Our highest courts are about to release some earth-shaking opinions.
On Thursday morning at 10:00 a.m., the California Supreme Court will announce its decision in Legislature v. Weber. This is the lawsuit filed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state Legislature to try to have a qualified initiative, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act, removed from the November ballot so voters can’t pass it.
The initiative would make it harder to raise state and local taxes. In oral arguments, the attorney for Newsom and the Legislature contended that voters don’t have the capacity to understand and decide whether their taxes should be higher.
We’ll see if the seven justices of the state Supreme Court are persuaded.
Meanwhile in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Supreme Court is about to decide a number of momentous and even historic cases. Some of those decisions could be announced Thursday morning at 7:00 a.m. Pacific Time. Here’s a look at what’s pending:
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson – This is the important case related to homeless encampments. The justices may overrule the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2018 decision in Martin v. Boise, which held that cities may not enforce an anti-camping ordinance unless they have enough shelter beds for everyone. In practice, the Boise decision has led to cities getting sued in federal court for pretty much any action on encampments short of providing free studio apartments. The Supreme Court will bring some clarity to the issue. We’ll see how much.
Murthy v. Missouri – This is probably the most important First Amendment case in history. Can the government engage in censorship of the online speech of Americans by coordinating with third-party “researchers” and pressuring social media platforms to remove or throttle posts, individuals and groups? That’s what happened, and the Biden administration was sued over it. The federal district court judge hearing the case ordered an injunction to stop the government from doing these things while the case moved forward, and a court of appeals generally backed him up. The Biden administration then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to consider the merits of the case as well as the injunction. The First Amendment flatly prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech. Expect fireworks.
Trump v. United States – Never before has the Supreme Court spoken on the issue of whether former presidents have immunity from prosecution for their official acts as president, so you’ll be a witness to history. The case stems from special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of former President Trump in Washington, D.C., for his communications on January 6, 2021, in connection with the Electoral College proceedings and the protest/riot at the Capitol. However, the court’s decision will affect all former and future presidents.
Related Articles
John Phillips: It’s open season on pedestrians in Los Angeles
Reparations are well-motivated but cash won’t do
Jon Coupal: The big switch
Susan Shelley: Democrats vs. democracy
Home-testing boom leaves worriers clutching their pearls
Fischer v. United States – This is another case related to January 6. Here the Supreme Court agreed to decide if a law known as Section 1512(c)(2), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, was properly applied to prohibit “acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.” Federal prosecutors have charged more than 300 people, including Trump, with violating this law by “obstructing” the congressional certification of the Electoral College votes. But the law was passed as part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, to prevent destruction of evidence in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal. It carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. The fact that the Supreme Court agreed to hear this case is a strong indication that the justices don’t think the law applies to the actions of these defendants.
The “Chevron deference” cases – Following a 1984 Supreme Court decision in Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, courts have been more or less required to defer to the judgment of government agencies when individuals or companies challenged their regulations or enforcement actions. This doctrine has created a monster, turning agency bureaucrats into prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. In two cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether this so-called “Chevron doctrine” is incorrect. Overturning it will strengthen your rights when a government agency is wrong.
You probably won’t need an alarm clock on Thursday morning. The earth-shaking decisions should be enough to wake everybody up.
Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on Twitter @Susan_Shelley