Guest Opinions from outside SCOTUSblog.
In Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court held that Colorado’s law prohibiting licensed counselors from seeking to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors was subject to strict First Amendment scrutiny – a victory for opponents of the law.
The Supreme Court justice memoir, so lucrative for its authors, tends to be a less than illuminating genre. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s A Republic, If You Can Keep It reiterated the case for originalism and attempted to illustrate why he was a worthy successor to Justice Antonin Scalia.
While I have written multiple posts for SCOTUSblog on birthright citizenship, a substantial part of my practice is litigating Second Amendment claims.
Professors Akhil and Vikram Amar have responded to my recent post arguing that the 14th Amendment does not grant automatic citizenship to the children of temporary visitors to the United States.
Critics and supporters of President Donald Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship often focus on the order’s barring of automatic citizenship to children born to individuals unlawfully present in the United States.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has gradually abandoned an idea – the separation of powers – that the Framers thought was vital to the preservation of liberty. Instead, the court seems to have been captured by a different – and, I would argue, contrary – idea: a strong presidential system supported by a concept known as the “unitary executive."
Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission could have significant consequences for the Securities and Exchange Commission, one of the country’s most influential and powerful federal agencies, by limiting its discretion to punish wrongdoers and therefore reining in some of this agency’s considerable – and more controversial – authority.
The Black Codes should be used neither to restrict the scope of Second Amendment rights nor to undermine Bruen’s historical method (or that of originalism in general). Indeed, rejecting reliance on the Black Codes is not only consistent with analyzing the history behind a law – it is demanded by it.
Relying on biological and statistical facts to try to argue (for or against) an equal protection claim in this way is a bad strategy.
Tradition may have been a balancing force in “Fiddler on the Roof” but nowadays it has originalists feeling out of whack.
The five justices acted without a hearing or briefs on the merits. They gave no explanation as to what, if anything, was improper.