Samuel Alito in Supreme Court 2020s

On Energy & Oil: Clean Air Act should not include greenhouse gases

Although legal experts do not expect the justices to use the upcoming climate case to overturn Massachusetts v. EPA, Justice Samuel Alito is among the conservatives calling for the court to revisit that precedent. The justice, who dissented in the 2007 case, expressed that view in his minority opinion in the 2014 case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA , which said that while the Clean Air Act definition of "air pollutant" includes greenhouse gas emissions, EPA is not required to include them every time the statute mentions air pollutants.

Justice Thomas voted with the dissent in Massachusetts v. EPA and has joined his conservative colleagues in calling for invoking the nondelegation doctrine and limiting Chevron deference to curb federal agencies' powers.

Source: GreenWire E&E News on 2021 EPA & climate SCOTUS cases Nov 3, 2021

On Government Reform: AZ mail-in restrictions don't 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.

Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the Court. John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett concurred.

Source: NPR commentary on 2021 SCOTUS rulings Jul 1, 2021

On Education: Schools can't regulate student off-campus speech like parent

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 unconstitutional even with $0 tax

The Court's decision in CA v. TX 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 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 action that is causally connected to the plaintiffs' injury."

SCOTUS outcome:Opinion authored by Breyer; joined by Roberts; Thomas; Sotomayor; Kagan; Kavanaugh; and Barrett. Alito and Gorsuch dissented, [declaring the] individual mandate "clearly unconstitutional"

Source: Vox.com on 2021 SCOTUS ruling:ÿ"California v. Texas" Jun 17, 2021

On Immigration: DACA phase-out legally correct; politics is not our business

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 5-4 ruling emphasized that the administration failed to provide an adequate reason to justify ending the DACA program.

Justice Alito seemed wrote in his dissent that "DACA presents a delicate political issue, but that is not our business. As Justice Thomas explains, DACA was unlawful from the start, and tha

Source: CNN on Trump Cabinet / 2020 SCOTUS rulings Jun 18, 2020

The above quotations are from Supreme Court decisions 2020 to date. Click here for other excerpts from Supreme Court decisions 2020 to date. Click here for other excerpts by Samuel Alito. Click here for a profile of Samuel Alito.
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org! Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!)

Page last updated: Mar 21, 2022