The US Supreme Court Going Rogue?

It's Friday and the weekly talk is back! On this occasion, following the most recent and notable cases of the US Supreme Court, there is a visible pattern being highlighted - and let's just say "progressive" is not the word I'd choose to describe the current narrative.

So, allow me to provide an analytical overview of several recent cases, shedding some light on their significance and gravity.

According to analysts, trust in the United States' highest court is eroding as a conservative supermajority reconfigures the landscape of constitutional law.

The United States Supreme Court exerts a profound impact on both the national and global legal and societal realms. Through its decisions, the Court not only shapes the interpretation of the US Constitution and establishes legal precedents for lower courts, but also affects the lives of millions of Americans. Furthermore, the Court's judgments often serve as influential examples for numerous jurisdictions around the world.

From landmark decisions that redefine our understanding of fundamental rights to controversial verdicts that ignite passionate discussions, the Supreme Court's latest cases reveal the complex and multifaceted nature of the legal system.

US supreme court creeping dangerously towards authoritarianism, AOC says (a congresswoman)

Okay...it might be premature to label the situation as "authoritarianism" for now, but there is no doubt that the recent decisions of the court have the potential to result in a reversal and perhaps reduction of rights, along with diminished opportunities for many individuals.

CREATIVE LLC?ET AL.?v. ELENIS (aka a licence to discriminate)

In a 6-3 decision in Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Court ruled that a Colorado website designer has a First Amendment right to refuse to create wedding websites for same-sex couples, despite state law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, among other factors.

Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court may have just opened Pandora’s box?- how will they realistically be able to dictate where discrimination is allowed? And why did we even reach a point where this question needs to be asked?

And ironically so, after the decision was announced, critical information in the case was discovered to be false...but I let you read more on that here.

STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC.?v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE (aka reducing inclusion in higher education)

Moving on, this ruling effectively prohibits the use of affirmative action policies in the US that acted as a tipping point to raise the number of Black, Hispanic and other underrepresented minority students at selective US higher education colleges and universities.

The court’s decision against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina will restrict the power of universities, especially highly selective institutions, to consider an applicant's race as a factor in the admissions process. The decision sounds like it was made in a country where racial discrimination no longer exists - which is simply not the case.

However, what hasn't circulated much is a major fact: the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) - check the name of the ruling - was founded by a conservative activist who has fought affirmative action policies and filed cases on behalf of college applicants who believe they were victims of reverse discrimination based on their race.

Also, what I find quite striking is that the court excluded military academies from its ruling, ambiguously referencing how race might affect consideration of individual applicants (isn't the same true for the rest of colleges and universities?), while leaving in place the practice of granting an inherited advantage to children of alumni.

BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,?ET AL. v. NEBRASKA?ET AL. (aka striking down the student loan relief)

In a significant blow to one of the key initiatives of President Biden's administration, the US Supreme Court has invalidated the student loan relief scheme. This ruling deals a severe setback to a flagship program aimed at eliminating billions of dollars in debt for millions of Americans.

Briefly, the programme proposed erasing up to $10,000 in debt for most individuals earning up to $125,000 - providing essential economic support to Americans in the wake of the Covid pandemic.

One of the main arguments used to halt the programme was related to separation of powers concerns. As much as this makes sense in a vacuum scenario, given the historical context of American governance, where the separation of powers has not been clear-cut, one might question the rationale behind such arguments, and whether there are other underlying motivations.

Fortunately, there were also surprises.

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN (aka Alabama fair representation)

The Supreme Court made a notable ruling that showcased a departure from conservative efforts to undermine voting rights law. In this Alabama case, the justices reaffirmed the essential role of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in ensuring that communities of colour have the opportunity to be fairly represented in the political system, mandating the state to redraw its congressional districts in a manner that amplifies their influence.

In a separate instance, despite the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade (still in disbelief of this unfortunate reality), thus granting states the authority to prohibit abortion just last year, the court dismissed an attempt to remove a drug commonly used in abortions from the market.

All in all, the direction the court is taking in its most recent cases follows a somewhat *almost* anachronistic and regressive view of society - but hey, that's just my opinion.

As an enthusiastic reader and dedicated writer, I aim to engage with fellow curious minds by sharing my weekly thoughts and opinions. If you found value in my analysis (which I thoroughly enjoyed crafting), and would like to stay informed about upcoming articles in?the weekly talk, consider subscribing to this newsletter. Feel free to share your thoughts, or questions via comments or direct messages.?

PS if you disagree with a point, and if this creates a debate, then the article is a great discussion promoter - so kudos to us all.

Have a wonderful weekend! ??

Yours,?

Tudor