President Trump said Sunday that he's "very close to making a final decision" on his nominee for the Supreme Court, adding that four people are on his final list: Federal appellate court judges Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Amy Coney Barrett, and Thomas Hardiman.
Trump is said to be relishing the reality TV-like rollout of his nominee, who will then face Senate confirmation to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. It's not clear how undecided Trump actually is, though the White House has prepared promotional material on all four prospective nominees. Trump has reportedly spent the weekend discussing his options with top aides and friends, including Fox News host Sean Hannity, over golf at his company's club in New Jersey. Peter Weber
President Trump continued his push to quickly interview potential Supreme Court picks, meeting with three more on Tuesday after talking to four on Monday.
"These are very talented people, brilliant people," Trump said Tuesday during an appearance in West Virginia. "We're going to give you a great one." Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) already has expressed reservations about one top contender, federal appeals judge Brett Kavanaugh, reportedly over his past decisions on health care. Republicans have a narrow 51-49 majority, so any defections could threaten the confirmation of Trump's nominee.
Trump's replacement of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, a longtime moderate conservative swing vote, could influence decisions on contentious issues, including abortion and gay marriage, for a generation. Harold Maass
The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision Wednesday that public employee unions cannot charge nonmembers fees or dues, overruling a 41-year-old precedent, the Los Angeles Times reports. The decision in Janus v. AFSCME is a massive blow to public-sector unions and organized labor; it voids laws in 20 states including California and New York, in which all public employees were required to pay "fair share fees" to cover collective bargaining.
"We conclude that this arrangement violates the free speech rights of nonmembers by compelling them to subsidize private speech on matters of substantial public concern," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court's decision will have "large-scale consequences. Public employee unions will lose a secure source of financial support. State and local governments that thought fair-share provisions furthered their interests will need to find new ways of managing their workforces. Across the country, the relationships of public employees and employers will alter in both predictable and wholly unexpected ways."
An estimated 5 million public employees are affected by the decision. Jeva Lange
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Carpenter v. United States on Friday that law enforcement needs a warrant in order to track a person's location information from cellphone towers over an extended period of time, NBC News reports. Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the liberals on the decision, writing in the opinion that people "compulsively carry cellphones with them at all times," making monitoring that data "near perfect surveillance" akin to attaching "an ankle monitor to the phone's user."
The government had argued unsuccessfully that "cellphone users voluntarily reveal to their providers information about their proximity to cell towers" so customers "cannot reasonably expect that the providers will not reveal that business information to the government." Jeva Lange
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday in South Dakota v. Wayfair that states can require online retailers to collect sales tax, even if the business has no physical presence in the purchaser's state. The decision was 5-4, with Justices John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan in dissent.
— Joe Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) June 21, 2018
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion, saying that "the internet's prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy." The court overruled the 1992 decision in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which held that for a state to collect sales tax from an online retailer, the retailer would have to have a physical location of business in that state.
The Supreme Court on Monday opted not to rule in two partisan gerrymandering cases, putting off a decision on whether state election maps can be drawn in a way that helps keep political parties in power, reports The Washington Post.
The justices decided to sidestep what would have been a landmark decision related to cases in Wisconsin and Maryland, where challengers argue the election maps are unfairly drawn with overt political animus. The cases could be reconsidered next term after they are retried in lower courts, but the Supreme Court chose not to consider a ruling yet because of procedural faults.
Justices sided with a district judge in the Maryland case, agreeing that it was not clear whether the state's electoral map violated the Constitution. They also said that it wasn't clear whether any rights had been violated in the Wisconsin case. In both cases, all Supreme Court judges ruled unanimously, reports the Post.
Gerrymandering based on factors like racial demographics has been deemed unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has never ruled on partisan gerrymandering. Any ruling on the practice would have major implications, as many states engage in some level of gerrymandering to benefit the dominant party. The ongoing cases have been punted down the line for now, but the justices expressed interest in soon taking a closer look at what Justice Elena Kagan called a practice that "burdens" and "harms" voters everywhere. Read more at The Washington Post. Summer Meza
Supreme Court rules that employers can prevent employees from banding together in class-action lawsuits
The Supreme Court voted 5-4 along ideological lines on Monday to rule that federal arbitration law allows employers to prevent their employees from banding together in class-action lawsuits and require them to go through individual arbitrators for disputes. The ruling, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing the majority, is a "big win for businesses" and "a major blow to workers," New York's Cristian Farias tweeted.
While supporters of arbitration argue it is cheaper, "critics say companies are trying to strip individuals of important rights, including the ability to band together on claims that as a practical matter are too small to press individually," Bloomberg writes, adding that "about 25 million employees have signed arbitration accords that bar group claims."
Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the 30-page dissent, which is five pages longer than the majority decision, SCOTUSblog reports. She called the ruling "egregiously wrong" and said the Federal Arbitration Act "demands no such suppression for the right of workers to take concerted action for their 'mutual aid or protection.'"
Gorsuch said that the "policy may be debatable but the law is clear: Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written." Read more about the decision on Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis at SCOTUSblog. Jeva Lange
Based on questions raised by Supreme Court justices on Wednesday during the oral arguments in Trump v. Hawaii, which concerns President Trump's ban on travelers from six majority-Muslim countries, there does not appear to be an obvious five-judge majority to strike down the ban, The Washington Post reports. Lower courts have struck down three iterations of the ban to date, claiming it improperly overrides congressional lawmaking power, engages in "nationality discrimination," and does not demonstrate that "nationality alone renders entry of this broad class of individuals a heightened security risk or that current screening processes are inadequate."
As it stands now, the ban bars travelers from seven countries, although only the Muslim-majority ones are a part of the challenge: Syria, Libya, Iran, Yemen, and Somalia (Chad was originally included in the ban but was removed from the list earlier this month). Travelers from North Korea and Venezuela are also barred under the ban. Trump had specifically called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" when he introduced the idea in late 2015.
Conservative justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch pressed acting solicitor general Neal K. Katyal, who is representing Hawaii, on how exactly Trump has overstepped his legal grounds with the ban. Alito in particular noted that only 8 percent of the world's Muslim population would be affected by the ban, saying "a reasonable observer would not think this was a Muslim ban," The Washington Post reports. Read more about where the SCOTUS justices appear to stand on the debate here. Jeva Lange