Supreme Court decisions for (6/23/22) - 4 decisions (including NYS Pistol & Rifle, but no abortion)

Four decisions today.

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL.

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion. KAVANAUGH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a concurring opinion. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

Held: New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. Pp. 8–63.

Complete Second Amendment victory here.

VEGA v. TEKOH

ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.

Held: A violation of the Miranda rules does not provide a basis for a §1983 claim. Pp. 4–16.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out in the long run, as officers don’t have to fear a Section 1983 claim for violations of Miranda.

NANCE v. WARD, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BARRETT, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, ALITO, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined.

Held: Section 1983 remains an appropriate vehicle for a prisoner’s method-of-execution claim where, as here, the prisoner proposes an alternative method not authorized by the State’s death-penalty statute.

This will make it somewhat easier for prisoners to challenge their method of execution.

BERGER ET AL. v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP ET AL.

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, BREYER, ALITO, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Held: North Carolina’s legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in this litigation. Pp. 8–19.

Republican leaders in the North Carolina legislature may intervene in a Federal lawsuit to defend the State’s Voter ID laws.

Four decisions today, nine cases left.

The Court will be back tomorrow and Monday and hopefully they will finish on Monday.

Good decision!!

1 Like

I don’t think I like this one

Excellent news!

1 Like

This one I have been cogitating on for a while.

Here is the statute at question:

§1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

This case turns on the Court’s reading of Miranda as a “prophylactic” rule rather than a Constitutional rule. If the Court reads it as prophylactic, then Section 1983 would not apply and that is exactly how the Court proceeded. But if you read it as Constitutional or even just as statutory rule, then Section 1983 would apply.

This is really turns on semantics. Semantically, it is possible to go either way.

However, I think I will part with the majority on this and join the liberal dissent. Miranda is an important check on police abuse and denying Section 1983 relief makes it more likely that officers will ignore Miranda and abuse the 5th Amendment.

This is a rare case where textualism and originalism are both unavailing.

3 Likes

I’m going to stew on it a while.

I am seeing over and over and over “Soto dissenting”… has she ever even read the constitution? does she need a spanish language version?

She thinks the constitution means whatever she wants it to imo.

1 Like

Man, the Court seems to be rolling right over all kinds of states’ rights these days. Well, I guess if it’s the right states’ rights it’s all good! Know what I’m saying? High five!

states don’t have rights, they have authorities

So New York finally has to abide by the Constitution huh? Good, Jam it down Lib throats!

Must really piss them off that innocent victims may now defend themselves from criminals and would be attackers.

I hope this trend of upholding the Constitution continues with the new Conservative majority in the Supreme Court!

1 Like

Why not? Miranda warning is NOT in the constitution. It’s a made up rule that criminals need to be made aware of the constitutional rights they have. Violate the actual rights in the constitution they can be sued civilly for monetary damages for vilating their rights. This just reminds us that Miranda is NOT in the constitution, and you can’t sue that your constitutional rights were violated when it doesn’t exist.