Today in Supreme Court History: June 27, 2005

6/27/2005: McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU and Van Orden v. Perry are decided.

 

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (decided June 27, 2016): struck Texas requirement that doctors performing abortions have privileges at local hospitals (a pretext for making it hard to obtain doctors to perform abortions) and requiring abortion clinics to meet standards of ambulatory surgery centers (irrelevant) as placing an "undue burden" on women inconsistent with Roe (obviously no longer good law as of Friday)

Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (decided June 27, 1977): struck down on First Amendment grounds prohibition on attorney advertising (thus subjecting us to decades of angry-looking TV actors pretending to be lawyers -- grrr!! snarl!! woof!! woof!!)

McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (decided June 27, 2005): Ten Commandments posted on walls of county courthouse violated Establishment Clause (county executive had stated in public that the Decalogue was the basis of the civil code) ( -- what? I thought statements of purpose by heads of government were irrelevant -- see Trump v. Hawaii, 2018)

Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (decided June 27, 2005): Ten Commandments display outside state capitol did not violate Establishment Clause (you can look up the photo, it's a small monument, easily passed by)

Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (decided June 27, 1997): Brady Law provision requiring local sheriffs to perform background checks violated the Tenth Amendment (no, not the Ten Commandments)

Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (decided June 27, 1977): upheld regulation that women could not serve in "contact" positions in male prisons because sex offenders would be more likely to assault them (hiring only men was a "bona fide occupational qualification", or "bfoq" -- did the Justices really say "b-fock" at conference?)

Republican Party v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (decided June 27, 2002): First Amendment violated by Minnesota law forbidding candidates for judicial office from giving views on issues

Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253 (decided June 27, 1960): ended the "silver platter" doctrine (wherein evidence illegally seized by state police could be used in federal prosecutions)

[John F. Carr]

The admitting privileges cases struck me as encouraging judge shopping because there are facts to be found in how much of a burden the laws impose. Under present law a three judge district court is convened for certain election law challenges. They used to be more widely used. We could benefit from three judge courts in more major (whatever that means) constitutional challenges to state action. Instead of a coin flip between two judges in the Austin Division you get a broader point of view.

[Dan Schiavetta]

There is no point in requiring the same doctor who performed an abortion to be the one who treats the woman later in the E.R. if something goes wrong. In the first place, it is impractical. Such events tend to be actual emergencies and she would have to be treated by whoever was attending at the E.R. Secondly when the immediate crisis is over records from the clinic can be obtained and the doctor consulted by phone. He doesn’t have to be the one treating her. In short, there is no reason for him to have privileges at the hospital, admitting or otherwise.