SYMPOSIUM

The dangers of judicial cherry-picking

This article is part of a symposium on the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Cari Jackson is director of spiritual care and activism for the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. She is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ and earned a J.D. and Ph.D. in Christian social ethics.

Throughout my life, I have observed scriptural cherry-picking used as a strategy by Christian religious leaders to control the moral behaviors and lives of religious adherents. Cherry-picking of scriptures is a methodical process of reading a passage out of context, misapplying it, ignoring other passages that offer important insight into the textual meaning, and then framing certain passages in ways that run counter to the intent of justice and liberation in the Gospel.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Friday, July 1

Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. To suggest a piece for us to consider, email us at roundup@scotusblog.com.

Here’s the Friday morning read:

• US Supreme Court’s Tumultuous Term Ends With Guns, Roe and Protests (Greg Stohr, Bloomberg)
• The force of the Supreme Court’s right turn has shaken the country (Joan Biskupic, CNN)
• The conservative Supreme Court is just getting warmed up (Josh Gerstein & Alexander Ward, Politico)
• More than 180 arrested at abortion rights protest near Supreme Court (Omari Daniels & Hau Chu, The Washington Post)
• In Wake Of Supreme Court Gun Ruling, D.C. Gun Owners Sue To Be Able To Carry Concealed Handguns On Metro (Martin Austermuhle, DCist)

SCOTUS NEWS

“Clean-up” conference prompts three new grants, lots of separate writings

Before departing for the summer recess, the justices on Thursday issued orders from their private conference the day before. That conference was not one of the justices’ regularly scheduled conferences; instead, it was what is sometimes referred to as the “clean-up” conference, an opportunity for the justices to dispose of the petitions for review that have been on hold until the justices issue opinions in cases presenting similar issues.

The justices issued five pages’ worth of orders, sending cases back to the lower courts for another look in light of their decisions in cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, on abortion and gun rights, respectively. The justices also added three new cases to their merits docket for the upcoming term and denied review in over a dozen others.

SCOTUS NEWS

Justices will hear case that tests power of state legislatures to set rules for federal elections

The Supreme Court will take up a case from North Carolina next term that could upend federal elections by eliminating virtually all oversight of those elections by state courts. On Thursday, the justices granted review in Moore v. Harper, a dispute arising from the state’s efforts to draw new congressional maps in response to the 2020 census.

The doctrine at the heart of the case is known as the “independent state legislature” theory – the idea that, under the Constitution, only the legislature has the power to regulate federal elections, without interference from state courts. Proponents of the theory point to the Constitution’s elections clause, which gives state legislatures the power to set the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.”

SYMPOSIUM

Returning regulation to the states, and predictable harms to health

This article is part of a symposium on the court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Nicole Huberfeld is Edward R. Utley professor of health law at Boston University School of Public Health and professor of law at Boston University School of Law.

“[T]he Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.” With this holding, the Dobbs majority deepened state-by-state health inequities by upending a 50-year understanding that the 14th Amendment protects a right to privacy that includes access to abortion, among other intimate decisions. Already, Dobbs has produced legal instability and increased the risk of avoidable harms to both individual and public health.