Last week was filled with the meaty decisions the Supreme Court wrestled with this term, and I was there for it, spending recent mornings keeping a close eye on the Supreme Court’s website and SCOTUS blog. Since I know you aren’t a nerd like me and prefer to spend your mornings with a cup of coffee rather than reading dry legal opinions, I am here to summarize some of the season’s biggest cases.
First off, the Court took on Medicaid-funded abortions in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, ruling 6-3 that a state may prohibit Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood. As a matter of federal law, federal funds can no longer fund abortions.
Planned Parenthood thought they would try to play it up that they do other things besides abortion, and should thus still receive funding. But the Court ruled against this right to funding, dealing another financial blow to Planned Parenthood. One can only hope it will decrease the likelihood of the organization’s survival.
The Court also struck down the practice of universal injunctions issued by District Courts. A relatively new practice in law – basically since Trump has been president – the dance happens when Trump issues an executive order, a leftist group sues, and the District Court issues an injunction prohibiting the order from enforcement across the country. Typically District Courts only can enjoin an action as to the parties to the case, as they are the lowest level in the federal court system and there is nothing in legal statues enabling them to issue such injunctions. This is a variable form of tyranny.
Justice Amy Coney Barret wrote the main opinion for the court on this case and it was fire. If you had any doubt whether she was a true conservative, or if she hated Trump so much that she moved to join the women of the left, let this rest your mind. Barrett was a civil procedure professor at one time, which is the area of law this issue touches. She knows her stuff and is passionate about it, which shows up in her writing. I must give a brief shoutout to my favorite quote from her opinion responding to Justice Jackson’s dissent:
We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.
I believe the legal term of this art is BURN!
Court decisions are read from the bench along with a summary of the opinions on their release date. For a justice to read a summary of their dissent, that justice is mad. In the injunctions case, however, the liberal justices read their opinions. Trump Derangement Syndrome is obviously strong.
Democrats must now find lawful means to enact their goals or actually act like the democracy they believe we are, rather than relying on universal injunctions to stop Trump’s agenda.
Another important decision occurred when the court ruled that a state may enact laws requiring porn websites to put age restrictions on their content. The Free Speech Coalition sued the state of Texas after it enacted one such a law claiming minors have a right to receive such speech and that it incidentally could infringe the right of adults to receive porn.
Justice Thomas issued the Court’s main opinion in this case, pointing out that the much relied upon Miller test does not completely encapsulate how much a state can regulate obscene speech. Further, the Court ruled that protecting children from sexually explicit speech is a specific interest that the states lawfully have, making it a special interest. I can only describe it as a kick in the balls to the left.
Perhaps Thomas read my satire article “Drink Freely,” because he pointed out that if you need age verification for alcohol consumption, there’s no reason there should not be one for pornography. Justice Thomas, if you’re reading this, my husband and I are your biggest fans.
I’ve been hearing arguments from the left for years that children have the right to receive any speech, and that books with obscene material in them must meet the Miller test. This decision absolutely silences that view. In fact, the Texas law at issue here would likely cause books I have seen in some public libraries to be removed. Do with that what you will.
I will wrap up this lengthy summary by discussing Mahmoud v. Taylor. The Court held that the parents of Montgomery County, Md., are likely to succeed on the merits of challenging the lack of opt out options when it comes to reading LGBTQ books in their young children’s curriculum. The Court agreed that the inability to opt out of this curriculum infringes freedom of religion and parental rights in raising a child.
It’s easy to think that these books just teach love and acceptance and inclusion. But while we can agree we should be kind to others, these books teach a moral viewpoint – that LGBTQ relationships should be normalized and are a moral good – as the best moral viewpoint, rejecting other moral viewpoints. Most religions would disagree that homosexual relationships or transgenderism are a moral good. And to train a child to go against their parents’ moral and religious teachings is to infringe on their religious liberty. Again, the issue is not teaching kindness, or that these things exist, or what the law is. The issue is the moral statements and teaching the one-sided view that these things are a moral good.
I could write at least an article on each case, and I would love to get into the case allowing for bans on the surgical mutilation of children, but alas, I am out of space. So bring me an iced coffee sometime and we’ll chat for hours over the sound of children playing. It’s great to be a conservative right now.
Laura Clark is a wife, mother, and community activist. She currently serves as the interim president of Alabama Center for Law and Liberty, a conservative nonprofit law firm that fights for limited government, free markets, and strong families in the courts. Anything written by Laura for this publication does not constitute legal advice.
The views and opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of 1819 News. To comment, please send an email with your name and contact information to [email protected].
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every weekday morning.
