Constitutional Law Reporter
Award
Menu
  • Home
  • US Constitution
  • Supreme Court Cases
  • Justices
    • Chief Supreme Court Justices
    • Current Supreme Court Justices
    • Past US Supreme Court Justices
  • American Biographies
    • General
    • Presidents
    • Vice-Presidents
  • Articles
    • Current Cases
    • Historical Cases
    • Impeachment
  • Videos
  • Links
Hot-Topics

March 6, 2023 | U.S. Supreme Court Takes on Big Tech

Abortion and Gun Rights Top Busy Week for Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in at least two blockbuster cases last week. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the Court considered the constitutionality of a New York gun law. Based on oral arguments, it appeared that a majority of the Court could be persuaded that the law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

The issues in United States v. Texas and Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson are just as controversial, as they involve legal challenges to Texas’s restrictive abortion law. The Court, which agreed to hear the cases on an accelerated schedule, expressed significant concerns about S.B. 8, which prohibits abortions after six weeks of pregnancy and delegates the exclusive power to enforce the law to private individuals rather than state officials.

Below is a brief summary of the issues before the Court:

United States v. Texas: A federal district court temporarily enjoined enforcement of the Texas abortion law S.B. 8, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the lower court’s injunction. The Department of Justice (DOJ) sought to vacate the stay, which the Supreme Court elected to treat as a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment. The question before the Court is: “Whether the United States may bring suit in federal court and obtain injunctive or declaratory relief against the state, state court judges, state court clerks, other state officials, or all private parties to prohibit Texas Senate Bill 8 from being enforced.”

Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson: S.B. 8 delegates enforcement to the general public via civil actions that “any person” can file in Texas state court. Petitioners, Texas abortion providers and individuals and organizations that support abortion patients, brought suit in federal court against, among others, the clerks and judges of the courts where enforcement actions can be brought and the Texas attorney general. The district court denied Respondents’ motions to dismiss on standing and sovereign-immunity grounds. The question before the Supreme Court is “whether a State can insulate from federal-court review a law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.”

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen: A 108-year-old New York law requires that an applicant for a license to carry a concealed handgun outside of the home show that “proper cause exists for the issuance thereof.” The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) and two individuals sued New York state, arguing that the law violates the Second Amendment because it prevents them from having the unrestricted ability to carry a firearm anywhere in public. The specific issue before the Court is: “Whether the state of New York’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Houston Community College System v. Wilson: The case involves when elected bodies can censure their members. Upon being censured by the Board of Trustees of the Houston Community College System, Petitioner Wilson brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that the censure violated his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection. A U.S. district court judge dismissed the suit. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that HCC’s censure of one of its members for violating its bylaws was an unlawful restriction on his free speech rights. The justices have agreed to decide: “Does the First Amendment restrict the authority of an elected body to issue a censure resolution in response to a member’s speech?

Badgerow v. Walters: The case involves a jurisdictional question under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The issue before the Court is: “Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act when the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.”

Previous Articles

U.S. Supreme Court Takes on Big Tech
by DONALD SCARINCI on March 6, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two big cases involving Big Tech this week. The case...

Read More
SCOTUS to Clarify Standard for Determining Whether True Threat Exception Applies
by DONALD SCARINCI on February 27, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Counterman v. Colorado, which involves the st...

Read More
SCOTUS to Take on Religious Rights in the Workplace
by DONALD SCARINCI on February 21, 2023

The U.S. Supreme Court has added another high-profile case to its docket, agreeing to address the r...

Read More
All Posts

The Amendments

  • Amendment1
    • Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
    • Freedom of Speech
    • Freedoms of Press
    • Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
    Read More
  • Amendment2
    • The Right to Bear Arms
    Read More
  • Amendment4
    • Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
    Read More
  • Amendment5
    • Due Process
    • Eminent Domain
    • Rights of Criminal Defendants
    Read More

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read More

More Recent Posts

  • Supreme Court Holds Debts Incurred by Fraud Are Ineligible for Bankruptcy Relief
  • NJ Supreme Court Rules Campus Police Officer Eligible for Arbitration
  • Lorem ipsum
  • Ketanji Brown Jackson to Join SCOTUS as First Black Female Justice

Constitutional Law Reporter Twitter

A Twitter List by S_H_Law

Constitutional Law Reporter RSS

donald scarinci constitutional law attorney

Editor

Donald Scarinci

Managing Partner

Scarinci Hollenbeck

(201) 806-3364

Awards

con law awards

Follow me

© 2018 Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC. All rights reserved.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Attorney Advertising