Law Faculty Scholarship
 

Abstract

[Excerpt] Last month, the Supreme Court wrapped up it 2019-2020 term with a flurry of significant rulings.

The court confirmed that Congress and state attorneys general may subpoena third parties for evidence when legitimately investigating a sitting president; held that the executive branch must engage in reasoned decision-making when rescinding administrative protections for a vulnerable population (i.e., beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program); and defined the scope of the president's power to remove officials from high office.

The court also clarified that federal anti-discrimination employment protections extend to LGBTQ workers; held that states may punish members of the electoral college who do not vote for the candidate they pledged to support; determined that much of eastern Oklahoma fails within a Creek Nation Indian reservation; emphasized that the First Amendment right to free to exercise one's religious beliefs contains broad anti-discrimination guarantees; and reaffirmed that states may not undermine abortion rights by enacting laws that purport to protect women's health but in fact are designed to close clinics where abortions are performed. Each of these rulings deserves its own column.

But let's start with five clear lessons that may be drawn from the court's historic term.

Publication Date

8-9-2020

Journal Title

The Concord Monitor

Publisher

The Concord Monitor

Document Type

Editorial

Additional Information

This article is part of the series Constitutional Connections by John M. Greabe and was originally published by the Concord Monitor.

Share

COinS