Pacific Standard March-April 2013 Cover

Can the Supreme Court Survive a Health-Care Decision?

Partisanship and Support for the U.S. Supreme Court

Legitimacy is for losers. This spring, the U.S. Supreme Court will announce one of its most important decisions since its ruling in Bush v. Gore. The decision in the cases — all having to do with the constitutionality of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act — likely will have vast political consequences, perhaps well beyond health care itself. The court will also decide a number of other blockbuster cases in 2012, from the highly polarized Arizona immigration legislation (whether people can be stopped by the police and interrogated about their immigration status) to the question of ... Read More

A Politicized Supreme Court Doesn’t Faze the Public?

This week, the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the health care law that has divided the country (and, until now, federal appeals court judges). The request sets up what likely will be a legal showdown in the coming high court term — right in the thick of a presidential election. And it promises to be a particularly eventful case: critics on the left want Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself because of his wife’s activism opposing the law, while critics on the right want Elena Kagan to do the same because of her earlier job as the ... Read More

Following the Money a Year After Citizens United

Last January, critics of the controversial Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court decision — which knocked down long-running restrictions on corporate campaign money in elections — envisioned an ominous scene. Anonymous corporate millions would flood into closely contested elections, elbowing out the influence of average voters, warned many (including the president). Now, at the decision’s one-year anniversary, hard data is beginning to bear out the grave forecasts, contradicting even some of the Supreme Court’s own predictions. In the wake of Citizens United, outside groups in last ... Read More

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Fred Korematsu was a U.S.-born Japanese-American who deliberately decided to stay in California and not be moved to an internment camp, as all Japanese-Americans were forced to do under a 1942 executive order. The Supreme Court ruled the executive order was constitutional, and the government's need to protect against possible espionage overruled Korematsu's individual rights. Although the U.S. government has subsequently apologized for the internment and paid reparations to those interned, this case has never been overturned. Some critics think it has even provided legal justification for the ... Read More

Bush v. Gore (2000)

REFER

Ruled that the Florida recounts in the presidential election violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, that the Florida Supreme Court had misinterpreted Florida election law and that there was not enough time left to set up alternative methods to resolve the disputed election under Florida law. The upshot? The Supreme Court — and not necessarily the voters or even the House of Representatives — decided the 2000 presidential election. Perhaps it even started a trend (see Franken, Al) or broke a bad one (see Tilden, Samuel J.). Ultimately, perhaps your interpretation of ... Read More

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)

A complicated tax case stemming from a California law that stated railroads could not deduct the value of their mortgages from the taxable value of their property, a right that was given to individuals. The Southern Pacific Railroad refused to pay the tax revenues involved, several California counties sued, and the case eventually wound its way to the Supreme Court. Although the court did not specifically rule on corporate personhood, a court clerk, who wrote a summary of the case for the legal community, stated that the ruling in favor of the railroad meant that the 14th Amendment — which ... Read More

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Dred Scott was a slave born in Virginia who claimed he should have been emancipated when his owner had taken him to live in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin (now Minnesota). The court ruled that people of African descent held as slaves, and their descendants, whether they were free or slave, could never be U.S. citizens. The court also ruled that Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories, and that slaves, not being citizens, could not sue in court. The worst decision in Supreme Court history? Most likely. ... Read More

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Homer Plessy was a Louisiana black man who boarded a "whites only" railroad car. He was arrested and sued under the equal rights provisions of the 13th and 14th amendments. Ferguson was the Louisiana judge who ruled that the state had the right to regulate railroad companies in any way it saw fit. The Supremes, once again exhibiting their sense of racial tolerance and fairness, ruled that the law did not suggest black inferiority, and that the separation of the races in public facilities was hunky-dory, as long as those facilities were equal. This "separate but equal" ruling stood until it was ... Read More

Head-Scratchers from the Nine

It's way too early to tell if it ranks up there among the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, but the Supremes' recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission sure has plenty of people upset. The decision basically said that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals, which means they can spend as much money as they want to make a political point. Detractors, among them President Obama, who called out the justices in his State of the Union address for reversing "a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests ... to ... Read More