jump_menu" id="topic_jump_menu" onchange="MM_jumpMenu('parent',this,0)">
    <option value="#">Choose a topic to explore ... </option>
    <option value="/topic/career_practice">Career &amp; Practice</option>
    <option value="/topic/constitutional_law">Constitutional Law</option>
    <option value="/topic/contracts">Contracts</option>
    <option value="/topic/corporate+law">Corporate Law</option>
    <option value="/topic/criminal+justice">Criminal Justice</option>
    <option value="/topic/education+law">Education Law</option>
    <option value="/topic/legal_ethics">Ethics</option>latest <option value="/topic/entertainment+sports+law">Entertainment &amp; Sports Law</option>
    <option value="/topic/family+law">Family Law</option>
    <option value="/topic/federal_government">Federal Government</option>
    <option value="/topic/bryan_garner_on_words">Bryan Garner on Words</option>
    <option value="/topic/harper_lee_prize">Harper Lee Prize for Legal Fiction</option>
    <option value="/topic/health+law">Health Law</option>
    <option value="/topic/lawschools">Law Schools</option>
    <option value="/topic/trials+litigation">Litigation</option>
    <option value="/topic/media+communications+law">Media &amp; Communications Law</option>
    <option value="/topic/medical+malpractice">Medical Malpractice</option>
    <option value="/topic/practice_management">Practice Management</option>
    <option value="/topic/practice_technology">Practice Technology</option>
    <option value="/topic/public_interest">Public Interest</option>
    <option value="/topic/real+estate+property+law">Real Estate &amp; Property Law</option>
    <option value="/topic/question+of+the+week">Question of the Week</option>
    <option value="/topic/u.s.+supreme+court">Supreme Court</option>
    <option value="/topic/technology">Technology</option>
    <option value="/topic/tort+law">Tort Law</option>
    <option value="/topic/white+collar+crime">White Collar Crime</option>
  </select>
</form>

Text Content

Toggle navigation
 * My ABA
 * Events
 * CLE Marketplace
 * Shop ABA
 * Member Directory
 * Join
 * Log In




 * News
   * Latest News
   * Topics
   * Features
 * Latest Issue
 * Podcasts
   * Asked and Answered
   * Legal Rebels
   * Modern Law Library
 * Columnists
   * Advocacy
   * Bryan Garner on Words
   * Intersection
   * On Well-Being
   * Mind Your Business
   * My Path to Law
   * Storytelling
   * Supreme Court Report
   * Your Voice
   * Adam Banner
   * Ari Kaplan
   * Erwin Chemerinsky
   * Marcel Strigberger
   * Nicole Black
   * Susan Smith Blakely
 * Members Who Inspire

Submit


 1. Home
 2. Columns
 3. Chemerinsky: This SCOTUS term moved the law…

U.S. Supreme Court


CHEMERINSKY: THIS SCOTUS TERM MOVED THE LAW 'DRAMATICALLY IN A CONSERVATIVE
DIRECTION'

By Erwin Chemerinsky

July 7, 2022, 8:46 am CDT

 * 
    
 *  
 * Share  
 *  
 * 



Erwin Chemerinsky. Photo by Jim Block.



The U.S. Supreme Court's October 2021 term was one of the momentous in history.
The only analogy I can think of is 1937 for its dramatic changes in
constitutional law. This is the first full term with Justice Amy Coney Barrett
on the high court, and we saw the enormous effects of having a 6-3 conservative
majority.


THE OCTOBER 2021 TERM BY THE NUMBERS

In the October 2021 term, the Supreme Court decided 60 cases after briefing and
oral argument. That is slightly more than the 53 and the 54 from the prior two
years but still significantly less than it used to be.

Of the 60 cases, 19 were decided 6-3, and nine were decided by a 5-4 margin.
Only 29% were unanimous, the smallest in recent memory. Chief Justice John
Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh were most often in the majority, in 95% of
the cases. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was least often in the majority, in just 58%
of the decisions.


MOVING THE LAW DRAMATICALLY IN A CONSERVATIVE DIRECTION

But these numbers hide the reality: Virtually every major case was resolved in a
conservative direction. According to an analysis by the New York Times, this was
the most conservative term since 1931. The court’s rulings were on some of the
most divisive issues in American society, and in each, the court divided
ideologically and moved the law sharply to the right.

Abortion: This term will be most remembered for the June 24 ruling in Dobbs v.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade and
Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held that no longer does the Constitution
protect a woman’s right to abortion prior to viability. The issue of abortion is
now left to the political process, with each state able to decide for itself
whether to allow abortions or to prohibit some or all abortions. Also, Congress
could adopt a law creating a national right to abortion or forbidding all
abortions.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the court, which was joined by
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. The court said
Roe was “egregiously wrong” and “exceedingly weak.” Alito’s majority opinion
said a right should be protected under the Constitution only if it is in the
text or was part of its original meaning or if there is a clear, unbroken
historical tradition. Abortion, the court said, does not meet these criteria.

Roberts concurred in the judgment. He would have upheld the Mississippi law that
prohibits abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy but without reaching the
question of whether to overrule Roe.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sotomayor wrote a joint dissent. They
defended Roe and lamented the court’s disregard for precedents. The dissenters
stressed the impact of the court’s decision on women’s lives and concluded their
opinion, “In overruling Roe and Casey, this court betrays its guiding
principles. With sorrow—for this court, but more, for the many millions of
American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we
dissent.”

Religion: In two decisions, the court strongly protected free exercise of
religion but gave little, if any, weight to the establishment clause of the
First Amendment. Carson v. Makin involved a Maine law that applies in areas that
are too rural to support public school systems. In these areas, school
administrative units provide funds for parents to send their children to private
schools. Maine requires that the money be used in secular, not “sectarian”
schools. Maine says its goal is to provide a free, secular education for every
student.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, ruled in
favor of the challengers and concluded that Maine violated free exercise of
religion in not subsidizing parochial school education. Roberts wrote the
opinion for the court and held that whenever the government financially supports
secular private schools, it is constitutionally required to subsidize religious
education.

The other case about religion was Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. Joseph
Kennedy, a football coach at a public school in Bremerton, Washington. There was
significant disagreement between the majority and the dissent over the facts.

After games, Kennedy, a self-described devout Christian, would kneel at the
50-yard line engage in a prayer for about 30 seconds. Over time, Kennedy began
giving short Christian motivational speeches at midfield after the games.
Students, coaches and other attendees from both teams participated. The school
district ordered that Kennedy cease his religious activities. He initially
complied and then openly defied the order and was suspended.

The Supreme Court, in another 6-3 decision, ruled that Kennedy’s constitutional
rights to free exercise of religion and freedom of speech were violated. Gorsuch
wrote the opinion for the court and declared: “Respect for religious expressions
is indispensable to life in a free and diverse republic—whether those
expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest
through the spoken word or a bowed head.”

At the very least, this decision means that a teacher—before the school day,
during recess, at lunch, after school—may engage in prayer, and it is fine for
students to join. This departs from 60 years of precedents, which had firmly
prohibited prayer in public schools.

Also, the Supreme Court overruled its 1971 decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, which
held that the government violates the establishment clause if it acts with the
purpose of advancing religion or its primary effect to advance or inhibit
religion or if there is excessive government entanglement with religion.



Administrative law: The most important decision about administrative law came
down on the last day of the term in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection
Agency, which involves the authority of the EPA to regulate power plants to
limit their greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants.

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the EPA was limited in its ability to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants because Congress had not
been sufficiently specific in granting this power in the Clean Air Act. The
court said that the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power
plants is a “major question,” and that when there is a major question, there
must be explicit statutory provisions giving the federal agency the power to
act. Roberts, writing for the court, declared that, “something more than a
merely plausible textual basis for the agency action is necessary. The agency
instead must point to ‘clear congressional authorization’ for the power it
claims.”

The decision is significant in limiting the ability of the EPA to deal with the
urgent problem of climate change. It also opens the door to challenges to
countless federal laws that empower federal agencies to deal with issues,
including those involving public health and safety. The court says that Congress
must be specific in authorizing agency action when there is a “major question,”
but never has the court defined what is a major question or what is sufficiently
specific to meet this requirement.

Second Amendment: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
involves a New York law, initially adopted in 1911, that prohibits having
weapons in public without a permit. If a person wants to carry a firearm outside
the home or place of business for self-defense, the applicant must obtain an
unrestricted license to “have and carry” a concealed “pistol or revolver.” To
secure that license, the applicant must prove that “proper cause exists” to
issue it. New York courts have interpreted this to require that a person
“demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the
general community.”

In a 6-3 decision, with the majority opinion written by Thomas, the court
declared the New York law unconstitutional. The court was explicit that “the
Second and 14th amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for
self-defense outside the home.” The court held that state laws are
unconstitutional if they restrict having concealed weapons to those who show
cause.


THE EMPHASIS ON HISTORY

In these and other cases, the court made clear that the meaning of a
constitutional provision by the historical understanding and practices when it
was adopted. For example, in striking down the New York gun law, the court
declared: “To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that
the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must
demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical
tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with
this nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s
conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’” Thomas
wrote, the Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the
people,” and it “surely elevates above all other interests the right of
law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms” for self-defense. This will make
gun regulations of all sorts open to constitutional challenge.

Similarly, in ruling in favor of the high school football coach, the court said
that meaning of the establishment clause must be interpreted by “reference to
historical practices and understandings.” The line that courts and governments
“must draw between the permissible and the impermissible” has to “accor[d] with
history and faithfully reflec[t] the understanding of the Founding Fathers.”

The court in these, and other cases, embraced originalism in determining the
meaning of the Constitution. The liberal justices strongly disagreed with this
methodology, as well as the results.


IN CONCLUSION

These are only a few of the major decisions from the term. And next year
portends more blockbuster rulings, as the court already has on the docket cases
about whether to overrule precedents allowing colleges and universities to
engage in affirmative action, whether a business has a right to discriminate and
refuse to provide services to same sex couples, and whether only state
legislatures may make rules for state elections.

At a time when the country is deeply politically polarized, the Supreme Court
has emphatically come down on one side of this divide. It is unclear what this
will mean in the long term for the court’s legitimacy of American society.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of
Law. He is an expert in constitutional law; federal practice; civil rights and
civil liberties; and appellate litigation. He’s the author of several books,
including The Case Against the Supreme Court (Viking, 2014) and The Religion
Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State, written with Howard Gillman
(Oxford University Press, 2020). His latest book is Presumed Guilty: How the
Supreme Court Empowered the Police and Subverted Civil Rights (Liveright, 2021).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of
the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RELATED TOPICS:

U.S. SUPREME COURT | STATES | ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | FIRST AMENDMENT |
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW | EDUCATION LAW | TRIALS & LITIGATION | ENVIRONMENTAL LAW |
GOVERNMENT | HEALTH LAW | LEGAL HISTORY | MISSISSIPPI | NEW YORK | WASHINGTON |
WEST VIRGINIA | MAINE | VERDICTS & SETTLEMENTS | RELIGIOUS LAW | PRIVACY LAW |
SECOND AMENDMENT | PUBLIC INTEREST | NATURAL RESOURCES | FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT |
COLUMNS | ERWIN CHEMERINSKY | ABORTION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

 * Weekly Briefs: Jan. 6 panel subpoenas ex-White House counsel; former Judge
   Alex Kozinski represents Trump
 * Abortion 'abolitionists' seek equal protection rights for fetuses,
   prosecutions of women
 * How the decision overturning Roe v. Wade affects insurance coverage for
   abortions and related litigation

GIVE US FEEDBACK, SHARE A STORY TIP OR UPDATE, OR REPORT AN ERROR.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MOST READ

 1. Lawyer is disbarred after trying to run his law practice from jail
 2. Weekly Briefs: Jan. 6 panel subpoenas ex-White House counsel; former Judge
    Alex Kozinski represents
 3. Bar examinees have little success with accommodation requests and say the
    process is stressful
 4. Judge who wasn't satisfied with plea deal kicks entire prosecutor's office
    off the case
 5. Suit seeks damages for traumatic event witnessed over FaceTime; bystander
    definition at issue

Latest featured news ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TOPICS: CAREER & PRACTICE




WEEKLY BRIEFS: JAN. 6 PANEL SUBPOENAS EX-WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL; FORMER JUDGE ALEX
KOZINSKI REPRESENTS TRUMP

Complete list of topics ...
Choose a topic to explore ... Career & Practice Constitutional Law Contracts
Corporate Law Criminal Justice Education Law Ethicslatest Entertainment & Sports
Law Family Law Federal Government Bryan Garner on Words Harper Lee Prize for
Legal Fiction Health Law Law Schools Litigation Media & Communications Law
Medical Malpractice Practice Management Practice Technology Public Interest Real
Estate & Property Law Question of the Week Supreme Court Technology Tort Law
White Collar Crime


YOUR VOICE




HOW TO TAKE A SELF-DEPOSITION TO 'RIGHT' YOUR FUTURE

Articles and commentary ...



PODCASTS




AUTHORS OF '50 LESSONS FOR HAPPY LAWYERS' SHARE SOME TOP TIPS

More podcasts ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 * ABA Journal
 * American Bar Association
 * 321 N Clark St
 * Chicago, IL 60654-7598
 * 800-285-2221
 * 312-988-5522

 * Features
 * Photo Galleries
 * Magazine Back Issues
 * Magazine Digital Edition
 * RSS Feed
 * Search
 * Corrections

 * About the ABA Journal
 * Authors
 * Code of Conduct
 * Contests
 * Privacy Policy
 *  California Privacy Rights
 * Terms of Use

 * Contact the ABA Journal
 * Advertise
 * Email Newsletters
 * Letters to the Editor
 * Reprints
 * Tips & Pitches

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Copyright 2022 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.



COOKIE USE POLICY

This website uses cookies to make the website work properly and to provide the
most relevant products and services to our members and site visitors.

Privacy Policy


Yes