|
Brett Kavanaugh on Principles & Values
|
|
Neutral laws may impact religious groups
Barrett's opinion, which Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined, is slightly to the left of Gorsuch's view. Though Barrett agrees with Gorsuch that "if a chorister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California's regulations cannot be viewed
as neutral," she concedes that the "record is uncertain" regarding what rules apply to film studios. Significantly, Barrett's opinion also suggests that she does not want to tear down completely the
distinction between cases involving religious discrimination and cases involving universally applicable laws. "It remains unclear whether the singing ban applies across the board
(and thus constitutes a neutral and generally applicable law) or else favors certain sectors (and thus triggers more searching review)," Barrett writes.
Source: Vox.com on 2021 SCOTUS "First opinion"
, Feb 6, 2021
States cannot sue each other over eased voting rules.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote the concurrence on Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton: "TX v. PA, GA, MI & WI" on Dec 11, 2020:
Summary of lawsuit, Dec. 7:: The 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities including:
- Michigan's Secretary of State, without legislative approval, unilaterally abrogated [under the pandemic emergency] several statutes requiring signature verification for absentee ballot applications. [Similar in GA, PA, & WI].
- Pennsylvania's election law requires that poll-watchers be granted access to the opening, counting, and recording of absentee ballots: Local election officials [in 2 counties] decided not to follow this law.
- Georgia state law prohibits the opening of absentee ballots until after the polls open on Election Day: In April 2020, without legislative approval, [a new rule] authorized processing absentee ballots three weeks before Election Day.
- The Wisconsin Elections Commission positioned hundreds of drop boxes to collect absentee ballots--including the use of unmanned drop boxes, in contravention of Wisconsin law.
Supreme Court Order, Dec. 11: The State of Texas's motion is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Texas Tribune analysis, Dec. 11:: Trump--and Republicans across the country--had pinned their hopes on the Texas suit. In a series of tweets, Trump called it "the big one" and later added, "it is very strong, ALL CRITERIA MET." If the court had heard the case, Sen. Ted Cruz said he would have argued it, at the request of Trump.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas indicated they would have allowed Texas to bring the case but said they would "not grant other relief." In a series of tweets after the ruling, Trump raged against the decision, which he called "a disgraceful miscarriage of justice."
Source: Supreme Court case 20-SCOTUS argued on Dec 7, 2020
Page last updated: Mar 20, 2022