PV Democrats August Meeting Report

— By Reggie Jue

Our most recent club meeting was our annual review of the SCOTUS term featuring long-time PV Democrats member Judge Tom Long.

Every August since 2014, Judge Long has shared his commentary on the cases highlighted in the UC Irvine School of Law “Annual Supreme Court Term in Review” panel discussion (which is in its 14th year).  Judge Long joined us in-person at the Peninsula Center Library.

This year the review panel consisted of:

• Carrie Menkel-Meadow, Distinguished and Chancellor’s Professor of Law, UCI Law (Moderator/Commentator)
• Mario Barnes, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, UCI Law
• Courtney Cahill, Chancellor’s Professor of Law, UCI Law
• Jennifer Chacón, Bruce Tyson Mitchell Professor of Law, Stanford Law
• Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, Berkeley Law
• Kelly Perigoe, Partner – Trial and Global Disputes, King & Spalding

Judge Long worked with members Ann Nye and Carol Moeller to create a streamlined video in which a few specific cases were discussed.  Perhaps not surprisingly, many of the cases were decided 6-3.  Judge Long noted that at one time, Chief Justice Roberts occupied an immensely influential seat because he often cast the deciding vote.  Now, however, the conservatives and authoritarians on the court by themselves are in the majority, and Justice Roberts’ efforts to build consensus by narrowly define the cases cannot succeed.  Judge Long also considers the court split not just between conservatives and liberals, but also including 2 justices (Alito and Thomas) as authoritarians.

The cases discussed were:

1. Garland v. Cargill: SCOTUS decided on a 6-3 decision that a semi-automatic weapon equipped with a bump stock does not qualify as a machine gun as referenced in the National Firearms Act of 1934, essentially allowing a form of fully automatic weapon to be possessed legally.
2. U.S. v. Rahimi:  Rahimi was an 8-1 decision with Justice Thomas being the lone dissent.  This decision challenged whether an individual had a second amendment right to own a gun even if that person was known to be a threat to others.  This was a reversal of the 5th Circuit Court which ruled that a previous SCOTUS decision in NY State Rifle & Pistol Assoc v. Bruen ruled that the Second Amendment could not be preempted by “arbitrary” evaluation criteria.
3. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM):  This was the only unanimous decision, and reversed a District Court in Texas and a 5th Circuit ruling that the FDA exceeded authority by approving the use and mail prescription of the drug mifepristone, which is commonly used in abortions.  The court did not rule on the merits of the case, but rather that the AHM did not have standing.
4. Moyle v. U.S.: This was a 6-3 decision lifting the stay on Idaho’s total abortion ban, which Idaho only allowed if it saved the life of the patient (versus the health of the patient)
5. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo: In this case, Justice Jackson recused herself, resulting in a 6:2 decision overturning the Chevron Doctrine.  This decision reversed precedence that the federal agencies have deference for interpretation of Congressional authority.
6. SEC v. Jarkesy: This 6:3 decision ruled that federal agencies cannot impose civil penalties.  Civil penalties must go to a federal court, often resulting in jury trials, a tremendous shift of power from federal agencies to the judicial.
7. Trump v. U.S.:  This is a landmark 6:3 decision granted a president absolute immunity for acts committed within constitutional presidential purview.  Panel member Mario Barnes described this as a frightening opinion, while panel member Erwin Chermerinsky went further to call it the worst SCOTUS decision ever.
8. Fischer v. U.S.:  This 6:3 decision ruled that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which formed the basis for some of the charges against the January 6 insurrectionists was improperly applied because the act required the defendant to impair implementation of a physical document.  Panel member Chermerinsky pointed out that this would reduce the charges against those already convicted, but that the other charges still held.  Furthermore, the charges against Donald Trump involved ballots, and may still apply.

During the presentation, Judge Long interjected comments and perspectives, and then hosted a Q&A session at the end.  When asked whether a future court could reverse the most egregious of these decisions, the judge noted that the court could only do so if another case was brought before the court, which would require another instance of presidential misbehavior.

To see the club business chart package, click here.