Writing for Verdict, Michael C. Dorf compares last week’s decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission with the political philosophy of fictional House of Cards majority whip Francis Underwood to reveal “a Court with an utterly benighted view of politics.” At CAC’s Text & History Blog, Brianne Gorod notes how Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling in McCutcheon is inconsistent with his stated beliefs as a judge on the U. S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
While the Affordable Care Act remains “too entrenched, among consumers and providers, either to fail on its own or be dispatched by legislative ‘repeal,’” its opponents continue to resist the law, bringing lawsuits that could “wreak havoc beyond the exchanges.” Writing for The New Republic, Simon Lazarus explains what needs to be done to counter these challenges.
The Obama administration continues to face criticism for its deportation of immigrants living in the country illegally. Ginger Thompson and Sarah Cohen of The New York Times reveal how an “examination of the administration’s record shows how the disconnect evolved between the president’s stated goal of blunting what he called the harsh edge of immigration enforcement and the reality that has played out.”
On Monday, the Supreme Court decided not to grant certiorari in a case asking whether a business can “refuse to serve gay and lesbian customers.” Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog breaks down Elane Photography v. Willock and other orders from the high court.
Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic reviews former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, and highlights the justice’s change of heart on the constitutionality of capital punishment.
As voters prepare to head to the polls this election season, many are concerned with how last year’s Supreme Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder will affect voter turnout. Carrie Johnson at NPR reports on an ACS-sponsored voting rights training in Atlanta that is working to prevent voter disenfranchisement.
When did the Supreme Court’s stance on campaign finance reform begin to change? For Kenneth Jost at Jost on Justice, the court began to “open its door to more money in politics” as soon as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor closed the door on her career in 2005. In his analysis, Jost breaks down McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission and explains why it’s “no mere coincidence that O’Connor’s departure marks the court’s turning point on issues of campaign finance regulation.”
Attorneys have filed a lawsuit to stop Texas’ expansive restrictions on abortion. Irin Carmon at MSNBC reports on the new challenge from abortion rights activists.
I am very concerned about the Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC, though perhaps not for the reasons you’d think. I will leave it to others to be concerned that the Court is moving toward a system in which the richest among us have significantly louder political speech than the rest of the country; I won’t even lament the irony of the Chief Justice’s opening line acknowledging that “[t]here is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders,” when juxtaposed with the Shelby County opinion from last term. I won’t comment, as Ari Berman eloquently has in The Nation, on the Court’s disturbing trend toward “More Money, Less Voting.” My concern right now is more selfish—I’m concerned because I’m a second year law student, exams are a few weeks away, and the Chief Justice has fundamentally confounded my understanding of stare decisis.
In McCutcheon, the Court struck down aggregate spending limits imposed by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). This is a conclusion that would seem to require overruling the Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo upholding that very same provision. And yet the Court did not go through the “prudential and pragmatic considerations” announced in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, when deciding whether to overrule precedent. In Casey, in which the Court refused to overturn Roe v. Wade, the Court stressed the importance of precedent in our Constitutional system: “Indeed, the very concept of the rule of law under our own Constitution requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is, by definition, indispensable.” And yet we see none of this respect for continuity or the rule of law in the Chief Justice’s decision to override the aggregate limit holding in Buckley.
Instead, the Court notes that Buckley’s holding on the issue was only three sentences long, was not “‘separately addressed at length by the parties,’” and thus “does not control here.” The Chief Justice points to two other cases in which the Court has not felt bound by what the Chief basically characterizes as sloppy decision-making: Toucey v. New York Life Ins. Co and Hohn v. United States. Yet both of those cases dealt with procedural issues that the Court stressed did not alter primary conduct—a situation thought by some to carry less precedential weight. McCutcheon’s invalidation of aggregate political contribution limits will undoubtedly alter primary conduct and thus deserves more precedential respect.
Many believe that the Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission will further enable corruption through the use of “dark money.” Writing for The Washington Post, Heather K. Gerken, Wade Gibson and Webb Lyons discuss how the virtues of “disclosure and disclaimer provisions” could “direct campaign finance reform toward greater transparency.” In a related op-ed, Zephyr Teachout promotes “public-funding systems” and argues why “our candidates don’t have to be beggars at the feet of oligarchs.”
Yesterday, the Senate Intelligence Committee voted to declassify a report examining the Central Intelligence Agency’s interrogation programs during the Bush administration. Burgess Everett and Josh Gerstein at Politico break down the report expected to reveal that “CIA interrogators went well beyond the highly permissive guidelines the Justice Department issued permitting tactics many view as torture.”
Today marks the forty-sixth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. At The Root, Peniel E. Joseph comments on Dr. King’s “last crusade against the poverty, racism and militarism that he saw as the triple threat to humanity.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with Der Spiegel about her legal career, women’s role within the court and her personal motto. You can see Justice Sotomayor and civil rights leader Theodore Shaw in conversation at the 2014 ACS National Convention.
At The Life of the Law, Elizabeth Joh shares “what artists are showing us about surveillance and the law.”
Goldfish have a reputation for short memories. Once around the bowl and the goldfish forgets where he has been. The Supreme Court is behaving like goldfish when it comes to campaign finance law. Not only are they forgetting precedent from decades ago, they can’t even recall cases from the beginning of the Roberts Court—a mere eight years ago.
On Wednesday, April 2, the Supreme Court in McCutcheon v. FEC ruled 5-4 (natch, since all big campaign finance cases of late are 5-4) that federal aggregate contribution limits are unconstitutional. This trashes the current limit of $123,200 and replaces it with a figure north of $3 million every two years for the very well-heeled, who can afford such extravagant sums.
To get this result in McCutcheon, the Supreme Court overruled part of the seminal Buckley v. Valeo case from 1976 for the first time. Buckley has been at issue in many cases including one from first term of the Roberts Court called Randall v. Sorrell. You can be forgiven if you’ve never heard of this particular case. Randall was a big deal for campaign finance nerds, but it was met with a yawn by the general public as it essentially reaffirmed Buckley from thirty years before.
Randall was a conscious progressive test case of Buckley’s basic structure, which has generated a cottage industry of criticism ever since it was originally decided per curiam in the mid-1970s. Buckley ruled that campaign expenditures could not be limited, but campaign contributions could. This left federal candidates with a bottomless demand for campaign cash and a limited supply. Hence, this case is blamed for the endless treadmill of dialing for dollars for candidates for Congress and the Presidency.