Today the Supreme Court denied review in three high-profile cases. Justices Thomas and Alito wrote separately in each case, with Justice Gorsuch also writing separately in two cases. Justice Kavanaugh would have granted cert in one case, while Justice Barrett remained silent in all cases.
First, the Court denied cert in Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp v. The School Committee For the City of Boston. This case challenged Boston Public Schools’ affirmative action policies that discriminated against Asian students. The First Circuit rejected the Fourteenth Amendment claim, citing over-representation of Asian students.
Justice Gorsuch wrote a statement respecting the denial of cert in the Boston case, noting the changes in policy and the lack of need for review. Justice Alito dissented, emphasizing the need to address the constitutional error.
Second, the Court denied certiorari in Wilson v. Hawaii, where the defendant was convicted under a carry law. Justices Thomas and Alito expressed a desire to grant cert in the future to reaffirm the Second Amendment rights.
Justice Gorsuch also criticized the Hawaii Supreme Court’s failure to analyze the law’s constitutionality under Bruen.
Third, the Court denied cert in Parents Protecting Our Children v. Eau Claire Area School District, Wisconsin, challenging a school policy on student transitions. Justices Alito and Thomas dissented, while Justice Kavanaugh would have granted the petition.
Justice Kavanaugh’s stance is influenced by his personal experiences with elite prep schools and female athletics.
He is drawing from his own personal experience. Alito elaborates on why he would have approved review:
“Relying on our decision in Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, the Seventh Circuit implied that a parent could not challenge the district’s policy unless they could prove their child is transitioning or considering a transition. However, the policy in question and the associated equity training actually encourage school staff to withhold information from parents about their children’s ‘identities,’ especially if the school believes the parents may not support what the school deems appropriate. Therefore, the parents’ concerns about the school district making decisions for their children without their knowledge and consent are not unfounded. They are merely taking the school district at its word.”
Alito also criticizes the lower courts and his colleagues for using standing law to avoid contentious issues:
“I would have granted the petition to address this questionable interpretation of Clapper and related standing decisions. I am worried that some federal courts are using the doctrine of Article III standing as a way to sidestep controversial constitutional questions. While it is crucial for federal courts to respect the limits of their constitutional authority, it is equally important for them to fulfill their ‘virtually unflagging obligation… to exercise the jurisdiction given them.'”
This accusation is a lack of courage. Alito seems to be directing this criticism towards Justice Gorsuch. Speaking of Justice Gorsuch…
With three votes in favor of granting review, only one more vote was needed. However, Justices Gorsuch and Barrett remained silent. Gorsuch’s silence is expected, as he has not voted to grant cert in several LGBT-related cases. Barrett’s silence is also anticipated, as she tends to focus on standing issues and is selective about granting cert.
The Court’s docket is getting smaller, and there is a discussion on expanding the Court’s mandatory jurisdiction to address this issue.
Source link
