Today in Supreme Court History: June 24, 2013

6/24/2013: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin I is decided.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin I”, 570 U.S. 297 (decided June 24, 2013): all race based factors in college admissions are subject to “strict scrutiny”; case remands the question of university’s admissions policy to be reconsidered by the Fifth Circuit (which had merely accepted race factors if made “in good faith”); Fifth Circuit approved the policy (in which race was “a factor of a factor of a factor” in multi-step evaluation) and the Court affirmed in “Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin II”, 2016

Cheney v. United States District Court, 542 U.S. 367 (decided June 24, 2004): Freedom of Information requests to Cheney’s Energy Task Force were overbroad and likely to conflict with official duties; remands to lower court to narrow requests (though Cheney argued that the requests should be denied in full) (suit was brought by Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club, an odd couple) (easy to see why oilman Cheney fought so hard against disclosure; leaks showed that even before 9/11 he was planning on toppling Saddam Hussein so as to open up the Iraqi oil market)

Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. — (decided June 24, 2019): a crude but probably unavoidable offspring of Matal v. Tam, 2017, which had struck down on First Amendment grounds the USPTO Office’s refusal on statutory “disparagement” grounds to trademark “The Slants”, the name of an Asian-American band which wanted to “take back” that racial slur; here, the Court vacates the refusal to trademark the clothing line “FUCT” despite the “scandalous” name

Jenkins v. Georgia, 418 U.S. 153 (decided June 24, 1974): rules that the film “Carnal Knowledge” was not obscene (I saw it as a teenager — Ann-Margret was hot!! — also, when I was back to having a free hand to hold the popcorn, I realized it was a good movie)

Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, 597 U.S. — (decided June 24, 2022): approving HHS rule that percentage of Medicare-eligible patients (which goes into calculation of reimbursement rates for low-income-serving hospitals) includes those not actually receiving Medicare

​Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. — (decided June 24, 2022: the Constitution does not provide a right to abortion and it’s not a substantive right “deeply rooted” in tradition; overruling the pro-choice extent of the holdings in Roe v. Wade, 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1990 and upholding Mississippi statute outlawing abortions after 15 weeks “except in a medical emergency (i.e., to save life of mother) or in the case of “severe fetal abnormality”

Hooper v. Bernadillo County Assessor, 472 U.S. 612 (decided June 24, 1985): Equal Protection violated by Arizona statute limiting Vietnam War veteran property tax deduction to those who were Arizona residents at the time

Pauley v. Bethenergy Mines, 501 U.S. 680 (decided June 24, 1991): permits two extra restrictions agency placed on applicants for federal Black Lung Disease benefits because they are obvious (benefits denied if no showing that condition arose out of working in mines, or if applicant does not in fact have pneumoconiosis)

Dutra Group v. Batterton, 588 U.S. — (decided June 24, 2019): applying admiralty common law, holds that punitive damages not recoverable on claim of unseaworthiness (sailor injured by hatch blowing open)

Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (decided June 24, 2010): vacates conviction against Enron executive for “honest services fraud” because statutory language was vague and would include some legal activities; Skilling’s conviction on other counts was not at issue so the case was sent back for resentencing (he also argued, unsuccessfully, that the jury was biased due to pretrial publicity)

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"(easy to see why oilman Cheney fought so hard against disclosure; leaks showed that even before 9/11 he was planning on toppling Saddam Hussein so as to open up the Iraqi oil market)"

It's amazing how many "conspiracy theories" turn out to actually have foundation in truth.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Unfortunately the truth often comes out too late to do anything about it.

[Nige]

Would it have mattered if it had? It isn't as if it wasn't blatantly obvious what was going on and everybody knew the neohawks had been gunning for Iraq and were clearly using 9/11 as a pretext, counting on war fever to carry the day for the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Is it a conspiracy theory or even a conspiracy when they're not even trying to hide it?

[Dan Schiavetta]

They were trying to hide it. And the press helped them out.

The press also barely reported on the mammoth pre-invasion protests, both here and worldwide. Of course Fox News was particularly bad (80% of Fox News viewers thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11) but the New York Times and the Washington Post were also very irresponsible. Particularly Judith Miller of the Times, who reported on Rumsfeld’s lies without question, and Fred Hiatt, who ran the Post editorial page. Also offensive were The Atlantic and its cheerleading reporter Michael Kelley. Mind you these were supposed to be “left wing” publications.

The “respectable” news outlets were all in the bag. Few listened to Ted Kennedy who called the Iraq war a “fraud”. Even John Kerry skirted around the issue in the 2004 campaign instead of telling the truth. (He only went as far as saying it was a "colossal miscalculation".) As for voices against the war, the media tended to select entertainment people, such as Janeane Garofalo. As she pointed out, this had the effect of making the antiwar case look frivolous.

[David Nieporent]

(easy to see why oilman Cheney fought so hard against disclosure; leaks showed that even before 9/11 he was planning on toppling Saddam Hussein so as to open up the Iraqi oil market)

Yeah… no.

[Dan Schiavetta]

https://www.judicialwatch.org/maps-and-charts-of-iraqi-oil-fields/

Note the link to "foreign suitors for iraqi oil contracts".

[taqmcg]

Took a look... Seems to show that someone in the US government was keeping track of everyone considering buying Iraqi oil. I'd expect that was true for every significant oil supplier. And that there would be similar memo's on other critical resources which have limited sources (e.g., lithium, rare earths, ...). So in this sense it demonstrates 'interest' in Iraqi oil, but this doesn't particularly suggest to me that there was a plan to launch a war accommodate the market. [Nor to refute it of course.] Perhaps you could clarify what you think these documents show?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Under Saddam Hussein the Iraqi oil industry had been nationalized. He was dealing only with a few foreign buyers (such as Russia and China). It was closed to foreign markets.

The documents show extensive discussions with world market countries as to whether they would be interested if the Iraqi oil market opened up. Needless to say many were.

[taqmcg]

Maybe... but what I see seems to indicate that this was all about interest/overtures that had been between various parties and the Iraq, not what you seem to be suggesting: that the US was sounding out potential buyers for Iraqi oil. E.g., the entry for Japan says that something had been submitted to Baghdad though mostly these are more cryptic, e.g., 'discussions' without any explicit mention of whom the discussions were between.

[David Nieporent]

Note the lack of link to "planning on toppling Saddam Hussein."

[Dan Schiavetta]

Do you really think they'd spell that out?

The implication is clear enough. Also, one can't imagine any other reason -- any actual reason -- for invading Iraq. There was no connection to 9/11, and the "weapons of mass destruction" stuff was fabricated.

Also -- we don't have more than a small part of what was generated by the Task Force, because Cheney successfully blocked it, as noted.

[John F. Carr]

upholding Mississippi statute outlawing abortions after 15 weeks “except in a medical emergency (i.e., to save life of mother) or in the case of “severe fetal abnormality”

Roberts would have left it at that, but there were five votes to go beyond the facts of the case and bless essentially all abortion restrictions.

[Dan Schiavetta]

True, but if a stricter ban was at issue (for example, after six weeks, such that any woman who misses a single period comes under suspicion; or with no exception for the life of the mother, such that women start dying), even Alito would have to recognize that the woman’s Due Process right to liberty or life was being deprived.

[F.D. Wolf]

A small correction: Hooper concerned a New Mexico statute. It was a 5-3 decision, with a slightly unusual alignment of justices. Chief Justice Burger wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Rehnquist and O'Connor.

It seems to me to go way beyond anything the Equal Protection Clause was meant to address, but seems a natural extension from Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), which had struck down durational residency requirements for public assistance. The Court in Hooper claimed it was reviewing the statute under "rational basis" scrutiny, but I think a fair reading of the opinion indicates it was actually using some form of heightened scrutiny.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks. Will correct.