Legal expert and commentator Chris Geidner joins the hosts to preview the upcoming Supreme Court term, discussing topics such as reproductive rights, LGBT rights, the administrative state, and criminal justice. They also explore controversial cases on bans of gender affirming care for minors and civil asset forfeiture. Additionally, they address ethics concerns surrounding Justice Alito and the controversy surrounding a Supreme Court case on taxing unrealized capital gains.
The upcoming Supreme Court term will focus on curtailing reproductive rights and the constitutionality of anti-trans legislation.
The Supreme Court will examine the power of federal agencies and potentially limit their authority.
The Supreme Court's ruling on the case of Coley v. Marshall could impact the due process rights of individuals facing civil asset forfeiture.
Deep dives
Supreme Court term to include reproductive rights challenges
The upcoming Supreme Court term will include attempts to curtail reproductive rights. Alabama attempted redistricting but lost its case due to vote dilution. The court will also take up a case challenging the principle of double jeopardy. There is also a case concerning the constitutionality of anti-trans legislation. The court has not yet granted cert on any of these cases, but it seems inevitable that one of them will eventually be brought before the justices.
Legal challenge to Mifeprex may reach Supreme Court
A federal judge in Texas ruled that the abortion drug Mifeprex can be fully banned, and the case could potentially reach the Supreme Court. The Department of Justice has requested the Supreme Court to take up the case, and a federal appeals court has recently upheld the legality of Mifeprex while imposing restrictions on its distribution. The outcome of this case could impact not just reproductive rights, but also the FDA's authority to regulate various medications.
Challenges to administrative state in upcoming Supreme Court cases
The Supreme Court will take on significant cases that could affect the administrative state and the power of federal agencies. One case, Ashison Hotels v. Americans with Disabilities Act, questions whether testers have standing to bring ADA violation lawsuits. Another case challenges the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which could impact other agencies with similar funding arrangements. Furthermore, the court will hear a case related to Chevron deference, potentially allowing for more limits on agency authority.
Civil Asset Forfeiture: The Case of Coley v. Marshall
Civil asset forfeiture is a controversial practice in which law enforcement seizes people's property, even without proof of guilt. The case of Coley v. Marshall, currently before the Supreme Court, examines one tactic used to deter individuals from contesting the forfeiture of their property: long and burdensome delays in legal proceedings. The case involves two women in Alabama whose cars were seized by the police, even though they had no involvement in any crime. Alabama took over a year and almost two years respectively to finally hold a hearing and determine that the women were innocent owners and should have their property returned. The Supreme Court's ruling in this case could have significant implications for the due process rights of individuals facing civil asset forfeiture.
Double Jeopardy and Inconsistent Verdicts: The McElrath Case
The Supreme Court is set to decide a case involving double jeopardy and inconsistent verdicts in the case of McElrath v. Georgia. McElrath was prosecuted for multiple crimes arising from the same incident, and the jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity on one charge but guilty of the other charges. The Georgia Supreme Court vacated all the verdicts, arguing that all charges should be retried. However, this raises questions about the fundamental principle that an acquittal cannot be changed and the prohibition against being tried again for the same crime. This case could have significant ramifications for the concept of double jeopardy and the finality of acquittals.
Doesn't it feel like we JUST did a term recap episode? What if the Supreme Court just like took a gap year or something, and left us all in peace for once. Wouldn't that be nice? Alas, no such luck. You're losing more rights this year … AGAIN.
If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Premium-only episodes, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support
5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. Rachel Ward is our producer. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our researcher is Jonathan DeBruin, and our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.
Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On Twitter, find Peter @The_Law_Boy and Rhiannon @AywaRhiannon.