Eroding our rights in the legal system
The Supreme Court took on five cases that limit the ability of Americans to defend themselves in acourt of law.
1. In Shinn v. Ramirez, thecourt ruled 6-3that federal judges cannot hear new evidence from death row inmates, arguing that their state-appointed lawyers did not provide constitutionally adequate defense, eviscerating the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. The Sixth Amendment guarantees everyone the right to an effective, competent attorney, even if they cant pay.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated that the perverse decision hamstrings the federal courts authority to safeguard [the Sixth Amendment] right and that the Courts decision will leave many people who were convicted in violation of the Sixth Amendment to face incarceration or even execution without any meaningful chance to vindicate their right to counsel. Across the term, the court chipped away at incarcerated peoples rights, and made it more difficult for them to bring writs of habeas corpus, which are one of the most powerful means of challenging wrongful convictions and sentences.
2. In another 6-3 ruling, the court chipped away at our Miranda rightsthe rights given to people in the United States upon arrest since the 1966 rulingMiranda v. Arizona, requiring that law enforcement inform suspects of their right to remain silent, to have legal representation, and against self-incrimination. In Vega v. Tekoh, the court ruled 6-3 along partisan lines that Americans cannot sue officers who fail to inform them of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney during an arrest. By removing consequences for violating someones Miranda rights, the court almost certainly made it more likely that law enforcement will infringe upon peoples rights and put their legal status and safety at risk.
3. The Supreme Courts assault on the Constitution included going after Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. In Egbert v. Boule, the court heldagain 6-3 along partisan linesthat border patrol officers who violate the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be sued. That gives these officers more power to search the homes of anyone within 100 miles of a border without fear of consequence.
That ruling does not just affect immigrants. Its everyone who lives within the border zonenearlytwoout of three Americans. The ruling doesnt take away your Fourth Amendment rights under the Constitution. It just makes it easier for border patrol, and potentially other federal law enforcement agents, to get away with violating them.
4. The Trump-packed court majority denied every stay of execution application that came before it last session, eliminating rights for vulnerable people facing execution. The Supreme Court denied the emergency stay of execution petitions and overruled two stays of execution ordered by lower courts, allowing all 13 people who applied for relief to be put to death.
Four of the people awaiting execution had intellectual disabilities. Four were challenging Oklahomas lethal injection protocolsa state which has a cruel history of botched executionsbut the court refused to halt their executions. Ultimately, one of the people executed in Oklahoma, John Grant,asphyxiated on his own vomit during the lethal injection. A lower court had stayed Grants execution, but the Supreme Court reversed that order and pushed the execution forward; he was killed just hours later.
5. The court used its shadow docket to shield police who use excessive force from accountability. In Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna and City of Tahlequah, OK v. Bond, theCourt reversed two lower court decisions denying qualified immunity for officers involved in two excessive force cases. One of the cases involved a fatal shooting. Qualified immunity shields police officers from accountability for their actions in excessive force claims, allowing them to essentially torture at will. Doing so almost certainly makes it more likely that officers will use excessive force. This is from the shadow docket, so no justices fingerprints are on the decision.
6. In three voting rights cases, the Supreme Court instituted racially gerrymandered maps in three separate states. In a trifecta of voting rights casesMerrill v. Milligan, Wisconsin Legislature v. Wisconsin Elections Commission, andArdoin v. Robinsonthe court continued its assault on the Voting Rights Act through three shadow docket decisions that undermine Black voting power.
In February, the court allowed Alabama to reinstate a racist voting map after a lower court held the map was unlawful. Several weeks later, the court threw out a Wisconsin Supreme Court redistricting ruling that adopted a map adding a majority-Black seat to the state legislature. And in the last week of the term, the court intervened to revive Louisianas racially gerrymandered congressional map, which had been blocked by a lower court.
7. The court made it extremely difficult for immigrants to get help when the government violates their rights. InGarland v. Gonzalez, the courts conservative supermajority ruled 6-3 on partisan lines that noncitizens cannot receive class-wide injunctive relief when the government violates the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). As a result, when the government violates the rights of a whole class of noncitizens, courts are unable to require immigration officers to provide relief like bond hearings to all affected people; instead, each individual noncitizen must separately request and be given a bond hearing.
On the same day, June 13, the court issued an 8-1 decision in Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, holding that noncitizens are not entitled to specialized bond hearings after being detained more than six months. Together, these two cases leave many vulnerable noncitizens without recourse to defend their rights and could leave people in detention indefinitely.
8. The court also harmed resident immigrants, leaving thousands without recourse to challenge unfair Board of Immigration Appeals decisions. InPatel v. Garland, the court ruled that federal courts cannot review decisions made by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appealsleaving some of the most vulnerable among us without recourse to challenge unfair decisions. Pankajkumar Patel, who has lived and worked in the U.S. for more than 30 years and raised a family here, was denied permanent residence status because of a mistake on his drivers license application years ago. The Supreme Court shut down his ability to fight that decision, and he and his wife face deportation proceedings without recourse.
9. The court denied U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico their right to access certain Social Security benefits in U.S. v. Vaello-Madero. Jose Luis Vaello Madero was a recipient of SSI benefits while living in New York, and then moved to Puerto Rico in 2013. He continued to receive benefits, but when the government discovered he had moved, they ended his benefits and sought to claw back $28,000 from him. He sued, arguing that the exclusion of Puerto Rico residentsU.S. citizensviolates the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendments Due Process Clause. The court held that the U.S. government can deny SSI benefits to disabled U.S. citizens living in Puerto Ricoresidents who are overwhelmingly Latinoand people of color. More than 300,000 people were impacted by this ruling.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor noted that the decision is especially devastating because Puerto Rico has no congressional representation, and therefore has no other means to correct the punishing disparities suffered by citizen residents of Puerto Rico under Congress unequal treatment.
10. The court issued a devastating blow to tribal sovereignty inOklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, upending decades of precedent and basic principles of federal Indian law to strip power away from tribes in criminal justice matters on native lands. National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) President Fawn Sharp called the ruling an attack on tribal sovereignty and the hard-fought progress of our ancestors to exercise our inherent sovereignty over our own territories.
It was only a few months ago that Congress loudly supported tribal sovereignty and tribal criminal jurisdiction with the passage of the Violence Against Womens Act, reaffirming the right of Tribal Nations to protect their own people and communities, but make no mistake, today, the Supreme Court has dealt a massive blow to tribal sovereignty and Congress must, again, respond.
11. The court made it harder for victims of illegal FBI surveillance on Muslim communities to vindicate their rights. In FBI v .Fazaga, the court held that the FBI can hide its discriminatory surveillance of Muslim Americans under state secrets, barring the plaintiffs religious discrimination claims. Those claims were based on evidence that the government illegally spied on those attending mosques in violation of their constitutional religious liberties and federal law, illegally videotaping their homes and recording conversations in several California mosques.
12. In addition to the more widely reportedWest Virginia v. EPA, whichattacked the Clean Air Act, the court also went after the Clean Water Act and the health and safety of communities, this time from the shadow docket. In Louisiana v. American Rivers, the Court issued a radical environmental decision that revived a Trump-era policy, upending decades of precedent and settled law giving states and tribes authority to protect their waters.
The ruling severely limits the authority of states and tribes to restrict environmentally risky projects, such as pipelines and coal export facilities. The Supreme Courtagaingave no reasoning for shredding 50 years of precedent, issuing only a one-paragraph opinion siding with polluting industries over the tribes and communities whose safety is on the line.
These 12 decisions demonstratewhy the legitimacy of the court is in question. Its not simply because people disagree with an opinion, as Chief Justice John Robertswhined earlier this month. Its because the radical, extreme majority has been dismantling core tenets of the Constitution and settled law, undermining the will of the majority of Americans, throwing out decadeseven centuriesof precedent, and demonstrating that it is an existential threat to the rule of law.
The courts next term, starting in just two weeks, will feature cases that threaten LGBTQ rights, environmental safety, election integrity, affirmative action, and more. That includes Moore v. Harper, an effort by Republican legislators in North Carolina to declare themselves the sole arbiters of federal elections, putting them above the states constitution and the states courts. The specious and radical theory theyre arguingthe independent state legislature theoryis basedon an early 19th-century document that is a well-known fake. In other words: fraud.
The Supreme Court has lost legitimacy, and there isnt much time to correct it. Congress and President Biden must expand the court today to ensure our safety, liberties, and futures.
RELATED STORIES:
Continue reading here:
They overturned Roe and, amid the chaos, gutted 12 more rights and freedoms you might have missed - Daily Kos