Ten cases remained when the Supreme Court met on June 27. Now there are seven. The most anticipated ones were left for release later in the week, but SCOTUS did rule on a trio of cases – and with strange bedfellows, too. In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., the Court addressed a procedural right of due process, while in Counterman v. Colorado, it decided what constitutes a “true threat” in free speech law. In Moore v. Harper, it set a standard for state legislature independence.
The Supreme Court typically releases its decisions in June, absent extraordinary circumstances. That means we have until Friday, June 30, for the Court to complete its work for the term and issue opinions in all pending cases. Affirmative action, freedom of religion, and student loan debt forgiveness hang in the balance. Meanwhile, let’s look at the Court’s latest rulings.
Tar Heel Dreams Up in Smoke
The North Carolina legislature tried to use the Elections Clause of the federal Constitution to empower itself to redraw district lines without review. In Moore v. Harper, the Court decided 6-3 that North Carolina’s legislature could not act independently of its state supreme court. According to the ruling, “The Elections Clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections.” It added, “When state legislatures prescribe the rules concerning federal elections, they remain subject to the ordinary exercise of state judicial review.”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Barrett, and Ketanji Jackson. Kavanaugh filed a concurrence, and Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in dissent, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito, in part.
Looking Good Billy Ray
Billy Ray Counterman won his case at Court. His stalking conviction and four-and-a-half-year sentence were overturned in Counterman v. Colorado, decided by a 7-2 vote. From 2010 to 2016, Counterman sent hundreds of online text messages to local singer-songwriter Coles Whalen, who, fearing for her safety, reported the matter to law enforcement. While Counterman admitted his texts were “weird,” he denied any intention to threaten the performer.
The issue for the Court involved whether Counterman’s statements were “true threats” and thus ineligible for protection under the First Amendment. The majority held that, in convicting him, the state court had used the wrong legal test to weigh the speech. As Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog explained:
“Instead of focusing on whether a reasonable person would regard the man’s statements as a threat of violence, the Supreme Court ruled, courts should look at whether prosecutors had shown that Counterman had made the threats recklessly – that is, whether he was aware that the recipient, local Colorado musician Coles Whalen, could regard his speech as a threat, but made them anyway.”
Kagan wrote the Court’s opinion, joined by Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Jackson. Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, joined in part by Gorsuch. Thomas and Barrett both wrote in dissent.
(Photo by Al Drago/Getty Images)
Subject to Lawsuits
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. was a 5-4 case. Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Jackson were members of the majority against Barrett, who wrote in dissent, joined by Roberts, Kagan, and Kavanaugh.
The Justices upheld a Pennsylvania law requiring all businesses operating in the state to be subject to lawsuits – even if the events surrounding the suit occurred elsewhere, and the corporation’s primary location is nowhere near the Keystone State. Gorsuch wrote for the majority, “Norfolk Southern asks us to pluck out and overrule just one longstanding precedent that it happens to dislike. We decline the invitation.”
