Roberts vs. Trump: Barely Disguised Contempt (Part 2)

Many readers are understandably upset with the Roberts Court's dismantling of the Voting Rights Act and other decisions viewed as politically and socially regressive. But there is another side of Roberts and his Court--perhaps just a slice--that shouldn't be overlooked. Some of the decisions exhibit a different character.

In Part 1, we looked at two majority opinions of Chief Justice John Roberts. One sided with President Trump and one did not. But in both, the Chief Justice's utter disdain for Trump's words and actions could not have been more clear. While upholding the travel ban of Trump's first administration [Trump v. Hawaii (2018)], Roberts contrasted Trump's expressed religious bigotry to the magnanimous and tolerant welcoming of other presidents toward minority religions. And when Roberts more recently wrote to invalidate Trump's tariffs [Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (2026)], he made clear how the tariffs seemed the result of fitful recklessness rather than thoughtful consideration. 

There are more than a few other decisions--in which Roberts either wrote for the majority or was part of it--where Trump's major policies or pet preferences were blunted or rejected outright. Sometimes the Roberts majority did so summarily. As in, "give me a break!"

But whether the Roberts-led majority did so summarily or with full deliberation and opinion, recalling a sample of these decisions lends a less monochromatic picture of the Chief Justice and, particularly, his Court's perspective on Trump. Consider these:

(click to enlarge for a better view) 

In Moore v. Harper, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a 6-3 majority--above dissenting Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch--to reject a pet constitutional theory advanced by Trump and his allies. The so-called "Independent Legislature Doctrine" would have barred any judicial review of any state legislative gerrymandering.

For example, that doctrine would prevent a state supreme court from ruling that the gerrymandering enacted by the state's legislature violated constitutional rights under the state's law. So, in this case, it would have prevented the North Carolina Supreme Court from ruling that the extremely partisan gerrymandering by North Carolina's Republican controlled state legislature violated the state constitution's guarantees of voting rights and equal protection. In short, the state legislature's gerrymandering would be final and the North Carolina Supreme Court could do nothing about it.

Trump and his allies' pet theory, which was advanced to help guarantee additional pro-Trump voting districts, was emphatically rejected by the Roberts majority. The Chief Justice, together with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, voted with the three liberal Justices--Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. According to Roberts' opinion, despite the Supreme Court's hands-off approach to partisan gerrymandering by state legislatures, the state supreme courts are free to engage in the matter and prohibit such gerrymandering under their own state law.

The year before, a similar majority--again headed by Roberts, but before Justice Jackson replaced the retiring Stephen Breyer--had weighed in on another election-related matter against Trump and his allies.

(click to enlarge for a better view) 

In Ritter v. Migliore, the 6-3 Roberts-led majority refused to invalidate certain mail-in ballots--another pet-target of Trump and his supporters. In this case, via a mere order without opinion, the Roberts majority, against the wishes of Trump allies, granted certiorari (i.e., accepted review) and summarily allowed the counting of timely mail-in ballots whose lone defect was their undated envelopes. Once again, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch were in dissent.

Last year, despite what seemed to some to be consistent Trump victories at the Court, Roberts-led majorities did stymie numerous efforts by the President, his administration, and his allies. Let's start with foreign affairs.

(click to enlarge for a better view)

In Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, in another unsigned order, the Chief Justice, joined by the three liberals plus Justice Barrett, summarily sustained a decision of a lower federal court that had directed the Trump administration to pay nearly $2 billion to a global non-profit health organization. In effect, a 5-4 majority mandated that the Trump administration disburse the funds for work already performed in the international AIDS prevention programs. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch were in dissent again, this time joined by Justice Kavanaugh.

Also in 2025, the same Roberts-led 5-4 majority rebuffed Trump's claim to immunity from New York State's criminal proceedings against him.

(click to enlarge for a better view)

In Trump v. New York, the then re-elected but not yet re-inaugurated Trump sought to expand the presidential immunity that the Court had recognized the year before in Trump v. U.S. The Court should go further, Trump argued, and recognize immunity for a president-elect--particularly against state court proceedings here. But again, the Chief Justice, joined by the three liberals plus Justice Barrett, summarily rejected Trump's request and allowed the New York proceedings to continue regarding Trump's multiple state convictions for business fraud. Also again, Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch, joined by Kavanaugh, dissented.

[Footnote: I trust you don't take it seriously when those same dissenting Justices--in cases where they like what the states are doing--insist that the Court should defer to the states and allow the states to do what the states think is best. You don't, do you? They certainly don't advocate deference when they don't like what a state is doing.]

A few years earlier, Roberts had authored an opinion for the Court to reject another Trump argument against state criminal proceedings. This case involved Trump during his presidency.

(click to enlarge for a better view)

In Trump v. Vance, during his first term, the president's lawyers made several arguments for immunizing Trump against state grand jury subpoenas. The chief executive of the national government, they argued, should be shielded from bothersome state proceedings; that allowing state investigations of a president would subject him to harassment by any number of states; that a president is too busy to be distracted by state proceedings; etc. The Roberts majority rejected all the arguments and refused to recognize any broad immunity for a president from state process. A president could challenge a faulty state subpoena just like anyone else. But that's it.

Not surprisingly, Justices Thomas and Alito supported Trump and dissented. Moreover, in a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Gorsuch, argued that the Court should require a more demanding level of justification for a state subpoena against a president before it can be approved. The Roberts majority declined to do that.

[Footnote: Same as above. You don't really take seriously the dissenters' "we should defer to the states" argument in other cases, do you?]

And here's a more recent case of Trump versus a state from the end of last year. The decision was another major loss for the administration.

(click to enlarge for a better view)

In Trump v. Illinois, the president--against the will of the Governor of Illinois and Mayor of Chicago--sought to activate the state's national guard. Trump claimed the power to do so. His lawyers argued that Trump has such power based both on the inherent constitutional authority of the office of the presidency, and on federal statutes providing for the protection of federal personnel and property. The Roberts-led majority, in response an emergency application brought by Trump, disagreed.

A five-Justice majority--Roberts, the three liberals, and Barrett--joined in an unsigned order rejecting Trump's claim that he could deploy the Illinois national guard to respond to an "invasion or a rebellion or danger of rebellion" in Chicago. That is, against large gatherings in Chicago protesting against Trump's immigration policies and, specifically, the tactics of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents in the city.

The majority held that the Trump administration failed to show that activating the national guard was necessary. Together with Justice Kavanaugh who wrote a separate opinion, the majority upheld the lower court's order halting Trump's actions.

Not surprisingly, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented. They argued, among other things, that the president might have inherent constitutional authority to deploy a state's national guard under circumstances such as in this case. The Court, according to them, should have deferred to the judgment of the president--especially in his emergency application.

[Footnote: Same as above. "Defer-to-the-states" principle apparently applies only when the Justices advocating it like what the states are doing.]

In another immigration-related decision earlier last year, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the Roberts-led majority put rebuffed Trump's deportation policy that elevated brutal efficiency over the barest of fair treatment.

(click to enlarge for a better view)

As part of Trump's policy of removing non-citizens who he claimed were part of a violent Venezuelan gang, he ordered that any Venezuelan citizen (over 14) could be “apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed" under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. In fact, they were being sent to a hellish maximum-security prison in El Salvador. After winding its way to the Supreme Court, the emergency application of Venezuelan detainees was granted. 

The Roberts-led 7-2 majority, in an unsigned per curiam opinion, ruled that the non-citizens were entitled, as a matter of constitutional due process, to some meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal. According to that majority, the bare notice that was being provided to the Venezuelans, lacking any useful information and only delivered the day before deportation--a description the Trump administration did not deny--“surely does not pass muster.” 

In an opinion by Alito, he and Thomas dissented. Amidst technical, legal arguments, they evinced--[What can I say?]--as little sympathy for the hardship of the immigrants as the Trump administration. The majority was clearly wrong, Alito argued, because the Court didn't have jurisdiction to rule on this emergency application under the procedural posture of the case. Moreover, he labelled the petition for emergency due process relief an "extraordinary demand." 

Whatever the dissenters doubts about the procedural merits of the case, there is no doubt that here, as in other cases thus far identified, Chief Justice Roberts and his majorities were again displaying, at best, impatience with Trump and his policies.

Two more cases. In both of these, the "defer-to-the-states" dissenters did side with the interests of the respective states. But in these cases, the states involved had policies hostile to abortion--a hostility the dissenters favored. So you would certainly expect the dissenters to vote the way they did.

(click to enlarge for a better view) 

In the 2024 case of Oklahoma v. Department of Health and Human Service, the Roberts-led majority supported a pro-abortion position of the Biden administration. The majority rejected the strict hostility towards reproductive choice that has been a hallmark of Trump's presidencies and of his state allies.

In a bare unsigned order, the six-Justice majority--Roberts, the three liberals, Barrett and Kavanaugh--sided with the federal government's decision to deny to Oklahoma several million in funding because that state prohibited abortion referrals and even family-planning counseling. Oklahoma's strict anti-abortion policy contravened the federal Public Health Service Act. In a similarly bare unsigned order, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch voted to give Trump-friendly Oklahoma the funds.

As many readers surely know, the Court just issued another abortion-friendly order this month. Once again, the Roberts-led majority sided with reproductive rights and ruled against another Trump-friendly, abortion-hostile state.

(click to enlarge for a better view)

In Danco Laboratories v. Louisiana, the state had sought to stop any shipment of mifepristone into the state. The appeals court below granted Louisiana's request to stop shipments of the abortion-producing medication while litigation was pending. It reasoned that Louisiana was ultimately likely to succeed.

But in an unsigned order of a 7-2 majority, the Supreme Court blocked that ruling. The Chief Justice, the three liberals, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and, this time, with Gorsuch as well, sided with the mifepristone manufacturers and, of course with the women in Louisiana who order it. In ordering the shipments to continue, the majority were apparently not so sure that Louisiana would ultimately prevail.

As one would certainly expect, Justices Thomas and Alito dissented. In his separate opinion, Thomas argued that the 19th century Comstock Act, which prohibits all interstate distribution of contraception and abortion materials, should still be enforced. In his opinion, Alito argued that the interstate mailings of mifepristone effectively undermine the Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson which overruled Roe v. Wade. But the Roberts-led majority seemingly had no interest in expanding the effect of the Trump-instigated Dobbs decision--let alone reviving the Comstock Act.

That's all for now. Did I cherry pick decisions to make my point? Guilty. Did I identify a very limited number of Roberts-led decisions that happened to have a common thread? Yes, guilty.

But the point is that the Roberts Court has not been uniformly supportive of Trump. No, not at all. It might seem that way to some who abhor some of the pro-Trump decisions. To be sure, at times it does seem as though the Court has been issuing one pro-Trump decision after another. Especially after some that might seem shockingly contradictory to established constitutional principles.

But a candid, dispassionate review of the Court's decisions shows that the Court has not been unidirectional when it comes to Trump, his administration, and his policies. And regarding the particular purpose here, Chief Justice Roberts and his majorities have actually handed Trump some very important defeats, and they have increasingly shown an impatience and even utter contempt for this president and his policies.

Amy Coney Barrett (Part 2)--"Non-Hack"

Source: Elizabeth Frantz/NY Times

“The Supreme Court’s second-newest justice is proving herself to be a non-hack —to the increasing consternation of MAGA.”

That's Matt Ford, Associate Editor of the politically liberal The New Republic magazine.

But it's not just liberals who have nice things to say about Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Edward Whelan, former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, holder of the Antonin Scalia Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and one of the nation's foremost conservative legal commentators had this to say: "She’s a careful, precise thinker, and she’s been thrust into this very volatile environment.” 

Jodi Kantor, who has reported behind-the-scenes stories about the Supreme Court for the New York Times, compared Barrett favorably to others on the Court: "Justice Barrett has favored a more deliberate approach than some of her colleagues."

These views of Amy Coney Barrett are far more common among the less-partisan observers of the Court than those of the uber-MAGA crowd, some of which were included in the previous post. (See Amy Coney Barrett (Part 1)--"Rattled Law Professor.")

Again, the facts. Here is my graph from the previous post that shows how Justice Barrett has been voting:

(click to enlarge for a better view) 

In the 29 ideologically laden cases last term--i.e., those clearly identifiable as "politically conservative" versus "politically liberal" among the 64 full-appeals decided--Barrett was unmistakably on the conservative side of the Court. No doubt about that when her 62% conservative voting is contrasted with the 7% and 10% conservative records of Justices Jackson and Sotomayor, respectively. Of course, her record is also a far cry from the 93% conservative voting of both Justices Thomas and Alito. So yes, it's clear to see why she would be a disappointment to the partisans who expected her to be or hoped her to be far more ideologically disposed.

But worse than that for the most die-hard Trump supporters is her record in cases directly involving Trump himself or his policies. Let's take a look at Barrett's record, as well as those of her colleagues, in those cases.

There were 22 such cases. These included 16 that were decided on an emergency basis--i.e., the so-called "shadow docket," where there were no arguments held and no full briefing. Just a petition for relief by a party unhappy with a decision by a lower court, and a vote in conference by the Justices to grant or deny the request. 

In fact, most of the cases directly involving Trump or his policies were decided that way last term. And most of the time, the Court's majority gave absolutely no reason for its decision. As the headline from one of veteran Court reporter Adam Liptak's column summarized the situation: “Supreme Court Keeps Ruling in Trump’s Favor, but Doesn’t Say Why.” (NY Times, July 16, 2025.) 

Here's what the voting looked like in all those 22 "Trump Cases"--full appeals and "emergency" decisions: 

(click to enlarge for a better view) 

As was clear from the previous graph showing Justice Barrett's 62% politically conservative voting in the full appeals, her 68% voting in favor of Trump and his policies, as depicted above, is hardly the record of a political liberal. Certainly not when contrasted with the 0% and 5% pro-Trump voting of Justices Jackson and Sotomayor.

But neither is Barrett's record even close to the 100%--yes, 100%--pro-Trump voting of both Justices Thomas and Alito. No, Justice Barrett's voting in the cases directly involving Trump or his policies--full appeals plus emergency decisions--is not a record of a blind partisan. Not a record of a blind Trump loyalist. Hence, the ire of the uber-Trumpists and the respect of just about everyone else. Even cautious optimism among some liberals.

By way of illustration, Barrett's record this year included voting in a 5-4 majority to order the Trump administration to unfreeze nearly $2 billion in foreign-aid reimbursements, in another 5-4 majority refusing to recognize Trump's claimed presidential-elect immunity, in a 6-3 majority to preclude presidential hiring and firing of certain "lesser" executive officials, and in dissent with the three liberal Justices to uphold broad authority of the Environmental Protection agency. 

Lest it be thought that Justice Barrett's voting last term could have been an aberration. Perhaps it was a particular mix of cases that resulted in her voting "pro-Trump" much less than other Republican appointees on the Court. It turns out that Barrett's record in cases involving Trump or his policies has consistently been much less pro-Trump than some of her colleagues.

Indeed, eminent Supreme Court scholar Lee Epstein, who probably tracks the voting records of the Justices more closely than anyone else, has compiled all the votes on former and current President Trump since Justice Barrett was appointed to the Court--by Trump--in 2020. Here's what Lee Epstein and her colleagues found: 

(click to enlarge for a better view) 

According to the Epstein & Colleagues calculations, Barrett has voted pro-Trump less than any other Republican appointee. Her 59% record since she joined the Court is not only just above 50-50 pro-Trump, but it is a far cry from the 94% for Justice Alito and the 88% for Justices Gorsuch and Thomas.

To be sure, her voting is also a far cry from the heavily anti-Trump records of Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan. But still, Barrett's record is hardly one to be applauded by the MAGA crowd or even the more moderate Trump partisans. 

A "rattled law professor," "Amy commie Barrett," "evil," and "a disgusting fraud." Or perhaps a "non-hack," "careful, precise thinker," one who "favor[s] a more deliberate approach than some of her colleagues."

Well, the facts of Justice Barrett's voting record demonstrate that she is certainly a political conservative. She wouldn't be confused with a liberal--let alone a communist. Except by the most ideologically or politically fanatical out there.

But neither does Justice Barrett's record confirm what many political liberals feared she would be. Nor does it confirm the view adhered to by many political liberals that she remains hopelessly tied to the right wing of the Court. Conservative, yes. But also a Justice who, like Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy before her--or even John Marshall Harlan II before them--has a strong, confident, independent streak. She has shown herself to be unafraid and unhesitant to break from her usual or expected ideological allies on some of the most politically-charged cases before the Court.

Amy Coney Barrett (Part 1)--"Rattled Law Professor"

Source: Allison Robbert/NY Times

The complete line: "She’s a rattled law professor with her head up her a**."

By the way, that's from a gentleman named Mike Davis, speaking on Steve Bannon's podcast. This Davis fellow actually served as the head counsel for nominations for the Republican Chair of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. Shortly before that, he had urged that Neal Gorsuch be appointed to the Supreme Court, and then he was hired by Gorsuch to be his law clerk.

Davis & Gorsuch, hmm!

[In all fairness to Justice Gorsuch, Davis only lasted, for whatever reason, a few months in Gorsuch's chambers.]

Davis is hardly the only supposed "conservative"--i.e., here, referring to a Trump die hard--who's unhappy with Justice Barrett.

There's the oh-so dignified "Catturd"--his trademark--Phillip Buchanan, who posted this: "Amy Commie Barrett—she’s been an ungrateful, backstabbing POS since day one."  So she's a backstabber, an ingrate, and....a communist? Well, she's each of those because she doesn't vote in support of everything and anything that Trump and his administration try to do. Oh, also, she's "an Absolute disgusting fraud."

Then there's the social-media "influencer," Michael Cernovich, famous among other reasons for calling date rape "a liberal fiction." He summarised his thoughtful appraisal of Justice Barrett this way: "She is evil." So more than rattled or ungrateful or even disgusting. She's actually evil!

Mark Levin, the FOX News host, was a bit softer in his assessment: "The power has gone to her head."

Then there's Trump confidant and travel companion, Laura Loomer, who was among those who figured that their disappointment was to be expected: "Amy Coney Barrett was a DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] appointee." 

And according to numerous sources, Trump himself has been complaining about Barrett--as well as his other appointees for not marching in lockstep. In fact, he's expressed his fury about Leonard Leo, the leader of the Federalist Society. Trump apparently blames Leo for his advice on judicial appointees. Trump has ranted that Leo is "a real sleazebag...who in his own way probably hates America."

But back to Barrett.

Beyond all this unhinged commentary--along with the vicious and vile outpourings of agreement by the commentators' fans--is Barrett's record. Here is how she, as well as her colleagues, have been voting:

 (click to enlarge for a better view) 

This graph represents the Justices' voting and the Court's decisions in all 29 "conservative" versus "liberal" cases last term. That is, the 29 cases which--after examining all 64 full appeals decided in the Court's most recent term--could be identified as having an issue with a clear politically "conservative" versus politically "liberal" side.*

 *[The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are used here, as in judicial studies generally, to identify patterns, social and political, reflected in the decisions and votes of judges and the courts on which they sit. See e.g., my discussion, ‘Liberal’ Justices, ‘Conservative’ Justices, in  Supreme Shift: What the 6-3 Conservative Majority Means Going Forward, 93 NYSBA Journal 9 (Jan./Feb. 2021).

This is especially true and revealing when considered over the course of ideologically charged “hot-button,” issues where, for example, “conservative” Republican politicians and voters would typically support one position, while “liberal” Democratic politicians and voters would typically support the other.]   

As the graph shows, Justice Barrett can hardly be viewed as a liberal. Compare her voting record to that of the two unquestionably liberal Justices, Jackson and Sotomayor. They supported the conservative position in only 7% and 10% of these cases, repectively. Barrett did so much more regularly and, indeed, more than half of the time; 62% in these close, divided cases. 

To be sure, Barrett's voting record is a far cry from that of the staunchly conservative Justices Thomas and Alito--both at 93% conservative. Apparently, that's the kind of voting her right-wing critics wanted and what many of them, including Trump, were expecting. 

Beyond that, what is perhaps the most telling aspect of Justice Barrett's record, at least for the fury within the Trump camp about her, is her voting in those cases specifically involving Trump, or involving policies especially advanced by him and his administration. Think immigration, firings without cause, environmental regulations, witholding funds from states that don't embrace his policies, etc. 

In the next post, we'll focus on Barrett's and her colleagues' voting in those cases. 

[For those of you experiencing deja vu--Yes, Yogi, all over again--I have written about Justice Barrett previously, and about aspects of her voting record at that point. See Part1: Amy Coney Barrett; Part 2; and Part 3.]

Splinters in the 6-3 Supreme Court (Part 4: Clarence Thomas)

Credit: Evan Vucci/AP

Clarence Thomas is a different story from Amy Coney Barrett.

We've been seeing how Justice Barrett has emerged as an increasingly moderate voice on the Court. In some of the Court's most important cases, she has disagreed with the more politically conservative positions taken by the majority or by justices in dissent, and she has even sided with the Court's liberals.

[As mentioned in Part 3 of this series, this is now being noticed by other commentators, and some political conservatives are distressed. See the several commentaries cited in that post, as well as in another recent one: David Lat, Amy Coney Barrett Is the Most Interesting Justice on the Court, Bloomberg Law, July 2, 2025, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/amy-coney-barrett-is-the-most-interesting-justice-on-the-court .]

In sharp contrast, there seems to be no flexibility from Justice Thomas. If anything, his record demonstrates a deepening political conservatism and suggests a contempt for other political conservatives on the Court who sometimes stray from the party line.

One need only take a look at some of the cases in which Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion. Sometimes, one or two of the Court's other most politically conservative justices joined his dissent. Oftentimes, no one did.

Just connect the dots of Thomas's dissenting opinions in these recent cases:

(click to enlarge for a better view)

Dissenting alone in U.S. v. Rahimi, Thomas argued that the federal law, prohibiting firearm possession by someone subject to a restraining order for domestic violence, violated the 2nd Amendment. Thomas had written the majority opinion for the Court two years earlier in New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn. v. Bruen. There, he asserted that a gun restriction was invalid unless it had a historical antecedent at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified. This domestic violator law had none.

Thomas's Bruen test differed from the so-called "strict scrutiny" test that the Court typically applies to protect a fundamental constitutional right--i.e., is the law necessary for a compelling reason? [Think mandatory smallpox vaccinations during an epidemic despite personal religious objections.] In Rahimi, the next major gun rights case after Bruen, Thomas lost the majority. In Rahimi, he protested that the rest of the Court was disregarding his historical test from Bruen. [As could well have been expected.] Alone in applying his Bruen test literally, Thomas insisted that prohibiting firearm possession by a domestic abuser was unconstitutional because such a law did not exist in 1792.

Writing for the Court in Rahimi, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that there were analogous laws applicable to violent persons in existence historically. Moreover, such laws were confirmed by "common sense." That was not sufficient for Thomas.

Another gun rights case:

(click to enlarge for a better view)

In VanDerStock, as in Rahimi, Thomas dissented in a solo opinion. (Justice Alito also dissented, but he did not join Thomas's opinion.) Thomas insisted on a narrower meaning of "firearm" that would be subject to the congressionally authorized regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). In Thomas's view, it could not include weapons parts kits or "ghost guns."

Thomas protested that only an object that is already a “weapon” could constitute a regulable "firearm." Disagreeing with the majority opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch [Who is not exactly an enthusiast of gun restrictions.], Thomas argued that a weapon parts kit could not be viewed as a "firearm" until after it was converted into an operable gun--i.e., until it is “something to fight with.” Consequently, according to Thomas, the ATF had no authority under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to regulate "ghost guns" or anything else that was not already a functioning weapon.

In yet another gun case:

(click to enlarge for a better view)

Thomas issued another lone dissent in Snope. (Justices Alito and Gorsuch did not join Thomas; they simply noted that they dissented.) He would have granted certiorari in order to review the "surprising conclusion" of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that there was no fundamnetal right to possess so-called "assault rifles." Thomas argued that AR–15s are unquestionably “arms" within the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. There was no “historical regulation” that was sufficiently like Maryland’s ban which could serve as a constitutionally valid 2nd Amendment exception. 

In Thomas's view, "assault rifles" like AR–15s easily fall within the category of protected arms. He reasoned that "[t]ens of millions of Americans own AR–15s, and the “overwhelming majority” of them “do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting.” That settled the question for Thomas. Accordingly, he would have reviewed and reversed the 4th Circuit's decision and invalidated the Maryland law.

As in Snope, Thomas wrote some of his most revealing dissenting opinions when the majority simply rejected a petition for certiorari--i.e., choose not to hear an appeal. Here's another one:

(click to enlarge for a better view)

Again in Allstates, Thomas wrote a lone dissenting opinion. Gorsuch noted that he also dissented, but neither he nor anyone else joined Thomas's dissent.

Allstates, a nationwide industrial general contractor that is required to comply with the workplace safety standards set by OSHA (the Occupational Health and Safety Administration)--and has been fined in the past for violations--challenged the agency's authority. Its legal claim was that Congress violated the Constitution by creating an agency to exercise legislative powers--i.e., to promulgate regulations.

The federal circuit court below upheld OSHA's authority to set workplace safety standards, and a 7-2 majority of the Justices rejected Allstates' petition to appeal. Congress's authority to delegate powers to independent agencies has been settled in numerous Court decisions since the New deal era. But it has recently come under attack by anti-regulatory groups, by their Republican allies, and even by some justices. Thomas is one of them.

He argued in dissent that the Court should hear the appeal and limit OSHA's workplace safety authority. According to Thomas, the Court's precedents violate "the Constitution’s allocation of legislative power to Congress." Hence, the Court needed to take the case to "reconsider [its] approach" to delegating regulatory authority to agencies such as OSHA.

Around the same time that Thomas sought to undo OSHA's workplace safety regulations, he dissented from the majority's generosity toward military veterans:

(click to enlarge for a better view)

In Rudisill, Thomas's dissenting opinion was joined by Alito. The Court's 7-2 majority, speaking through Justice Jackson, held that the governing statutes allowed veterans who are eligible for educational benefits under both the earlier "Montgomery" and later "Post 9/11" GI Bills to switch from the former to the more generous latter. Additionally, for those veterans being eligible under each of these GI Bills, the benefits would extend from the 36 month limitation appilicable to each one to a total aggregate period of 48 months. Jackson added that, in any event, the "pro-veteran canon" would apply if the statutory provisions were ambiguous.

Thomas, while on the one hand saying that "the statute’s text [is] complicated," nevertheless insisted that it was "ultimately unambiguous" in denying a veteran's entitlement to a 48 month benefit period. Wading through the different subsections of the governing provisions, Thomas argued that, under §3327(d)(2)(A), a veteran who switches to Post 9/11 benefits is entitled only to "the amount [of time] he had remaining for his Montgomery benefits"-- despite separate entitlements to both GI Bills due to multiple periods of service.

Thomas concluded with the additional argument that, even if the statute were ambiguous--in his view it categorically was not [Does the 7-2 divide suggest otherwise?]--the pro-veterans canon of interpretation should not apply. He took issue with "whether this purported canon should ever have a role in our interpretation."

Thus far, in the five cases discussed, we've seen Thomas opposing laws that prohibit firearm possession by domestic violators, opposing the regulation of weapons parts kits or "ghost guns," opposing laws prohibiting the possession of assault rifles, opposing OSHA's workplace safety regulations, and opposing a generous interpretation of the GI Bills. Let's be clear, in none of these cases was there an unequivocal dictate that he take the positions he did. That being so, why?

This hardening ideological jurisprudence--which has increasingly separated Thomas to the right of other political conservatives on the Court--will be equally evident in the next installment in this series. We'll look at his dissenting opinions in several criminal cases and one involving a claim of religious discrimination. No one who follows the Court will be surprised at Thomas's positions in these cases.

The No-Longer-Just-Leaked Opinion--Constitutional Nonsense Revisited (Part 4)

The now-official opinion by Justice Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating any right to choose an abortion, repeats what we've seen previously when the draft was leaked:

As we have explained, procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our Nation’s history.

As discussed in previous posts on New York Court Watcher, this argument is utter nonsense and dangerous. (See The Leaked Opinion--Constitutional Nonsense Revisited [Part 1], in which we looked at "it's-not-in-the-text" of the Constitution; [Part 2], in which we considered "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition;" and [Part 3], in which we examined Alito's assurance that his opinion applies only to abortion and that there's no reason to be concerned about any other rights.)

To recap very briefly, as explained in Part 1, most fundamental rights are nowhere mentioned in the text of the Constitution. The document is absolutely not a catalog of rights. It nowhere mentions, for example, the right to marry, the right to be intimate with one's partner, the right to have children, the right to have a friend, etc., etc., etc. Indeed, Alito's argument--now the argument of the Court--was prominently feared by the Framers of the Constitution and nearly defeated adding a Bill of Rights: the fear that mentioning any rights might be the basis for denying others not mentioned. That fear has now been realized and forms the primary basis in the Court's decision today to reject the right to choose an abortion.

As explained in Part 2, the secondary argument, relying on the country's history, could be used to support racial segregation and discrimination against women, as well as the criminalization of interracial marriage, the use of birth control, and gay and lesbian intimacy. All of those were an entrenched part of this Nation's history and tradition from the time of its founding until overruled by the Court in more recent times.

And in Part 3, the notion that this opinion applies only to the right to an abortion and to no other right was shown to be as much nonsense as the text and history arguments. Those were the same arguments made to the Supreme Court against any right to use birth control and to equal protection for women. The same arguments to uphold criminal laws against gays and lesbians, including against same-sex marriage. Indeed, these were the same arguments to uphold racial segregation and criminal laws against interracial marriage. Are these arguments now being revived, but only to be applied against rights the current conservative majority of the Court dislikes?

Well, Justice Thomas for one has made clear where the arguments embraced by the Court necessarily take it:

in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold [the right to use contraceptives], Lawrence [the right to engage in same-sex intimacy], and Obergefell [the right to marry for same-sex couples]. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents.

Of course, Justice Thomas didn't mention Brown v. Board of Education [outlawing racial segregation], Loving v. Virginia [invalidating laws against interracial marriage], or Reed v. Reed [recognizing equal protection for women]. But all of those decisions, and many others, similarly rejected arguments that the Court majority applied today to uphold restrictions on abortion and to reject any right to choose. 

Justice Alito's introductory and concluding assertion is indisputably correct: Abortion presents a profound moral issue on which Americans hold sharply conflicting views. Yes. But the very same was said--and in some cases can still be said--about racial integration, interracial marriage, women's rights, gay rights, consensual adult sex, contraceptives, etc. But also about gun rights, campaign finance, affirmative action, etc. Does the existence of sharply conflicting views really mean that the Supreme Court should leave those matters to the states?

Regardless of one's views about abortion--and, as I believe is undeniable: there are profound interests on both sides--the arguments applied by Alito, and now by the Court majority, to justify denying any right to choose are nonsense. And beyond that, if they are to be taken seriously, they place other rights recognized in Supreme Court landmarks in jeopardy.

The Leaked Opinion--Constitutional Nonsense Revisited (Part 3)

Here's the final installment in this series. Preparing an article on overturning precedent and grading final exams and papers are the culprits for the delay.

Justice Samuel Alito
Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

We've previously looked at Justice Alito's two main arguments against a woman's right to choose an abortion. In Part 1, we looked at "it's-not-in-the-text" of the Constitution; in Part 2, we considered "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." We now turn to his assurance that his opinion applies only to abortion and that there's no reason to be concerned about any other rights.

As Alito put it:

to ensure that our decision is not mis­understood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our de­cision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

Really? Even though the entire thrust of his opinion parallels the legal arguments that have been urged against other rights? Legal arguments ultimately rejected in landmark decisions protecting those rights? Legal arguments still raised against those rights?

Consider the essence of Alito's arguments. He doesn't conceal it. He says the same things repeatedly. And for him, what he repeats is proof beyond any doubt that the Constitution does not support a woman's right to choose. But it's more than that. For him, the Constitution's text and tradition affirmatively repudiate the notion of any such right.

As he must, Alito addresses the Constitution's explicit protection of "liberty." It's there in the 5th Amendment against federal violations, and in the post-Civil War 14th Amendment against violations by the states. So what to make of "liberty?"

Here's the essence of Alito's arguments--his proof positive that there can be no constitutional right for a woman to choose: the meaning of "liberty" is strictly limited to the legal understandings and decisions of the past; and it is illegitimate for the  Court to disrupt this past.

So, a cramped view of a fundamental constitutional concept, based on a legal past that binds the Court.

For Alito, that is axiomatic. Those who sought to preserve racial segregation and anti-miscegenation laws urged the same thing. More recently, it has been--and still is--relied upon by those who have denounced any private right to use contraceptives and equal rights for LGBTQ persons, and have even disputed the application of equal protection to women.

Let's first listen to Alito. Then we'll look at the arguments of those who contested landmark civil rights and liberties landmarks. Here's Alito:

The term "liberty" alone provides little guidance.

We must exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field. 

We must ask what the Fourteenth Amendment means by the term "liberty."

The abortion right is also critically different from any other right...within the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of "liberty."

It is certainly not "ordered lib­erty."

The clear answer is that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect the right to an abortion. 

And, for Alito, the limited understanding of "liberty" is certainly fixed by the past:

An unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law. 

For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitu­tion, each State was permitted to address this issue in ac­cordance with the views of its citizens. 

When the Four­teenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States made abortion a crime. [And again...]

By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime. [And again...]

By 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, three-quarters of the States, 28 out of 37, had enacted statutes making abortion a crime.

Accordingly, for Alito:

Our Nation's historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people's elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated. 

It follows that the States may regulate abortion. 

Courts cannot substitute their so­cial and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bod­ies. [To do so is...]

The exercise of raw judicial power. 

Anyone who studies the Supreme Court's landmarks will find Alito's line of reasoning and insistence to be quite familiar. Certainly not because it's what the Court embraced to advance civil rights and liberties. But because it is precisely what was argued by the opponents of those constitutional protections. It's the same line of reasoning and insistence argued by those who have resisted progress on civil rights and liberties at every turn, and still do.

Think that's an exaggeration? Ok. Let's see what the state of Kansas argued to the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). This is straight from the state's brief defending racial segregation:

The laws of a majority of the states authorized segregation at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. 

Of the 37 states that comprised the Union at the time of adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, 24 of them maintained legal segregation.

It is a late day to say that such segregation is violative of fundamental constitutional rights.

This court would be going far beyond the limits of the judicial power if, on the basis of such a record, it should reverse the trend of nearly ninety years.

Alito could have written that brief himself. No?

What about the effort in Loving v. Virginia (1967) to save anti-miscegenation laws? This is from the state of Virginia's brief to the Supreme Court supporting its criminal law against interracial marriage:

The Fourteenth Amendment had no application whatever to the anti-miscegenation statutes of the various States.
A majority of the States which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment still maintained and enforced their anti-miscegenation laws as late as 1950.
Federal courts and State courts clearly indicated that anti-miscegenation statutes of the various States are not violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It is the exclusive province of the legislature of each State to make the determination for its citizens.
Judicial inquiry into the wisdom, propriety or desirability of preventing interracial alliances is completely inappropriate.

Alito could have written that too.

It might well be argued that there's little likelihood that the Court--even the majority of Justices in Alito's leaked opinion--is going to overrule the Brown or Loving decisions. Even though the very same arguments apply. So let's look at some other landmarks that are more likely candidates for the chopping block. Unlike Brown and Loving, the Court's decisions in these other cases are still denounced by culturally conservative jurists, politicians, and others.

Let's take Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), where the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right to privacy protecting the freedom to use contraceptives. That decision is a regular punching bag for the "it's-not-mentioned-in-the-Constitution" crowd. Here are arguments from Connecticut's brief supporting its criminal anti-contraceptives law:

 

The Connecticut statute stems from the [federal] Comstock Act of 1873...which prohibited the possession, sale, or mailing of contraceptives.

As of December 31, 1964 thirty states of the Union still have some statute specifically applicable to the prevention of conception.

Jurisdictions that have ruled on the constitutionality of contraceptive statutes all seem to be in agreement that the regulation of contraceptives is a legitimate exercise of the state's police power to regulate public morals.

[Citing, e.g., Commonwealth v. Allison, Mass. 1917 (emphasizing that the "means adopted are sanctioned by long continued usage"); People v. Byrne, N.Y., 1917 (relying of the fact that "convictions had under [an anti-contraceptives law] have never been held unconstitutional"); Lanteen Laboratories v. Clark, Ill., 1938 (noting that "after the federal [Comstock Act of 1873] was enacted, majority of the states passed statutes designed to prevent the sale of contraceptives").] 

This Court dismissed [challenges to contraceptive laws in 1919 and 1938] for want of a substantial federal question.

The Supreme Court may not decide the desirability of legislation in determining its constitutionality. 

Agreeing with those arguments were the dissenting Justices who voted, in Griswold, to uphold the law criminalizing contraceptive use. This is from one of the dissents:

The Court [majority] talks about a constitutional ‘right of privacy’ as though there is some constitutional provision...But there is not.

Every state criminal statute must inevitably curtail ‘liberty’ to some extent.

Here's from the other dissenting opinion:

As to the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, I can find nothing in any of them to invalidate this Connecticut law.

What provision of the Constitution, then, does make this state law invalid? 

 You might as well add that there's no provision in the Constitution mentioning "contraceptives" or "birth control" or "sex." Just what Alito says about "abortion."

Now, speaking of sex, what about the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 2003,  ruling that laws criminalizing gay sex are unconstitutional? To be sure, "gay sex" is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. But neither is straight sex or sex of any sort for that matter. Nevertheless, Justices Byron White and Antonin Scalia--who, not coincidentally, are quoted frequently in Alito's leaked opinion--argued vehemently that there was no right to "homosexual sodomy," as they insisted on calling it, because it is not mentioned or implied in the Constitution. (Does anyone honestly believe that White and Scalia opposed gay rights for that reason?)

Like the decision in Griswold, to protect a privacy right to use contraceptives, the decision in Lawrence, to protect the right of same-sex couples to engage in sexual intimacy, remains extremely controversial--again, at least in culturally conservative circles. So just consider the similarities between Alito's leaked opinion and the arguments favoring criminal laws against "homosexual sodomy." This is from Texas's brief to the Supreme Court in Lawrence:

In light of pervasive State criminalization of such conduct throughout the nation's history, it could not seriously be asserted that a right to engage in homosexual sodomy was “deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.”

Sodomy was a serious criminal offense at common law.
It was forbidden by the laws of the original thirteen states at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
It was punishable as a crime in all but five of the thirty-seven states in existence at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Courts cannot concern themselves “with cultural trends and political movements” without “usurping the role of the Legislature.”

The State of Texas has a legitimate state interest in legislatively expressing the long-standing moral traditions of the State against homosexual conduct.

Then there's this from Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in support of the Texas law:

Quoting approvingly from Justice White's majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, where the Court had previously upheld criminal laws against "homosexual sodomy"--as, again, Scalia and White were fond of calling it:

“Proscriptions against that conduct have ancient roots.” 

“Sodomy was a criminal offense at common law and was forbidden by the laws of the original 13 States when they ratified the Bill of Rights.”

A right to engage in homosexual sodomy was not “‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition,’"

Scalia continued...

There are 203 prosecutions for consensual, adult homosexual sodomy reported from the years 1880–1995.
There are also records of 20 sodomy prosecutions and 4 executions during the colonial period.
Texas's hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new “constitutional right.”

Those judgments are to be made by the people.

A lot like Alito's leaked opinion?

As might be expected, those same arguments against "homosexual sodomy" were urged again 12 years later against same-sex marriage. When the Court, in Obergefell v Hodges, 2015, recognized the right of same-sex couples to marry, Justice Scalia, again in dissent, made those now all-too-familiar arguments to defend laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples:

The [majority] opinion is the furthest extension in fact of the Court's claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention.
When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases.

We have no basis for striking down [this marriage restriction] that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment's text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment's ratification.

 

Let me refer to just one more landmark to help understand how utterly dangerous and threatening Alito's arguments are to our fundamental notions of civil rights and liberties today. Consider Reed v Reed, 1971. This was the very first decision of the Supreme Court to hold that women are entitled to equal protection under the Constitution. That's right, it was not until 1971! But still, you might think, the Court would never go back and start upholding discrimination against women again. (Although Justice Scalia, the hero of several Justices who have joined Alito's leaked opinion, insisted that the Constitution's Equal Protection guarantee did not apply to women.)

Let's look at the arguments in Reed v. Reed to uphold such discrimination. The state law at issue in that case prioritized the appointment of men over women in probating estates. Here's what the brief to the Supreme Court argued in support of that law:

Statutes specifically preferring males to females have been applied whenever they have come before the courts. [Citing numerous cases from several states dating back to 1845.] 
Their constitutionality has never before been questioned.
The 14th Amendment [Equal Protection Clause] was not enacted to prohibit the enactment of laws making a distinction on the basis of sex.
There is no present legal authority for [a contrary] contention.
Nothing new can be put into the Constitution except by the amendatory process.
The remedy or remedies should be with the electorate, by state legislatures, where local conditions and needs are better known and responded to than nationally.

There is nothing in the vague generalities of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses which empower this Court to nullify the deliberate choices of the elected representatives of the people.

Yep, these arguments to deny equal protection to women are those we've seen repeatedly and the same ones in Alito's leaked opinion. Whether the arguments were made in the past to support racial segregation, or anti-miscegenation laws, or laws prohibiting contraceptives, or laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy, or laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, or laws denying equal protection of the laws to women, they are of one cloth with the arguments now being made to uphold laws against a woman's right to choose an abortion.

To rephrase how I characterized these arguments at the outset, they boil down to this:

Constitutional guarantees have only narrow, specific meanings; that's the way they've been viewed in the past; and the Supreme Court has no legitimate authority to give those rights and liberties any fuller effect.

Alito may insist that "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." But that can't be so if he is serious about his arguments. Because those are the same arguments as those that were made--and in some circles are still made--against other precedents. They are the same arguments that were made, but the Supreme Court rejected, in Brown, and Loving, and Griswold, and Lawrence, and Obergefell, and Reed--and, in fact, in most landmark decisions. Alito's leaked opinion reverses the course taken in those landmarks and he now embraces those arguments as dispositive.

Unless Alito's arguments are retracted, or distinguished away, or in some incoherent, unprincipled way made applicable to some constitutional issues but inapplicable to others, they do actually undermine other precedents. They revive the previously rejected positions urged--and still urged--against many landmark decisions.

One last thing. Many readers have surely been doing this all along. Just exchange laws against abortion for laws against racial integration, or against interracial marriages, or against contraceptives, or against "homosexual sodomy," or against same-sex marriage, or against equal rights for women. Make the substitutions in Alito's leaked opinion or in the arguments made against the landmarks. The rights in question may be different, but the arguments against those rights are the same.

Whatever one thinks about a woman's right to choose--and there are profound interests on both sides of the issue--Alito's leaked opinion is dreadfully reasoned and dangerous to civil rights and liberties.

The Leaked Opinion--Constitutional Nonsense Revisited (Part 2)

In Part 1, we examined the nonsensical, ahistorical, and contra-constitutional argument that "it's-not-in-the-text" of the Constitution. In short, the primary argument in Justice Samuel Alito's leaked opinion--i.e., that a woman's right to choose an abortion is nowhere mentioned in the document--misrepresents the purpose of the Constitution, which was to organize and divide powers in the new national government. Not to enumerate rights. Most significantly, Alito's argument is exactly what the Framers feared when they were considering whether to add a list of some rights to the original document. Moreover, that argument disregards the intended safeguard inserted into the resulting Bill of Rights--what would become the 9th Amendment--that the enumeration of rights was certainly not all-inclusive.

Justice Samuel Alito
Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images

As I've previously said, Alito is surely aware of all that. He must know how flimsy that "it's-not-in-the-text" argument is. Indeed, he acknowledges--if begrudgingly so--that there are fundamental rights the Supreme Court has recognized that are nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution.

Alito does not necessarily take issue with unenumerated rights. At least not all of them. But he does repeatedly insist that any non-textual, unspecified constitutional right must be "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." He also repeatedly insists that the right to abortion fails that test, and he exhaustively recites a history of abortion crimes to make his point.

As with the "it's-not-in-the-text" argument, Alito must know the weakness of his fallback test. "Objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"--really? He must know that every landmark civil rights and liberties decision of the Supreme Court broke with history and tradition. That's why they are landmarks.

The cherished decisions of the Court, the ones that are most celebrated by Americans and by the Court itself, those decisions that have given life to our highest constitutional ideals of liberty and justice and equality--they failed Alito's test! They never would have been delivered if the Supreme Court embraced history and tradition as the mandate Alito insists it is.

Any student of constitutional law--and, to be sure, Alito is one--should have no difficulty rattling off landmark decisions of the Supreme Court that failed his "this Nation's history and tradition" test. Does Alito actually reject those landmarks? Do the other Justices who have apparently voted with him reject those landmarks as well?

Let's consider a few of them.

• Brown v. Board of Education, prohibiting government-sponsored racial segregation. That 1954 decision, 167 years after the Constitution was adopted, overruled the Nation's history and tradition of allowing racial segregation in this country. In fact, racial segregation was even accepted for 84 years after the explicit guarantee of equal protection was added in 1868 in the 14th Amendment. The Court in Brown famously overruled the "separate-but-equal" doctrine which it had approved in 1896 in Plessy v. Ferguson. The constitutional right against racial segregation clearly failed Alito's test. Did that make Brown an illegitimate decision?
• Loving v. Virginia, recognizing the right of interracial couples to marry. That 1967 decision--perhaps the most dreaded by those who fought against racial integration--rejected the Nation's history and tradition of anti-miscegenation laws. It took 180 years since the framing of the Constitution, and even 13 years after Brown. The Court had to overrule another decision, Pace v. Alabama, an 1883 ruling in which the Court placed its constitutional imprimatur on that long tradition in the states. Sorry, but Loving 's recognition of a right to marry for mixed-race couples flunked Alito's test. Illegitimate?
• Reed v. Reed, invalidating discrimination against women as arbitrary. That 1971 decision was the first to prohibit unequal treatment on the basis of sex. Yes, it was not until 1971, 184 years since the Constitution was adopted and 103 years since the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. This Nation's history and tradition was to accept "a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman [because the] natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life." (Bradwell v. Illinois, 1873.) It was nearly a century after Bradwell that the Court, in Reed, finally rejected that constitutionally approved notion of women being "evidently unfit" for the same responsibilities and rights as men. Yep, equal rights for women fails Alito's test. Illegitimate?
• Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating state laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy. That 2003 decision overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, decided 17 years earlier, which had approved the continuing "savage discrimination" [to use Judge Richard Posner's description] against gays and lesbians. That mistreatment was certainly part of this country's history and tradition. Indeed, those who vehemently oppose gay rights and the Lawrence decision argue both that the Constitution does not confer a right of "homosexual sodomy" and, moreover, that such conduct was widely forbidden since the nation's founding. Of course, whether "homosexual sodomy" is a fundamental right is hardly the issue; but, rather, whether there is any legitimate government interest that justifies criminalizing the most personal and private conduct of consenting adults. But be that as it may, the right of same-sex couples to engage in intimate conduct--just as opposite-sex couples are permitted--fails both the "it's-not-in-the-text" and the history and tradition tests. A fortiori, so does the right to marry for same-sex couples which the Court recognized 12 years later in Obergefell v. Hodges. Are both decisions now headed for the chopping block?
• Griswold v. Connecticut, recognizing a private right to use contraceptives. That 1965 decision, continually derided by opponents because a "right of privacy" is not mentioned in the Constitution, also defied the history and tradition of this country's view of contraceptives as being immoral. Indeed, such a view was enshrined in the federal Comstock Act of 1873, together with the prohibition of obscene materials, and was enforceable with criminal punishments up to 10 years imprisonment. Well, neither "privacy" nor "contraceptives" are to be found anywhere in the Constitution's text. Nor was either deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition back in 1965 when Griswold was decided. As with gay rights, the private right to use contraceptives fails both of Alito's tests. The chopping block?

There are so many other Supreme Court decisions protecting civil rights and liberties that do not pass one or the other or either of Alito's tests. But let's move to some landmarks that protect the rights of the criminally accused. Let's see how they hold up to the "history and tradition" test. 

As all students of constitutional law know, it is the 14th Amendment, not the Bill of Rights, that makes federal constitutional protections enforceable against the states. Its Due Process Clause, which explicitly protects "liberty," is what the Supreme Court has relied on to enforce fundamental rights. But neither "due process" nor "liberty" are defined in the 14th Amendment, or elsewhere in the document. So ever since 1868 when the 14th Amendment was adopted, the Court has been giving meaning to those terms.

Let's take a brief look at how history and tradition have dealt with "due process."

• The right to a jury trial? For the first 100 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified--and 181 years after the Constitution was adopted--the Supreme Court allowed states to conduct prosecutions without affording the accused a right to a jury. Then in its 1968 decision in Duncan v. Louisiana, the Court overruled a string of precedents (see e.g., Maxwell v. Dow, 1900) that had consistently rejected the notion that a jury trial right was a necessary component of due process. The history and tradition of the Constitution's 14th Amendment and of the meaning of its due process provision certainly didn't win the day in Duncan. The jury right in state trials, illegitimate?
• The right to a unanimous jury? Despite the Duncan decision, the Supreme Court continued to reject the notion that a unanimous verdict was required for a conviction. It took another 52 years for the Court to rule that unanimity was a due process requirement. In its 2020 ruling in Ramos v. Louisiana, the Court overruled a couple of post-Duncan decisions--Apodaca v. Oregon and Johnson v. Louisiana, both 1972--and for the first time ruled that states must not only afford the right to a jury trial, but that state juries must be unanimous to convict. So the Supreme Court's recognition of that due process right in the 14th Amendment took 152 years and 233 years after the adoption of the Constitution. Deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition?
• The right to counsel? In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court held that an accused, rich or poor, was entitled to the assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions in state courts. Accordingly, that 1963 decision required states to provide an attorney for defendants who could not afford one on their own. The Court overruled its 1942 Betts v. Brady decision, which had adhered to the longstanding view that a defendant's rights in state courts under the 14th Amendment were not equal to those rights guaranteed in federal courts by the Bill of Rights. Specifically, state defendants were not constitutionally entitled to the same right to counsel that the 6th Amendment required in federal prosecutions. So, Gideon contravened the history and tradition of due process rights in state courts--that's 95 years of jurisprudence since the adoption of the 14th Amendment and 176 years of jurisprudence under the Constitution itself. Yep, Gideon's right to counsel flunked Alito's history and tradition test.

We could go on and on with constitutional rights of the accused that were finally guaranteed against violation by the states--all in landmarks that flunked Alito's test. For example:

• Search and seizure rights were not protected against state violation until 1961 in Mapp v. Ohio
• The right against cruel and unusual punishment, not until 1962 in Robinson v. California
• The right against compulsory self-incrimination, not until 1964 in Malloy v. Hogan
• The right against double jeopardy, not until 1969 in Benton v. Maryland
• The right against a racially selected jury, not until 1986 in Batson v. Kentucky
• And more recently, the right against excessive fines, not until 2019 in Timbs v. Indiana.

Regarding that last mentioned right, as late as 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court listed that right against excessive fines among those that had never been held to be enforcible against the states. Indeed, regarding all of those rights of the accused, the aforementioned landmark cases enforced them against the states for the first time. There had been no previous history or tradition of those rights being included within the requirements of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee.

One final note about the history and tradition test. Alito's repeated reference to it derives from the judicial opinions of one of America's greatest judges, Benjamin Nathan Cardozo. Yes, Cardozo applied that concept in determining what was a fundamental right constitutional right. But he warned against transforming "vague precepts" of due process into "immutable principles."

Throughout his career on the bench, Cardozo made clear that history and tradition were not prescriptions for primitive or static views about the law. To the contrary, in opinions for which he is renowned, he advanced the American law of consumer rights and business ethics as well as so many other areas while on the New York Court of Appeals. He did the same with the protections of workers and retirees and the scope of constitutionally protected liberty while a Supreme Court Justice.

Perhaps most notably for the focus of this commentary, is Cardozo's famous articulation of a foundational liberty within weeks of his appointment to New York's highest court. As he put it in his unanimous opinion in 1914 in Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hosp.:

Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.

He was rephrasing what was already accepted as a basic doctrine of civil liberties in other state courts:

Under a free government, at least, the free citizen’s first and greatest right, which underlies all others — the right to the inviolability of his person; in other words the right' to himself — is the subject of universal acquiescence. (See e.g., Mohr v. Williams [Minnesota Supreme Court,1905.])

Despite the history and tradition underlying that "first and greatest right" of bodily autonomy, Alito's opinion gives it the shortest shrift, the narrowest scope. Of course, no right is absolute. But the disregard of that right in Alito's opinion, when it comes to a woman's decision whether to continue a pregnancy, is not explainable except that he picks and chooses where and how his history and tradition test shall apply. 

Clearly, Alito's "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" test, if it were truly to be applied "objectively"--and not based on ideology or partisanship or personal morality--would provide much more weight to a woman's right to choose than Alito is willing to acknowledge. And as we've already seen, his supposedly mandatory test would have precluded so many of the Supreme Court's landmarks that are now basic to American civil rights and liberties. He's not a stupid man. He knows that.

In the next post, Alito's insistence that his opinion does not affect other rights.