Today in Supreme Court History: December 10, 2003

12/10/2003: McConnell v. Federal Election Commission decided.

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

President Truman asked Eleanor Roosevelt to be a delegate to the recently established United Nations.

Roosevelt had a successful run, even though others in the delegation and she herself initially doubted her abilities. She led the effort to formulate a Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Today, Human Rights Day honors the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It would take many years, and the United States still has not adopted each one of them, to pass conventions to help enforce them.

Each nation would have an obligation to enforce these rights, including via the court systems. The Supreme Court has a special role in our system to do so.

Nonetheless, each branch of government as well as the will of the people themselves also has a significant role to play. The interplay might be seen in today's case, involving a review of a congressional law regulating how we elect members of the government.

There are various ways to determine fundamental human rights. Some pushback on the very concept. Others appeal to God, nature, experience ("rights from wrongs"), and so on. I doubt there is any one right answer.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Ah yes, the rights to free food, shelter, clothing, and government employment, as judged by such outstanding human right exemplars as Saudi Arabia, Iran, various Corruptistans, and deluded useful idiots like Queers for Palestine.

[F.D. Wolf]

McConnell v. FEC is perhaps unique in Supreme Court history in that it had not one majority opinion, but THREE majority opinions. In an opinion jointly written by Stevens and O'Conner, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, the Court upheld Sections 1 and 2 of the McCain-Feingold Act. In another opinion, written by Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Souter, the Court struck down Sections 3 and 4. And in its third opinion, written by Breyer, joined by Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg, the Court upheld Section 5.

In total, the justices wrote eight opinions, filling 273 pages of the United States Reports. A long, indecipherable opinion on a long, indecipherable law. But it was nothing compared to the opinion of the three-judge district panel the Court was reviewing. 251 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.D.C. 2003). In that case, the court wrote a per curiam opinion, followed by an opinion from each judge, consuming 743 pages of the Federal Supplement, the longest opinion in the annals of American legal history.

But not even close for world history. That honor goes to the Allahbad High Court (India) in 2010, in a case involving the Adohya dispute, a dispute between Hindus and Muslims over a tract of land that goes back to the 1500s. The court's opinion was over 8000 pages. In reviewing the case, the Supreme Court of India was more modest, penning a mere 1045 pages.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good God!

Actually opinions of such length demonstrate laziness, and failure to supervise overly ambitious clerks.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I would like some more insights on the length of opinions of the Supreme Court of India before judging "laziness" or such.

[jdgalt1]

You'd think they were writing the Spanish Constitution.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. 30 (decided December 10, 2021): suit against abortion “bounty hunter” statute (Texas S. 8) can proceed against state health officials having collateral authority over abortion services but not against judges and clerks who put S. 8 cases on dockets (Sotomayor’s argument in dissent, that such a statute can in effect prevent the exercise of any explicitly recognized Constitutional right, survives Dobbs)

McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U.S. 93 (decided December 10, 2003): rejected First Amendment attack on McCain-Feingold campaign finance disclosure law (partly overruled by Citizens United v. FEC, 2010)

Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. 43 (decided December 10, 2020): FBI agents violating Religious Freedom Restoration Act can be liable in individual capacities (plaintiffs were Muslims who were placed on “no-fly” list for refusing to inform on their communities; they were then taken off list, making the injunctive claim moot; Court here held only that claim for damages could go forward, without deciding merits)

[John F. Carr]

The Supreme Court in Tanzin v. Tanvir suggested qualified immunity might be available. On remand the District Court agreed and the Second Circuit recently affirmed:

Moreover, RFRA is not a general anti-discrimination statute; it prohibits the government only from “substantially burden[ing]” an individual’s “exercise of religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a); cf. id. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits certain employers from, inter alia, “discriminat[ing] against any individual . . . because of such individual’s . . . religion”). Thus, the mere fact that the government allegedly selected individuals of certain religions for recruitment as informants is not sufficient to state a RFRA damages claim. Instead, for a plaintiff to win damages from an individual officer for violating RFRA, the officer must have known that her conduct implicated the plaintiff’s religious beliefs or practices. Otherwise, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. As already explained, the Appellants do not allege that the agents had reason to know of the beliefs that precluded them from informing.

The case lasted 11 years, unless the Supreme Court intervenes again. District Court docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4352780/tanvir-v-comey/

The first named defendant was originally James Comey.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Both McConnell and Citizens United (reargument) had a special September oral argument. A lot of big advocates in those cases. And, some guy named Bobby R. Burchfield.

[John F. Carr]

There were parallel lawsuits over SB8 in state court. The law creates an unfair process, whether it is about abortion, guns, or cute puppies. The state court fight continues. Last month the Supreme Court of Texas ordered the Appeals Court to consider whether the plaintiffs challenging the law had standing. If they have standing then the court can consider who wins under Texas' anti-SLAPP law. If plaintiffs don't have standing then they lose but defendants do not get attorney's fees under the anti-SLAPP law.

https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1459709/230468pc.pdf

A California law meant to retaliate for SB8 was struck down by a federal judge because it was so blatantly unconstitutional. California residents' legal rights depended on whether an unrelated Texas law was in effect, and if not how it came to be ineffective.

[Commenter_XY]

I remember Justice Kagan's expressed irritation with SB8 during an oral argument. The law was drafted by Jonathan Mitchell, no? I seem to recall him being the author.

And didn't Jonathan Mitchell also argue the CO 14A ballot case?