Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority Drives Decisions in Series of Cases

The Supreme Court split on ideological lines Tuesday in a series of 6-3 decisions with the three liberal justices dissenting from the conservative majority.Leaving some of the most anticipated decisions yet to come, the court released five opinions with four split decisions.One ruling involved a Rastafarian’s ability to sue prison officials for monetary damages for violating his religious beliefs. Damon Landor was restrained in a Louisiana prison and had his dreadlocks forcibly shaved despite providing court documentation allowing him to keep his hair.Upon his release, Mr. Landor sued the warden, the head of the Louisiana corrections department, and the guards for religious abuse, citing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act, which allows for religious exemptions for certain prison grooming rules. Mr. Landor’s legal time said that the individual prison employees could be sued because some of their pay comes from the federal government.In Landor v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that Mr. Landor could not sue prison officials because the employees were not in a contract with the federal government. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s opinion said the Spending Clause of the Constitution only binds prison employees “who voluntarily and knowingly undertake obligations by agreement with the federal government.”In a blistering dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — joined by justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — accused the majority of misconstruing the Spending Clause and ignoring decades of precedent. “Today’s decision magically transforms a federal statute into an invitation to be accepted or declined, deemed binding only if each particular defendant has explicitly agreed to be penalized,” Justice Jackson wrote.In Blanche v. Lau, the conservatives on the court threw out a lower court ruling involving a green card holder who was only given a temporary permission to reenter America pending resolution of a criminal case. The temporary status, instead of “admission” which is permission to stay indefinitely, made it easier to deport Lau after he later pleaded guilty.The conservative majority held that federal immigration law does not require a border officer to have clear and convincing evidence that a green card holder has committed a crime to block a green card holder from permanent status. “We conclude that the Government properly charged Lau with inadmissibility,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote.In her dissent, Justice Jackson said the majority’s view of the case “makes no sense” and “I worry that the Court has not handed the Government a massive blank check.” Another split decision involved a lawsuit brought by members of the Falun Gong religion. The justices made it harder for foreigners to bring lawsuits in American courts alleging violations of international law. The plaintiffs in Cisco Systems v. Doe contended they, or family members, were victims of human rights abuses by Communist China. They claimed the Chinese government spied on them with an immense online surveillance system that was supplied by Cisco Systems. The conservative majority found the plaintiffs could not rely on the Alien Tort Statute or the Torture Victim Protection Act to sue Cisco for aiding and abetting Chinese officials.“The Court nonetheless closes the courthouse doors not just to respondents, but to virtually every future litigant seeking redress for a violation of international law under the ATS,” Justice Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined, in part, by Justices Kagan and Jackson.“Today’s decision marks yet another low point in this Court’s esteem for its precedents,” Justice Sotomayor went on to write.Tuesday’s final 6-3 decision involved Exxon Mobil v. Corporacion Cimex. The case involved a suit brought under the Helms-Burton Act against Cuban-owned companies, and the questionwas whether those defendants were immune from lawsuits. The conservative majority overturned a lower court ruling that allowed American nationals to sue anyone who “traffics in property” confiscated by the Communist government in Cuba after 1959.Calling the majority decision wrong, Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, “The statute is perfectly coherent as written. It enables plaintiffs to sue any private parties that traffic in confiscated property.”The Supreme Court still has a dozen cases left to decide before its summer recess. Among the major cases left to be decided include issues like the limits of presidential control over independent agencies, transgender athletes, election law, and birthright citizenship. Those cases could bring more ideological splits along political and individual rights fault lines.

Supreme Court’s Conservative Majority Drives Decisions in Series of Cases

More from the New York Sun

A New Spin on the Flat-Soled Sneaker, Inspired by the Bowling Alley

U.S., Iranian Negotiators Meet for One Day of Talks To Break Logjam on Peace Deal

Being Out of Shape May Be Worse Than Smoking, Researcher Warns

More from the New York Sun

A New Spin on the Flat-Soled Sneaker, Inspired by the Bowling Alley

U.S., Iranian Negotiators Meet for One Day of Talks To Break Logjam on Peace Deal

Being Out of Shape May Be Worse Than Smoking, Researcher Warns

It’s Time Women Stopped Dressing Grown Men

The Center Can Hold at New York City, Despite the Far Left’s Capture of the Democratic Party

Ethiopia Emerging as the West’s Indispensable Partner in the Horn of Africa

Taunts My Father Taught Me

A Week After Court-Ordered Name Removal, Tarps Still Hide Kennedy Center Facade