Supreme Court decisions for (6/27/22) - 3 decisions, 1 order list (Free exercise victory and two criminal law victories)

Today’s order list, 1 new case granted.

XIULU RUAN v. UNITED STATES

Held: Section 841’s “knowingly or intentionally” mens rea applies to the statute’s “except as authorized” clause. Once a defendant meets the burden of producing evidence that his or her conduct was “authorized,” the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner. Pp. 4–16.

BREYER, J. delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined, and in which BARRETT, J., joined as to Parts I–A, I–B, and II.

This decision requires that the government must prove a mens rea of culpability before convicting a physician of illegally prescribing controlled substances. This is the absolute correct decision here.

CONCEPCION v. UNITED STATES

Held: The First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence. Pp. 6–18.

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

Again, I agree with the Court and note the very interesting lineup of Justices. Thomas and Sotomayor. Interestingly, Thomas would have assigned that case to Sotomayor as the senior Justice in the majority. :smile:

KENNEDY v. BREMERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

Held: The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression. Pp. 11–32.

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and BARRETT, JJ., joined, and in which KAVANAUGH, J., joined, except as to Part III–B. THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed concurring opinions. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined.

They don’t say it in so many words, but I think the Supreme Court has FINALLY overruled Lemon once and for all, which would be absolutely ■■■■■■■ fantastic. Lemon has always been a “lemon” of a decision. More importantly, the Court rules that the Establishment Clause is not a blunt club with which to destroy the Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause.

Sotomayor’s dissent does say it in so many words, btw.

A very good day at the Supreme Court.

Four decisions left, the Supreme Court could finish for the year either tomorrow or Wednesday.

1 Like

In the Kennedy case…yay football coaches can groom kids!

:rofl:

Only partially kidding…I am very conflicted on this ruling…especially because it definitely speaks to what I have been saying- the Right isn’t seeking to eliminate “agendas” from schools- it is seeking to replace what it considers a “leftist” agenda with their own “rightist” agenda.

Really getting to a point where this cannot be denied.

5 Likes

Like you I am conflicted over this decision. I can see the free speech argument but can a teacher now take up time in the clasroom saying a “private prayer”.

You are spot on that both sides want to drive their own agendas in schools.

Overall though I think the cast majority of teachers are more concerned about educating their pupils rather than being bug eyed about a specific agenda . However those that do want to drive a specific agenda will have the loudest voices.

A mate of mine who is a teacher says the parents are more rabid than any teacher he know when ot comes to pushing a left or right wing agenda. He said his job would be infinitely easier without parents.

1 Like

I would say no. During classroom time, the teacher is “on duty” and would be barred. This decision speaks to situations such as breaks during a football game and other such situations, where the coach or teacher is not actively engaged with students.

3 Likes

Thanks for that additional information.

Your welcome.

Nuance is very important here. I don’t believe the Court is at all on a path to go back to the days of school prayers. Instead, I believe they are just fixing overreaches caused by the “Lemon era.”

2 Likes

Just wait until a prayer rug shows up on the 50 yard line.

I guess that would bother you?

2 Likes

I’d prefer the coaches not be involved at all, regardless of what religion it happens to be.

Why did this guy bother you, while Kapernick was cheered? They both took a knee and Kapernick had a million times the coverage. But he was celebrated and this guy is vilified. They both took a knee. What’s the difference?

1 Like

Religion is the difference.

Is this “not actively engaging with students?”

Yeah see my issue is I don’t see the football coach as being “off duty” at the time he was saying these prayers. OTOH he should be free to share that he is a Christian in school. Hence my conflicted feelings about the ruling.

And there’s another, more personal, opinion of mine coloring these views.

It’s based on Matthew 6:5-6.

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

IMO this is Jesus descrying what I would term as “virtue signaling” prayer. “Look at me- I’m a Christian- I’m righteous”.

Mr. Kennedy stated his prayers were to express thanks and gratitude regardless of whether the team won or lost.

Fine- for what reason does that prayer have to be made at the 50 yard line?

Just my personal opinion.

2 Likes

Was Kapernick a HS coach?

No everything was done in quite without him addressing anyone. By your definition every Congress critter who marched for BLM was actively engaging in riots also because they were there.

1 Like

This is an objectively false statement.

Joe Kennedy was a junior varsity head coach and varsity assistant coach with the Bremerton School District in Washington from 2008 to 2015. He began the practice of reciting a post-game prayer by himself, but eventually students started joining him. According to court documents, this evolved into motivational speeches that included religious themes. After an opposing coach brought it to the principal’s attention, the school district told Kennedy to stop. He did, temporarily, then notified the school that he would resume the practice.

If teachers are permitted to discuss deviant sexual practices and question a students gender identity then prayer is certainly appropriate

And this is my problem too. I am sure the retort is going to be that all the players were there voluntarily.

My response would be…are you sure about that? How are you sure?

This.

Interestingly, the right is passing laws to prevent discussions about LGBTQ no matter what, yet support this.

Which goes back to exactly what I have been saying all along- the right is not crusading against agendas in schools.