Justice Antonin Scalia

  • January 28, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    In The New York Times, Alan Blinder reports that Georgia completed the execution of Warren Hill, a man with a lifelong intellectual disability. The Supreme Court denied a request to stay Hill’s execution earlier this week.

    Richard Kreitner argues at The Nation that courts should begin to enforce Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment in order to save the right to vote.

    Sahil Kapur discusses in Talking Points Memo how the Obama administration is using a 2012 dissent by Justice Scalia in the new Affordable Care Act case.

    At Lyle Denniston Law News, Lyle Denniston writes that an Alabama state judge has vowed resistance to the “tyranny” of same-sex marriage rulings.

  • January 26, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Adam Winkler, Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law.

    During oral argument in the Fair Housing Act case this past week, Justice Antonin Scalia explained how another high-profile case coming later this term—King v. Burwell—ought to be decided. The King case involves the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. The challengers argue that the ACA does not authorize tax credits for people purchasing insurance on exchanges set up by the federal government rather than the states. They rely on a provision in the law that says such credits are available for insurance bought “through an Exchange established by the State.” Read in isolation, that provision would seem to suggest that the credits are available only on the 14 exchanges run by the states, not in the 36 states with exchanges run by the federal government.

    In the hearing in the Fair Housing Act case, however, Justice Scalia—whose vote is almost certainly necessary for the ACA challengers to win their case—elucidated why the ACA challengers should lose. The Court’s obligation in interpreting a statute, Scalia said, is to “look at the entire law,” not just “each little piece” in isolation. “We have to make sense of the law as a whole,” Scalia insisted. Whether or not something is allowed by a statute can only be determined “when all parts are read together.”

    Anyone who reads the “whole law” in the ACA case would easily conclude that credits are available on the federally run exchanges. Start with the basic objectives of the law. According to the authors of the law, “The Affordable Care Act was designed to make health-care coverage affordable for all Americans, regardless of the state they live in. Providing financial help to low- and moderate-income Americans was the measure’s key method of making insurance premiums affordable.” That basic goal would be completely undermined if federally run exchanges couldn't offer the tax credits.

  • January 6, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Nancy Leong writes in the Huffington Post about how the death penalty has become both rarer and more problematic.

    In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports on the start of same-sex marriages in Florida and the Supreme Court’s meeting on the issue.

    Jenny Kutner reports in Salon on the rising number of abortion restrictions states enacted in the last four years.

    In The Nation, Katrina vanden Heuvel examines Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent comments on torture and the Eighth Amendment.

    Adam Liptak writes in The New York Times about an article Justice Elena Kagan wrote 19 years ago and its potential influence on a Supreme Court case.

  • October 3, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Rob Boston, the Director of Communications at Americans United for Separation of Church and State

    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia captured headlines recently by declaring that nothing in the Constitution prevents the government from favoring religion over non-religion.

    “I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Scalia told a crowd at Colorado Christian University Oct. 1.

    “We do Him [God] honor in our Pledge of Allegiance, in all our public ceremonies,” he added. “There’s nothing wrong with that. It is in the best of American traditions, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. I think we have to fight that tendency of the secularists to impose it on all of us through the Constitution.”

    It’s not the first time Scalia has made such comments. In 2009, he told an Orthodox Jewish newspaper published in Brooklyn, “It has not been our American constitutional tradition, nor our social or legal tradition, to exclude religion from the public sphere. Whatever the Establishment Clause means, it certainly does not mean that government cannot accommodate religion, and indeed favor religion. My court has a series of opinions that say that the Constitution requires neutrality on the part of the government, not just between denominations, not just between Protestants, Jews and Catholics, but neutrality between religion and non-religion. I do not believe that. That is not the American tradition.”

    The “American tradition” that Scalia refers to doesn’t have much of a history. “Under God” was slipped into the Pledge in 1954 as a slap at godless Communism. “In God We Trust” wasn’t codified for use on paper money until 1956 – again, it was a Cold War-era slam at the Soviets. (The use of the phrase on coins is older. It was a desperate ploy by the North to curry favor with the deity during the early months of the Civil War.)

  • September 11, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    The Supreme Court has scheduled for consideration same-sex marriage cases from five states at its September 29 private conference, reports Richard Wolf for USA Today.

    In The New York Times, Henry J. Aaron, David M. Cutler, and Peter R. Orszag argue against the constant the legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act.

    Arit John writes for The Wire that lawmakers in Missouri have increased the wait period for abortions in the state to three days.

    Joanna Rothkopf reports in Salon on the continuing protests in Ferguson over the failure to appoint a special prosecutor to review the Michael Brown shooting.

    In the New Republic, Justin Driver reviews a new biography on Justice Antonin Scalia.