In blockbuster term, Supreme Court boosts its own sway

posted in: Politics | 0

Michael Macagnone | CQ-Roll Call (TNS)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court closed out a term Monday full of blockbuster decisions on gun control, abortion and criminal charges against former presidents, but legal experts say the most impactful rulings may be those where the conservative majority flexed its influence over federal government actions and policies.

The justices extended their own power over other branches of government and the lower courts, even as they declined to go as far as some Republican-backed litigants and conservative lower courts, those experts say.

Aziz Huq a law professor at the University of Chicago, said the Supreme Court decided most issues in a way that gives them more sway over policies.

“What is distinctive here is that the consequence, the aftereffect, of these decisions is to dramatically increase the discretionary authority of courts, and in particular, the Supreme Court, at the cost of other constitutional actors’ authority,” Huq said.

In four decisions, the justices gave judges more power to review administrative agency decisions, forced certain Securities and Exchange Commission actions to be filed in federal court, allowed challenges to agency rules years after they are finalized and stepped in to pause a nationwide plan to reduce cross-state air pollution.

Clare Pastore, a law professor at the USC Gould School of Law, said the changes from those decisions will reverberate for years to come, encouraging constant lawsuits over both new and existing federal rules, with litigants shopping around for the friendliest judges.

“I think anyone who’s paying attention, can see that the court is engaged in a project of — some would say rolling back, some would say dismantling — the administrative state as much as possible, and the rulings that the court has just issued take us a kind of a stunning distance in that direction,” Pastore said.

Those cases emerged as part of a term filled with major decisions on the structure of federal agencies, abortion, Congress’ taxation power, gun regulation and former President Donald Trump.

In the cases where the court did not rule in favor of conservatives, they did so in a way that avoided a major decision on abortion or other contentious issues in an election year, or avoided a “calamity” such as a ruling that avoided sweeping changes to congressional power to tax, Huq said.

That includes decisions where the justices upheld regulations about the abortion drug mifepristone and chose not to rule on whether Idaho could ban abortions in emergency health care situations.

“The court saved the Republican Party from having, you know, particularly contentious abortion decisions being handed down before an election, but left it open for the court to come back to them a year or so later if a Democratic president wins. So it’s a bit of heads, I win, tails, you lose in those cases,” Huq said.

Administrative law

The court’s conservative majority, ruling 6-3 in three of the four cases, couched its decisions as a necessary step to reassert the judiciary’s responsibility to check the executive branch on Congress’ behalf.

In a decision overturning a 40-year-old precedent for courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote that federal law bars the justices from “disregarding” their responsibility to decide what the laws mean.

“Courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Roberts wrote.

The decision means an uncertain and more difficult path for Congress to shape how the federal government carries out laws on major issues such as the environment, health, immigration and more, lawmakers and legal experts said.

The court’s Democrat-appointed justices have accused the conservative majority of a power grab. Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting in the administrative deference case, accused the majority of “judicial hubris.”

“In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue—no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden—involving the meaning of regulatory law,” Kagan said.

Overall, the decisions will likely mean more court fights over the past and future of administrative rules, according to University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School professor Kermit Roosevelt.

“These decisions work to take power away from the federal administrative agencies and shift power to judges,” Roosevelt said.

Kevin King, a partner at Covington & Burling, said those cases will combine to let judges decide more issues surrounding administrative law and could move many of those court cases out of Washington, D.C.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Stephen L. Carter: Trump might not wind up liking the Supreme Court’s immunity decision

National Politics |


Trump’s immunity ruling sets up ‘mini trial’ before election

National Politics |


Major wins for Trump and stark pullback on regulations mark momentous Supreme Court term

National Politics |


Noah Feldman: Supreme Court social media ruling is a free-speech landmark

National Politics |


The Supreme Court just limited federal power. Health care is feeling the shockwaves

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in her dissent in a decision that allowed challenges to agency rules years after they are finalized, wrote the that court’s decisions would combine to unleash a “tsunami” of lawsuits objecting to long-standing federal rules.

“Doctrines that were once settled are now unsettled and claims that lacked merit a year ago are suddenly up for grabs,” Jackson said.

Still, the justices declined to go as far as the conservative-leaning U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had in several major issues.

The justices reversed decisions from that court that would have invalidated a federal law banning certain domestic abusers from possessing guns, restricted access to medication abortion, invalidated a part of the 2017 tax law and rendered unconstitutional the funding structure for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Those were some of the court’s most contentious cases, and Roosevelt said they showed the court’s intended focus.

“There are some things the Supreme Court is not willing to do, at least not yet, and maybe not ever,” Roosevelt said. “It is a question of how far they are willing to push it.”

Trump and election

The Supreme Court’s most prominent case this term dealt a serious blow to the criminal case brought by special counsel John L. “Jack” Smith alleging Trump attempted to overturn his loss in the 2020 election.

Monday’s decision almost ensured that Trump will not face trial in that case before the 2024 election, as it sent the issue back to the trial court to decide whether the indictment covers Trump’s “official” acts as president.

Even in the Trump case, where the justices said presidents have a broad immunity to federal charges, Jackson pointed out in her dissent that the justices had given themselves the role of “gatekeeper” to decide whether a president could face trial over official acts outside the “core” of his presidential duties.

Huq said the decision may have done long-term damage to the country and it is difficult to see how it would be rolled back. He pointed out that even in its decision, the justices did not engage with the consequences of presidential immunity, such as the implied ability to order political assassinations.

“It’s really striking how the majority, in that case, you know, an openly or a self-evidently partisan majority, responds to those concerns with essentially nothing,” Huq said.

For next term, the justices have already started taking controversial cases, including fights over access to gender-affirming care for minors, the Food and Drug Administration’s ability to regulate e-cigarettes, and access to pornography websites in Texas.

The justices could take up more contentious issues, such as gun regulation, the viability of Georgia’s state case against Trump and more in the coming months.

©2024 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Other voices: A middle ground on presidential immunity

posted in: News | 0

The U.S. Supreme Court ended its term Monday with a highly anticipated decision that provides American presidents with a modicum of immunity from criminal charges. The case was ostensibly about Donald Trump, but in fact the ruling sets guidelines intended to ensure the nation — regardless of which man, woman or party holds the Oval Office — doesn’t become mired in a series of retaliatory and vindictive prosecutions.

Progressives, fixated on Trump, argue that the 6-3 decision “creates a law-free zone around the president,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor described it in her dissent. But it does nothing of the sort.

“The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority,” and not everything the president does is official. The president is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution.”

Note that the court explicitly rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity. “Trump asserts a far broader immunity,” the majority opinion holds, “than the limited one we have recognized.” But the idea, put forth by special prosecutor Jack Smith and the government that a president has no special protection is equally pernicious. Would it be good for the country to allow a former president to face politically motivated prosecutions involving a policy dispute?

In the current political climate, such concerns are not theoretical.

“Virtually every president is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration or environmental laws),” Roberts wrote. “An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous president violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-presidents could quickly become routine.”

The decision will require federal courts to hold evidentiary hearings to determine which actions charged by Smith amount to “official” and “unofficial” acts. But it in no way stops the government from prosecuting Trump for actions he took that were unrelated to his duties as president. Trump’s attorney conceded during oral arguments that some of the conduct that caught Smith’s attention was related to unofficial actions.

Despite the apocalyptic protestations of the dissenting liberal justices, the majority has carved out a middle ground that rejects the extreme arguments made by both the former president and the special prosecutor who pursues him. Trump — or any other president — is not above the law. But neither should they be victims of politically motivated criminal prosecutions.

— The Las Vegas Review Journal

Related Articles

Opinion |


Lisa Jarvis: Game-changing HIV shot can’t get to high-risk groups fast enough

Opinion |


Stephen L. Carter: Trump might not wind up liking the Supreme Court’s immunity decision

Opinion |


Analysis: Republicans are downplaying abortion, but it keeps coming up

Opinion |


Trump’s immunity ruling sets up ‘mini trial’ before election

Opinion |


Many voters, including a third of Democrats, want Biden replaced as Democratic nominee

Free weddings offered at Dakota, Goodhue, McCleod county fairs

posted in: News | 0

Minnesota judges are offering to marry people at no cost this summer at three county fairs.

Judges love to marry people — it’s a “feel-good thing,” said a spokesperson for the Minnesota Judicial Branch. Judges across the state offered free weddings on Valentine’s Day, and more counties wanted to get in on the act at their local fairs.

Judges will be performing weddings at the Dakota, Goodhue and McCleod county fairs in August, with the ceremonies taking place in public areas.

Interested couples should contact the county court to register. They need not live in the county to get married at that fair.

Ready to get married? Here’s how:

Dakota County, Aug. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 — email 1stDakota@courts.state.mn.us
Goodhue County, Aug. 7 and 8 — email Vanessa.Jeske@courts.state.mn.us  or call 651-267-4815
McLeod County, Aug. 16 and 17 — email McLeod.FamilyCivil@courts.state.mn.us  or call 320-864-1285 or 320-864-1284

Related Articles

Things to Do |


Prosecutor: Burnsville officers justified in force used against gunman who killed three

Things to Do |


Faribault man shot Lakeville Amazon co-worker in fight about missing firearm attachment, murder charge says

Things to Do |


Passenger killed in Eagan crash when driver runs red light; other driver flees scene

Things to Do |


Where to find Fourth of July fireworks and events in the St. Paul area

Things to Do |


Appellate court reinstates lawsuit against Lakeville school district over Black Lives Matter posters

Small Bites Review: Qamaria Yemeni Coffee, new in Little Canada, serves top-notch drinks until classic-Middle-East late hours

posted in: News | 0

When Qamaria Yemeni Coffee opened its first Minnesota location in May in Little Canada, the line to get in the door stretched around the block.

The Twin Cities are home to many delightful Middle Eastern restaurants but fewer specific coffee shops. The opening-day rush at Qamaria (pronounced “ka-ma-REE-ya” with, in Arabic, a guttural initial ‘k’ sound) suggests, perhaps, that we’re overdue for a place like this.

Qamaria started a couple years ago in Dearborn, Mich. — home to one of the country’s largest Middle Eastern immigrant populations — and all the coffee is grown in Yemen and roasted in Michigan.

The Little Canada location is a locally owned franchise and, like other coffee shops that have opened in recent years in the East Metro, has gained instant popularity not only for great food and drinks but also as a deeply rooted cultural space.

The drink menu includes several traditional Yemeni coffee and tea preparations, including the Mufawaar, or coffee steeped with cardamom and served with cream, and the Juban, which blends coffee and qishr — a tea-like drink made with the husks of coffee beans — with cinnamon, ginger and cardamom.

The pistachio latte — one of the best flavored lattes in the Twin Cities, I think — was stunningly full-bodied, with a pitch-perfect savory, woodsy edge that quality pistachio treats should have. The house Qamaria latte, flavored with cinnamon and cardamom, was also particularly enjoyable: richly aromatic but not overpowering, and with none of the grainy texture or sludge that can result when other coffee shops try to add ground spices to beverages.

Food options

There are some food options, too; mostly sweet, with a savory option here and there. (On a recent Thursday morning, they were serving crispy, spicy beef sambusas.)

Food at Qamaria Yemeni Coffee, including beef sambusas and slices of khalyet nahel, or “honeycomb bread,” was served on intricately decorated trays on June 13, 2024. Much of the cafe’s food and drink menu consist of traditional Yemeni recipes, from coffee blended with cardamom to vibrantly colored milk cakes. (Jared Kaufman / Pioneer Press)

The pastry case, full of colorful cakes and breads and cheesecakes, is the main attraction. I opted for a slice of khalyet nahel, a.k.a. honeycomb bread, a Yemeni specialty. Small balls of cream cheese-stuffed dough are arranged in a concentric pattern and topped with sesame seeds, and each slice is toasted and drizzled with honey. It’s the ideal coffee snack. Sweet but not too sweet; light and airy but still substantial.

Beyond just the cakes, the whole cafe is colorful, from the upholstery on the bench seating to the ornately decorated food trays. And it makes sense: The Arabic word qamaria, which translates roughly to ‘moon-like,’ refers in Yemen to a particular type of vibrant half-moon-shaped stained glass window that’s a common architectural feature there.

But the real giveaway of Qamaria Yemeni Coffee’s Middle Eastern roots is its hours. Open at 8 every morning, the shop doesn’t close till 11 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays and midnight Fridays through Sundays.

Coffee culture in much of the Middle East, including Yemen, is central to social gatherings and hospitality. And because observant Muslims typically don’t drink alcohol, coffee becomes part of nightlife, too.

The Yemeni coffee shop isn’t necessarily an errand or a pit-stop — it’s a place to spend time.

And with the drinks and food on offer at Qamaria, that’s exactly what I want to do.

Small Bites are first glances — not intended as definitive reviews — of new or changed restaurants.

Qamaria Yemeni Coffee: 3 Little Canada Rd E, Little Canada; 651-219-5973; qamariacoffee.com or on Instagram @yemenicoffeemn

Related Articles

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


The best pizza places in the United States

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Q&A: Class and social status in the kitchen and ‘The Bear’

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Alamo Drafthouse to reopen in Woodbury

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Minneapolis chef Christina Nguyen, of Hai Hai and Hola Arepa, named best in Midwest at James Beard Awards

Restaurants, Food and Drink |


Lake Elmo Inn owners to open new restaurant within downtown St. Paul’s Union Depot