Anti-trans politics powered the challenges, but the federal judiciary did this — from the conservative high court to far-right lower court judges empowered to act out.
Thanks for the analysis. This is a good co-read with Steve Vladeck's Monday substack.
The per curiam saying how "important" it is that the justices agreed on something not that important (the Administration only tried to stop one of the three things) is clarified when you go into the weeds.
'The lower courts here felt free to block the entire rule because the conservatives on the Supreme Court have empowered lower-court judges to do as they wish, tossing out precedent and ignoring procedural rulings as they desire in efforts to move the court right. And while those lower courts have ultimately been reversed on occasion when they go too far, the reversals hide the reality that the Supreme Court also lets stand or even affirms many other extreme rulings that move the law significantly rightward.'
Granular doesn't do justice to your powers of legal dissection. Klimpt, like pointillism, rather paints the foundational reasoning allowing your readers to share in the justices intellectual wrangling producing both the majority and dissent. Thank you for all you do.
Chris, sorry if my question isn’t in the correct place: I am upset about Chrystul Keizer (yes, that’s the spelling) being sentenced to 11 years for killing her sex trafficker. Do you know anything about that? Thank you.
I call bullshit. 1. Either a rightwing district court blocks the government and a circuit court “defers,” or the circuit court reverses a denial of injunction. 2. Either way somehow it’s the government’s “heavy” burden as “applicant” to justify what should be a presumptively lawful rule. States on the other hand get extreme deference. It’s a shell game.
If Harris is leading in December, the showdown between the court and the electorate is going to be epic.
I have two questions- if Title IX is suspended does that mean staff working on college campuses to enforce Title IX protections are operating lawlessly until this is sorted? Also why are these six right wing extremist justices still called “conservative” when they don’t even respect precedent anymore? (Unless it’s a precedent from the time witches were burned at the stake?)
Thanks for the analysis. This is a good co-read with Steve Vladeck's Monday substack.
The per curiam saying how "important" it is that the justices agreed on something not that important (the Administration only tried to stop one of the three things) is clarified when you go into the weeds.
'The lower courts here felt free to block the entire rule because the conservatives on the Supreme Court have empowered lower-court judges to do as they wish, tossing out precedent and ignoring procedural rulings as they desire in efforts to move the court right. And while those lower courts have ultimately been reversed on occasion when they go too far, the reversals hide the reality that the Supreme Court also lets stand or even affirms many other extreme rulings that move the law significantly rightward.'
Yup. This. All of this.
Chris,
Granular doesn't do justice to your powers of legal dissection. Klimpt, like pointillism, rather paints the foundational reasoning allowing your readers to share in the justices intellectual wrangling producing both the majority and dissent. Thank you for all you do.
Another excellent explainer and clarification on the Title IX rulings. Thanks as always, Chris! Splendid work.
Chris, sorry if my question isn’t in the correct place: I am upset about Chrystul Keizer (yes, that’s the spelling) being sentenced to 11 years for killing her sex trafficker. Do you know anything about that? Thank you.
I call bullshit. 1. Either a rightwing district court blocks the government and a circuit court “defers,” or the circuit court reverses a denial of injunction. 2. Either way somehow it’s the government’s “heavy” burden as “applicant” to justify what should be a presumptively lawful rule. States on the other hand get extreme deference. It’s a shell game.
If Harris is leading in December, the showdown between the court and the electorate is going to be epic.
I have two questions- if Title IX is suspended does that mean staff working on college campuses to enforce Title IX protections are operating lawlessly until this is sorted? Also why are these six right wing extremist justices still called “conservative” when they don’t even respect precedent anymore? (Unless it’s a precedent from the time witches were burned at the stake?)
Two things: First, the rule is only (only?) blocked in the 26 states and other colleges subject to injunctions.
Second: The rule is blocked. Title IX itself still exists.
Ok. Thanks. Need to now figure out the difference between the “rule” and Title IX. Cheers.