Tag: posts

Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA presented the question of whether fuel manufacturers had standing to challenge regulations of fossil-fuel vehicles. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for seven members, found that the fuel company had standing. Justice Jackson, in dissent, found that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Jackson’s dissent repeats the familiar refrain that the Supreme Court is pro-business, and is more likely to find standing for businesses backed by the Chamber of Commerce than for civil rights plaintiffs. Jackson writes:

Standing is a constitutional doctrine meant to promote judicial restraint. By design, it “‘prevent[s] the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches'” and “helps safeguard the Judiciary’s proper—and properly limited—role in our constitutional system.” United States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670, 675–676 (2023). But standing doctrine cannot serve that important purpose if the Judiciary fails to apply it evenhandedly. When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function. Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decisionmaking. . . . 

Jackson continues that the Court “rests its decision on a theory of standing that the Court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs.” She concludes that “[t]his case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.”

Justice Kavanaugh responds to Justice Jackson in a paragraph with a long string cite:

JUSTICE JACKSON separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine “evenhandedly.” Post, at 1 (dissenting opinion). A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion. See, e.g., Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U. S., at 374; United States v. Texas, 599 U. S., at 674; Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. 255, 291–292 (2023); Reed v. Goertz, 598 U. S. 230, 234 (2023); TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 417– 418 (2021); California v. Texas, 593 U. S. 659, 666 (2021); Uzuegbunam, 592 U. S., at 282–283; Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A., 590 U. S. 538, 541–542 (2020); Department of Commerce, 588 U. S., at 766–768.

Kavanaugh offers no actual analysis on this point. He simply lists a series of standing cases from the past five years that “disprove” Jackson’s point that the Court is likely to find standing for “moneyed interests.” Kavanaugh acts as if this point is self-evident. But there is a problem. The string cite doesn’t actually make his case–or at least not without some substantial explanation.

Of the nine cases cited, only two are business cases. TransUnion found that only certain plaintiffs had standing to sue TransUnion. And Thole found that participants in a benefit plan lacked standing to sue the bank. These cases, which generally favor big business, do not rebut Justice Jackson’s point.

Two of the case involve civil rights cases. Uzuegbunam found that a student had standing to challenge a University’s censorship of his speech. And Reed found that a prisoner had standing to challenge a DNA testing statute. These cases sort of address Justice Jackson’s point, but not directly.

The other cases concern ideological strategic litigation brought by states or public interest groups. First, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024) found that a non-profit lacked standing to challenge the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. Second, United States v. Texas (2023) found that Texas lacked standing to challenge a Biden-era immigration policy. Third, Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) found that Texas (and private plaintiffs) lacked standing to challenge the enforcement of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Fourth, California v. Texas (2021) found that Texas (and private plaintiffs) lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act after the penalty was reduced to $0. Fifth, in Department of Commerce (2019), New York had standing to challenge the inclusion of the citizenship question on the census. There is a sixth case that Justice Kavanaugh inexplicably did not cite: Murthy v. Missouri (2024) held that Missouri lacked standing to challenge the Biden Administration’s “jawboning” of social media companies.

What do these six cases have in common? Red states lack standing, but blue states do have standing. It’s really that simple–or at least that is the perception here in Texas. To show the Court is being “evenhanded,” Kavanaugh lists how often conservative litigants lose on an otherwise conservative court.

Early in Kavanaugh’s tenure, I objected when he made a point about how President Clinton signed a “strict” immigration bill. I wrote:

I have no doubt that Kavanaugh’s intent here was as innocuous as in Rimini. But the implication was very different: The Court was not being “strict” toward immigrants; a bipartisan Congress and Clinton were being “strict” toward immigrants. In other words, don’t blame us for interpreting the law in a tough fashion—even a Democrat was fine with it.

As several Kavanaugh clerks promptly told me, it has long been Kavanaugh’s practice to reference the name of the President who signed the bill. There is definitely a Schoolhouse Rock virtue here. But I also think it conveys a substantive point. Indeed, I often stress that President Clinton signed both DOMA and RFRA to stress the bipartisan nature of those laws.

In Diamond Alternative Energy, Justice Kavanaugh lists all the times that the Court ruled against conservatives to show how it is being “even-handed.” I recently wrote that “If [Chief Justice] Roberts views himself as an umpire, his strike zone will ensure that the red team and the blue team usually play a close game, and neither side wins by a large margin.” Kavanaugh, regrettably, suggests he is keeping score as well. Kavanaugh has similarly praised the Nixon appointees for ruling against the President who appointed them in United States v. Nixon. Why is that fact relevant unless the standard presumption is that a Nixon appointee should rule in favor of President Nixon? Is this how Kavanaugh thinks of things? I suggested as much after reading Gorsuch and Kavanaugh’s perplexing decisions in the tax return cases.

In any event, when Justice Kavanaugh says these cases “disprove” Justice Jackson’s argument, he is tacitly acknowledging how the Court refuses to grant standing to red cases, even as it finds standing for moneyed interests. Both Jackson and Kavanaugh miss the obvious distinction. Here, we have another manifestation of Originalism, Inc.

By the way, I did not know this factoid, which I learned in Justice Jackson’s dissent: “Cass Gilbert, who designed the Supreme Court building, also designed the Chamber of Commerce’s headquarters in Washington, D. C., and the New York Life building in Manhattan, among other major commercial offices.” 

The post The Court Might Favor Standing For Business Interests, But Blue States Beat Red States appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/IH8FUcn
via IFTTT

On Wednesday, the Court decided United States v. Skrmetti. This petition, brought by the Biden DOJ, only presented the question whether Tennessee’s law violated the Equal Protection Clause. DOJ did not petition on the substantive due process issue. Indeed, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2, the Attorney General only has the authority to intervene in an equal protection case.

Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene in such action upon timely application if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance. In such action the United States shall be entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action.

The ACLU, which represented the plaintiffs, petitioned on both due process and equal protection in the case known as L.W. v. Skrmetti. The ACLU’s petition remains pending, even though counsel for the ACLU was permitted to argue.

What happens next? Mahmoud v. Taylor is awaiting a decision. If Mahmoud addresses the due process clause with regard to parental rights, the Court might GVR the ACLU’s Skrmetti petition.

In other words, Skrmetti may be far from over.

The post Will The Court GVR The <i>Skrmetti</i> Parental Rights Petition In Light Of <i>Mahmoud</i>? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/jkaAOKx
via IFTTT

Does using alcohol, nicotine, or cannabis engender addiction by changing the structure of brains, or does the structure of brains incline some people toward using those substances? In standard brain disease models of addiction, the neurotoxic effects of abused psychoactive substances are thought to cause brain changes that spur compulsive cravings for drink, smokes, or dope.

A recent study in JAMA Network Open, an open-access, peer-reviewed, international medical journal published by the American Medical Association, challenges that model and suggests that brain differences associated with addiction precede rather than result from substance abuse. A team of neuroscientists examined associations between brain structure and substance use initiation in nearly 10,000 children enrolled in the ongoing Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study.

Children aged 9 to 11 years were enrolled in the study. MRIs of each child’s brain were taken at that time. None of the kids in the initial cohort reported using alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, or other psychoactive substances. During the next three years, the researchers periodically asked the kids, all still below age 15, if they had used any of those substances. Roughly a third of the kids (3,460), with some overlap, owned up to using either alcohol (3,123), nicotine products (431), cannabis (212), and other substances (213), such as inhalants, prescription sedatives, and hallucinogens.

The researchers then compared the brain MRIs of the kids who consumed psychoactive substances with those who did not. Remember, these MRIs were taken before any of the now adolescents had used any psychoactive substances. The researchers identified eight “neuroanatomical features associated with substance use initiation that were present before substance exposure.”

Prior studies of adult addicts have found that they generally have lower overall brain  volumes than nonabusers do. In their study of the ABCD cohort, the researchers were surprised to find the contrary to be the case. Bigger adolescent brains with more gray matter were significantly associated with early substance-use initiation. Interestingly, neurological research suggests that bigger brains somewhat correlate with higher intelligence.

Another difference in brain structures coincident with early substance use is a thinner prefrontal cortex, which is associated with impaired emotional regulation and working memory. Early users also have larger globus pallidus volumes, which lessens impulse control. The researchers
suggest their study may be capturing brain variability related to exploration and risk-taking that motivates precocious psychoactive substance use.

An earlier study using data from the ABCD cohort asked if cannabis use contributes to psychosis in adolescents or if adolescents use cannabis to self-medicate their emerging psychotic symptoms. The researchers did not find evidence that early cannabis use contributed to the risk of experiencing psychotic symptoms.

Instead, they suggest there may be a shared vulnerability in which genetic, gestational, or environmental factors may confer vulnerability for both cannabis use and psychosis. They further found, consistent with the self-medication hypothesis, that worsening symptoms motivated the initiation of cannabis use and that the users experienced reduced symptom distress.

In their commentary on the adolescent substance use initiation study, two University of Minnesota cognitive neuroscientists observed that the brain differences found in the new study “reflect predispositional risk for substance use initiation—and that we may need to reevaluate the causal assumptions that underlie brain disease models of addiction.”

The post Does Drug Use Lead to Addiction, or Are Some Brains More Prone To Use Drugs? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/0vCtYg7
via IFTTT

When the Spanish colonized Peru in the 16th century, they tore down the Incan temples and palaces, leaving the base level of original stone masonry in place. On top of those they built European-style white stucco walls, ornate baroque stonework, and intricately carved wooden balconies. This fusion of Incan and colonial architecture, particularly in Cusco, helped earn the city the designations of Historical Capital and Tourism Capital of Peru.

On May 21, 1950, an earthquake rocked Cusco, damaging approximately half of the city’s buildings. The worst destruction affected old adobe houses and colonial-era churches, including the Church of Santo Domingo, which was built atop the Coricancha (“Temple of the Sun,” dedicated to the Incan sun god). Spanish chronicler Pedro Cieza de León once marveled at the temple’s “excellent masonry,” noting that “the stones themselves are so well worked that no joining or cement can be seen.” He was referring to the Incan technique of ashlar masonry, in which large, hand-cut stones are shaped to fit perfectly together—so well, in fact, that their structures survived the quake while newer additions crumbled.

Cusco’s history stretches back even further, and more treasures are still being found. In 2008, archaeologists uncovered ruins of an ancient temple, roads, and irrigation systems credited to the pre-Inca Killke culture, likely dating back to the 12th century. Killke ceramics have also been found throughout the city. Due to its proximity to Machu Picchu, Cusco is sometimes thought of as merely a gateway to one of the New Seven Wonders of the World, but its own rich history has been attraction enough. In 1983, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designated Cusco a World Heritage Site, recognizing its extraordinary cultural significance.

That global recognition hasn’t always benefited Cusco’s residents. When a community development program began constructing a pool near the historic Sapantiana Colonial Aqueduct, it carefully followed guidelines to preserve the surrounding area. Late in the project, however, a final review uncovered Killke artifacts in the nearby San Blas neighborhood. This marked the whole area as a protected site, and the project was abruptly halted.

Today, visitors can see children running through the empty concrete rectangle that was meant to hold water, or down the slope intended for a waterslide. But they won’t be swimming—because the pool was never completed.

Believed to be the oldest continuously inhabited city in South America, Cusco has always balanced reverence for the past with adaptation to the present. It’s what the Incas did when they absorbed the Killke culture, what Peruvians did after Spanish colonization, and what they do today to welcome millions of visitors each year. Cusco shouldn’t fear losing its World Heritage designation. The Peruvian people are clearly proud of their history, and they deserve credit for preserving the past. They also deserve a working pool.

The post An Empty Pool in Peru Is a Monument to the Drawbacks of Historic Preservation appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/bsif4Yd
via IFTTT

The world found out about another American war through social media. “We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan,” President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social at 7:50 PM on Saturday night. “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!” he added.

Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that he had B-2 stealth bombers drop bunker-buster bombs on the underground Fordo nuclear facility, and submarines launch Tomahawk missiles at additional nuclear facilities in Natanz and Esfahan. He gave Iranian leaders a heads-up before the attack, reassuring them that the U.S. was aiming for a one-off strike rather than a regime change war, according to CNN and CBS. Iranian media downplayed the results, claiming that at Fordo only two entrances were damaged.

This campaign is a war of choice. And the administration did not try to sell it to Congress—let alone the American people—before embarking on it. Instead, Trump watched Israel launch a first strike on Iran, then threatened to get involved, talking himself into a corner. Now he seems to be hoping that Iran simply won’t respond to being attacked.

“Iran, the bully of the Middle East, now must make peace. If not, future attacks will be far greater, and a lot easier,” Trump said at the White House. “Remember, there are many targets left,” he added, threatening to “go after those targets with precision, speed, and skill.”

There was peace eight days ago. Iran had been negotiating with the United States over the future of its nuclear program, with another round of talks scheduled for last Sunday. But on June 13, the Israeli military began bombing Iran. (One of its first targets was chief Iranian negotiator Ali Shamkhani.) Trump was reportedly impressed by the triumphant coverage on Fox News and rushed to take credit.

In the race to war, he did not bother to ask Congress for permission, and he limited the administration’s briefings of congressional leaders to just one party. No wonder: Polling at the beginning of the Israel-Iran war showed that only 16 percent of Americans and 23 percent of Republicans wanted to be involved. Instead, Trump bet that he could make the war a fait accompli. Once the crisis starts, after all, it will be much harder to stop.

While House Majority Leader Mike Johnson (R–La.) praised Trump for his “clear reminder to our adversaries and allies that President Trump means what he says,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D–N.Y.) said that “President Trump misled the country about his intentions, failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East.”

Asked what legal authorization Trump had to start the war, the White House told RealClearPolitics that he simply “used the legal authority afforded to him as Commander in Chief.” Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.) concurred that the war “is not Constitutional.”

Jeffries added that Trump “shoulders complete and total responsibility for any adverse consequences that flow from his unilateral military action.” What those consequences will be is a huge open question. The immediate danger is that Iran will attack American troops or oil shipping in the Persian Gulf, both of which Iranian officials had previously threatened to do in response to a U.S. attack.

Iran can also rebuild its nuclear program. Iranian authorities have claimed that they already scattered equipment and material from Fordo before the U.S. attack—a prudent thing to do when expecting air raids. Unlike the facilities at Fordo, Natanz, and Esfahan, which were well-known to international inspectors, any new Iranian nuclear work would likely be secretive. The U.S. could find itself in a long-term game of whack-a-mole to stop a dispersed Iranian nuclear program.

And Israel has a say in whether the current war ends. Iranian officials have said that there are no grounds for negotiation while their country is being bombed. Israeli leaders have been constantly shifting the goalposts of their war effort: denuclearization of Iran, dismantlement of its conventional missile forces, or even full regime change. Trump has tied the fate of American troops to another country’s forever war.

This outcome was something the Constitution was designed to prevent. “The Framers of the Constitution were clear that only Congress is empowered to commence offensive military hostilities,” former Rep. Justin Amash (L–Mich.) wrote on X. “But there are people on the left and right who reject divided powers and fundamentally hate America. They’re working deliberately and methodically to destroy it.”

The post Trump Shreds the Constitution By Bombing Iran appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/6ojYcHS
via IFTTT