All posts tagged: Faculty React to SCOTUS

Temple Law Faculty Reacts to the Trump v. Mazars USA and Trump v. Vance Decisions

On July 9, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Mazars USA, refusing to enforce congressional subpoenas that sought President Trump’s tax returns and other financial records about himself, his children, and affiliated businesses. On July 9, 2020, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a 7-2 opinion in Trump v. Vance, allowing state prosecutors to subpoena financial records concerning President Trump and his businesses. Craig Green Professor of Law Trump v. Mazars USA: Just months before the presidential election, the Supreme Court declined to enforce subpoenas that could have publicly revealed President Trump’s tax returns and financial conduct. Congressional committees demanded various financial records using their “legislative power,” seeking to investigate the need for possible statutory reform about corruption, terrorism, money laundering, or election interference. One committee also claimed oversight power to investigate executive misconduct. Mazars is the first time that any Supreme Court examined a congressional subpoena for a President’s personal information. The majority created a new “balanced approach” that tried to respect the long history of congressional subpoenas without …

Temple Law Reacts to the June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo SCOTUS Decision

On June 29, 2020, Supreme Court Justice Breyer delivered the 5-4 opinion in June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, holding that Louisiana’s Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, is unconstitutional. Rachel Rebouché Associate Dean for Research Professor of Law Generally, this is a win for abortion supporters, and a decision many did not expect. Justice Breyer relied heavily on the factual record developed by the District Court and ruled that the law was the same in its effect and purpose as the Texas law struck down in 2016. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a concurrence, ruling on grounds of stare decisis and providing the 5th vote needed to strike down the restriction. His concurrence is quite narrow, though, and it suggests that the Chief Justice interprets prior caselaw as giving far more deference to states than the Court’s 2016 ruling did. Adrienne R. Ghorashi, Esq. Program Manager Center for Public Health Law Research This SCOTUS decision reaffirms what was already established 4 years ago …

Temple Law Faculty React to the Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of California SCOTUS Decision

On June 18, 2020, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr delivered the 5-4 opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of California,  holding that DHS’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Jennifer J. Lee Associate Clinical Professor of Law For the over 600,000 DACA recipients across the country, the Supreme Court’s decision is essential in providing them with a temporary reprieve. While eventful, today’s decision solely ruled that the Trump administration’s rescission of the program was improper based on procedural grounds. The reality, therefore, is that any presidential administration in the future can wipe out the DACA program so long as it does so with proper procedure. For this reason, DACA recipients are continuing to fight for a more permanent pathway to citizenship. As DACA recipients have ample support, the challenge is not in getting such a law enacted. Rather, they want a “clean” law that does not otherwise include harsh enforcement provisions against the immigrants …

Temple Law Faculty React to the Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia SCOTUS Decision

On June 15, 2020, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the 6-3 opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, holding that employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is prohibited under Title VII. The landmark decision is widely viewed as an historic moment in the movement for LGBTQ equality. Leonore F. Carpenter Associate Professor of Law Don’t underestimate the enormous power of this decision. Everyone loved the marriage decisions because everyone loves love. But frankly, not everyone has any desire to get married. However, in a nation with a fraying social safety net, job security is absolutely critical to all of us, particularly those on the economic margins. In my mind, this decision is at least as important as Windsor or Obergefell.   Ellie Margolis Professor of Law The Bostock decision is a huge victory for legal equality in this country. It will provide a measure of security to countless LGBTQIA workers who no longer have to fear losing their jobs because of who they are or who they love. The …