The Conservative Justices Have Time Only For Their Wealthiest, Worst Friends
A quick look at whose legal rights the Supreme Court cares about protecting (those of rich assholes, more or less) and those it doesn't (those of basically anyone else).
The Supreme Court had an extremely busy week this week in its ongoing efforts to reshape American law in the graven image of Grover Norquist, so I will dispense with the usual newsletter format and let you read all of Balls & Strikes’s coverage below.
But real quick, before you jump in: A challenge with covering the Supreme Court (or even thinking about the Supreme Court, honestly) is that as the federal court of last resort, it handles such a broad range of issues that it can sometimes be easy to get lost in the legal weeds. Just this week, the Court decided cases about public corruption, financial crimes, abortion access, and poverty law, all wrapped up in dueling theories of constitutional law, statutory interpretation, and separation of powers. There is, to use a technical term, a lot going on here, and I do not blame anyone who has more than a little trouble keeping this blizzard of case captions straight.
So, take a quick step back. Set aside the particulars of the law at issue, and look at whose rights and interests, broadly speaking, the Court is interested in protecting, and whose rights and interests it cannot be bothered to care about. If you are a crooked public official, this Court wants to hear from you. (Snyder). If you are a grifting hedge fund manager, this Court wants to hear from you. (Jarkesy). If you are a literal January 6 rioter who thinks the charges against you are a little too mean, this Court wants to hear from you. (Fischer). And although Chief Justice John Roberts is not going to use his majority opinion to say that the Capitol insurrection was good, necessarily, he’s very conspicuosly not going to spend too much time condemning that one time you tried to do a deadly coup, either.
If, on the other hand, you are one of hundreds of thousands of poor people in this country who cannot afford a safe, dry place to stay at night? A person without resources, without political allies, whose legal rights depend on the federal court system’s willingness to protect them? (Grants Pass.) Bad news: Neil Gorsuch has considered your plight, and has regrettably determined that you are shit out of luck.
We’ll be back on Monday to cover (presumably) the Court’s release of the Trump immunity opinion, among others. But this, thus far, has been the throughline of the Court’s term, whatever the technical legal question the Court is ostenisbly tasked with resolving: People with whom the conservative justices identify get the benefit of the conservative justices’ time and attention. Everyone else is on their own.
As always, you can find everything we publish at ballsandstrikes.org, or follow us on Twitter at @ballsstrikes, or get in touch by emailing contact@ballsandstrikes.org. Thanks for reading.
This Week In Balls & Strikes
The Supreme Court Chooses to Throw January 6 Rioters a Bone, Madiba Dennie
The decision in Fischer v. United States is John Roberts doing what he loves best: proclaiming fidelity to the law’s plain meaning, while arrogating power to himself.
Neil Gorsuch’s Judicial Humility Is Sanctimonious Horseshit, Jay Willis
When judges have the chance to further the conservative agenda, Gorsuch is eager to dig in. When judges have the power to protect the rights of unhoused people, he cannot wash his hands of responsibility fast enough.
The Supreme Court’s War on Government Is Just Getting Started, Molly Coleman
The conservative legal movement has long sought to nullify the power of the administrative state. In Loper Bright, the Supreme Court at last claimed that power for itself.
The Conservative Justices Want Trump to Be President Again, Jay Willis
Why would the Supreme Court punt on a major abortion rights case? Because there is an election in November, and abortion rights are popular, and the Supreme Court is not.
John Roberts Is Empowering White-Collar Criminals to Do More White-Collar Crimes, Madiba Dennie
The opinion in Jarkesy v. SEC limits executive agencies’ authority to enforce laws and regulations, thus ensuring that those laws and regulations won’t be enforced by anyone.
There Is No Dumb Culture War That Sam Alito Won’t Fight, Jay Willis
When he wins, Sam Alito’s opinions become federal law. When he loses, they are the most deranged blog posts you’ve ever read.
The Supreme Court’s Bribe Enthusiasts Just Made Bribery a Little Easier, Madiba Dennie
There is basically no form of political corruption that the conservative justices won’t find a way to excuse.
Ketanji Brown Jackson Reminds Supreme Court That Its Decisions Have Real-World Consequences, Madiba Dennie
The junior justice’s concurring opinion in Rahimi calls out her colleagues for allowing lower court judges, lawmakers, and normal people to twist in the wind.
The Supreme Court’s War on Working People Just Got a Little Worse, Molly Coleman
The decision in Starbucks Corporation v. McKinney is part of a long tradition of the Supreme Court claiming the power of working people for itself.
This Week In Other Stuff We Appreciated
The Supreme Court Is Separating American Families With Phony Originalism, Ahilan Arulanatham, Slate
“Munoz provides a clear example of how the conservative supermajority’s focus on history allows it to rely on sexist and racist traditions to uphold all kinds of oppressive legal regimes today.”
The Big Winners of This Supreme Court Term, Nicholas Bagley, The Atlantic
A set of major decisions will give corporations more opportunities to roll back regulations they don’t like.