Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
4.3 The Supreme Court and Public Policy - Coggle Diagram
4.3 The Supreme Court and Public Policy
Case Studies
DC v Heller (2008):
• 2nd amendment
• Overturned a Washingtom D.C. ban on handguns in the home and requirement that rifles and shotguns had to be kept unloaded and disassembled
• All of the above were deemed unconstitutional
• 5-4 judgement
• Was seen as a significant victory for the pro-gun lobby (setting the 'self-defence' element of the second amendment)
• Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer objected - arguing the 2nd Amendment only covered the raising of militia
Citizens United v FEC (2010):
• 1st Amendment
• Reversing regulation on money spent in elections - by declaring aspects of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act unconstitutional
• Stemmed from Citizens United wanting to air an anti-Clinton film advertisement before the 2008 Primaries
• 5-4 Judgement - still widely debated
On one side, it protects first amendment rights
On the other, it seems to empower wealthy lobby groups - leading to unrestricted election spending
NFIB v Sebelius (2012):
• Upheld sections of the Affordable Care Act (states rights, Interstate Commerce Clause and 16th Amendment
• 5-4 Judgement
• Upheld the provision that individuals be required to buy health insurance (falling under Congress's power to raise taxes)
• HOWEVER: Expansion of Medicaid was overturned - remains a major divide between Republicans and Democrats
Shelby County v Holder (2013):
• Overturned the Voting Rights Act of 1965
• Protecting state rights to decide election laws
• States 14th Amendment did not support the Act under equal treatment
• 5-4 judgement
• Is controversial - can be seen as making it easier for Republican states being able to make it harder for minority groups to vote
Riley v California (2014):
• 4th Amendment - protected people from unwarranted searches of their mobile phones by the police
• 9-0 Judgement - unusual event of a unanimous judgement
• Illustrates the application of the Constitution to the modern world
Obergefell v Hodges (2015):
• Constitutional guarantee of the right to gay marriage
• Forced many states to change their policy (only legal in 36 before the judgement)
• Based on the 14th Amendment
• 5-4 Judgement
• Justice Kennedy wrote the Majority Opinion
• Justice Roberts wrote the Dissent - he argued that the Court was exceeding its powers and the decision should have been left to Congress
Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt (2016):
• Overturned Texas state regulations (that had led to the closure of Texan abortion clinics)
• Judgement on the basis of the 14th Amendment and the
'undue burden on women' (also impacted laws in Mississippi and Wisconsin
• 5-3 Judgement - Roberts was in the minority, but upheld the judgement using it as a precedent when rejecting a Louisiana law in 2020
Bostock v Clayton County (2020):
• Employment protections given in the 1964 Civil Rights Act do extend to gender identity and sexual orientation
• 6-3 judgement
• The Majority Opinion was written by Gorsuch (appointed by Trump)
• A breakthrough case in LGBT rights
• Those who dissented argued that it was a case of 'legislating from the bench'
Judicial Activism
The second of these is not highly controversial
= is expected by the Court when protecting the Constitution
Judicial decision-making is used to promote desirable social outcomes - including when:
1 - Justices use their own views and values in making judgements
2 - The Court overturns the actions of other political institutions or the precedent of previous Courts
The precedence of other Courts is generally only done with major consideration
e.g: Brown v Board of Education of Topeka in 1954
The first is highly controversial = Justices could be seen to be 'legislating from the bench'
HOWEVER: This term is also used by those who oppose any judgement
= it is hard to judge if it is a significant issue or simply a method to attack a judgement one dislikes
Judicial Restraint - Examples
Roberts argues for Judicial Restraint
Illustrated by the fact that he upheld Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt as precedent (in case involving Louisiana in 2020) despite dissenting against the initial judgement
Roberts attacked the majority verdicts in Obergefell v
Hodges (2015) and Bostock v Clayton County (2020)
= he saw as judicial activism and overreach on issues that should have be settled in Congress
Shows his restraint in his refusal to overturn the Affordable Care Act - here, faced criticism rather than praise for his stance from many conservatives
Judicial Activism - Examples
Probably the most famous is the 'Warren Court' (1953-1969) - fundamentally changed the position of civil rights in the USA
e.g: rulings that signficantly shifted Civil Rights in the US:
Brown v Board of Education of Topeka
Miranda v Arizona
Roe v Wade (1973) - declared abortion a constitutionally protected right
Bush v Gore (2000) - in effect gave the election to Bush
The 'Roberts Court' can be seen to have been activist over the issue of campaign spending (conservative - 1st amendment)
But also over LGBT rights (liberal - against the wishes of Justice Roberts)
Now, the court is strongly
conservative
- therefore, may be more activist on conservative causes
Judicial Restraint
They put great emphasis on the precedents set by previous Courts' judgements
'Stare decisis' is a legal principle that judges should look to past precedent - 'let the decision stand'
Is when Justices defer to the executive and legislative branches (who are elected)