Elena Kagan in Supreme Court 2020s
On Environment:
Congress can empower EPA and executive branch
Kagan led the majority opinion in 2019's Gundy, rejecting arguments that Congress had handed too much power to the executive branch. The case, which did not deal directly with environmental laws, narrowly avoided a revival of
the long-dormant nondelegation doctrine but provided justices including Gorsuch a platform for expressing interest in revisiting the administrative law issue.
Source: GreenWire E&E News on 2021 EPA & climate SCOTUS cases
Nov 3, 2021
On Energy & Oil:
No extensions for refineries' Renewable Fuel Program
On June 25, 2021, the Supreme Court decided HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association, which concerned small refiners' eligibility for hardship exemptions under the federal renewable fuels standards ("RFS") program. Three small fuel
refineries had each applied for a hardship exemption under the RFS program, and the EPA had granted each request. A group of renewable fuel producers then challenged those exemptions. By a vote of six to three, the Court held that the text of the
statute does not require that the exemption be held continually in order to remain valid.Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The dissenting justices argued that, while the majority
attributed to Congress a meaning of "extension" that is "possible," it did not give the term its "ordinary meaning." In the view of the dissenters, the "ordinary meaning" of "extension" excludes a firm that has allowed its prior exemption to lapse.
Source: JD Supra on 2021 EPA & climate SCOTUS cases
Jul 14, 2021
On Government Reform:
AZ mail-in restrictions violate Voting Rights Act
Arizona voting restrictions challenged as violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. First, voters casting their votes on Election Day outside their precinct are not counted. Second, mail-in ballots cannot be collected by anyone other than an
election official, a mail carrier, or a voter's family or household member. The court held, 6-3, that these restrictions did not violate the Act nor were they racially discriminatory.Dissenters argued that the
Court's narrow reading weakened the law and disregarded its intent to address disparities in how election laws affect different racial groups. The rule discarding "out of precinct votes" impacted black and Hispanic voters, with Arizona
leading the country in discarding such votes. Restrictions on vote collection makes voting more difficult for Native Americans.
Elena Kagan wrote the dissent, joined by Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Source: NPR commentary on 2021 SCOTUS rulings
Jul 1, 2021
On Education:
Schools are limited in regulating student off-campus speech
Summary by OnTheIssues: When then-14-year-old Brandi Levi did not make her school's varsity cheerleading squad, she posted on Snapchat "F--k school f--k softball f--k cheer f--k everything." As a result, she was suspended from the junior
varsity squad for a year. Majority opinion: The Court ruled 8-1 that though there might be circumstances in which off-campus speech might fall under the purview of the school, this did not qualify. It did not involve bullying or
threatening behavior, nor did it cause any disruptions at the school. Written by Breyer; joined by Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, & Barrett.
Concurring opinion: Alito, joined by Gorsuch, focused on when a school is
acting in loco parentis, agreeing that was not the case here.
Dissenting opinion: Thomas argued that, historically, a school can regulate off-campus speech if it has a tendency to harm the school, faculty, students, or programs.
Source: 2020 SCOTUS rulings: Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
Jun 23, 2021
On Health Care:
Individual mandate is constitutional even with $0 tax
The Court's decision in California v. Texas concludes that the plaintiffs trying to undo ObamaCare had no business being in court. The case was brought by Texas officials who object to ObamaCare, centered on the law's individual mandate [which] required
most Americans to either obtain health insurance or pay higher taxes. In 2017, Congress amended ObamaCare to zero out this tax. The Texas plaintiffs claimed that this zeroed-out tax is unconstitutional and also claimed that the entire law must be
declared invalid if the zero dollar tax is stuck down.In a 7-2 ruling, the Court ruled that no one is allowed to bring suit to challenge a provision of law that does nothing: "The IRS can no longer seek a penalty; there is no possible Government
action that is causally connected to the plaintiffs' injury."
SCOTUS outcome:Authored by Breyer; joined by Roberts; Thomas; Sotomayor; Kagan; Kavanaugh; and Barrett. Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion. Alito and Gorsuch dissented.
Source: Reuters on 2021 SCOTUS ruling:ÿ"California v. Texas"
Jun 17, 2021
On Corporations:
Company can challenge onerous IRS reporting requirement
In CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service, the Court ruled on the scope of the Anti-Injunction Act, a statute which limits lawsuits seeking to block the assessment or collection of a tax. The Court ruled that despite a federal law prohibiting
lawsuits aimed at striking down taxes, not every IRS rule is considered a "tax" entitled to that kind of immunity.Kagan wrote, "Simply stated, this suit attempts to get out from under the (non-tax) burdens of a
(non-tax) reporting obligation. Of course, if the suit succeeds, CIC will never have to worry about the tax penalty; once the reporting duty disappears, the sanction becomes irrelevant.
But that is the suit's after-effect, not its substance. The suit still targets the reporting mandates--the independently onerous reporting mandates--of the Notice itself."
Source: Law & Crime blog on 2021 SCOTUS cases: "Unanimous Decisions"
May 17, 2021
On Immigration:
DACA protect childhood immigrants from deportation
The Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an Obama-era program that protects immigrants brought to the US as children from deportation. After Trump came into office, the administration
announced the program had been created "without proper authority" and that DACA would be phased out. Federal courts said the administration had acted arbitrarily when phasing out the program. The courts pointed to the administration's thin
justification--reasoning Roberts and the Supreme Court eventually agreed with.
The 5-4 ruling was written by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Kagan, emphasizing that the administration failed to provide an adequate reason to justify ending the
DACA program. Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "'The wisdom of those decisions 'is none of our concern.' We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."
Source: CNN on 2020 Scotus ruling on DACA
Jun 18, 2020
Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022