Tag: supreme

President Trump’s Accountants Ordered to Turn Over His Financial Records to Congress (DC Circuit)

On 11 October 2019, the US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit ruled 2-1, in the case of Trump v. Mazars USA, LLPNo. 19-5142 (D.C. Cir. 2019), that President Trump’s accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP, must turn over his financial records to the House of Representatives in accordance with a subpoena. The case runs in parallel to Trump v Vance Jr19‐3204 (2019) concerning a similar subpoena by a New York State prosecutor, discussed here.

In April 2019, the House Committee on Oversight and Reform subpoenaed President Trump’s financial records relating to years 2011 – 2018 from his accounting firm, Mazars USA, LLP. The subpoena was justified on the grounds that the Committee was investigating whether President Trump had committed any wrongdoing and also considering whether Congress should amend ethics in-government regulations. However, President Trump sued in a federal District Court seeking to block the subpoena arguing that it was part of a campaign of harassment conducted by the legislature against the executive and, therefore, served no legitimate legislative purpose. The District Court upheld the subpoena and President Trump appealed (p2).

The US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit first summarised the case law on the issue of enforceability of Congressional subpoenas, starting with the first case considered by the US Supreme Court, Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1881), where the Court invalidated a subpoena issued outside of a valid Congressional investigation (pp12-18).

Then, the US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit set the starting point – Congressional oversight powers were very broad. Nevertheless, they were also subject to important limitations. Firstly, “the power of Congress . . . to investigate” must be deemed “co-extensive with [its] power to legislate” (per Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955) at 160). Consequently, “Congress may in exercising its investigative power neither usurp the other branches’ constitutionally designated functions nor violate individuals’ constitutionally protected rights.” Secondly, “Congress may investigate only those topics on which it could legislate” (per Quinn v. United States, 349 U.S. 155 (1955) at 161). Thirdly, “Congressional committees may subpoena only information ‘calculated to’ ‘materially aid’ their investigations” (per McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) at 177) (p19).

At that point, the US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit emphasised that the case concerned a subpoena issued to President Trump’s accountant, not to the office of President of the United States directly, and, therefore, the case did not have involve the question of subpoenaing a sitting President. Consequently, the main question was “whether the Oversight Committee is pursuing a legislative, as opposed to a law-enforcement, objective.” (pp20-21).

In this respect, the US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit pointed out that “the fact that an investigation might expose criminal conduct does not transform a legislative inquiry into a law-enforcement endeavor” (per Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263 (1929) at 295). Furthermore, addressing President Trump’s claim that Congress was conducting a campaign of harassment against him, the Court explained that “in determining the legitimacy of a congressional act” Courts were not allowed to “look to the motives alleged to have prompted it” (per Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 (1975) at 508) (p22).

In order to determine whether the subpoena was issued pursuant to a legitimate legislative purpose, the US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit considered Chairman Cummings’s memorandum from 12 April 2019 where he set out the reasons behind the subpoena. The memorandum identified four questions that the subpoena would help answer:

  • “whether the President may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office”
  • “whether [the President] has undisclosed conflicts of interest that may impair his ability to make impartial policy decisions”
  • “whether [the President] is complying with the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution”
  • “whether [the President] has accurately reported his finances to the Office of Government Ethics and other federal entities”

Furthermore, the subpoena was issued because “[t]he Committee’s interest in these matters informs [the Committee’s] review of multiple laws and legislative proposals under [its] jurisdiction.” In fact, at the time of the subpoena, the House of Representatives was working on a number of Bills that could benefit from the information supplied by President Trump’s accountants:

  • Bill H.R. 1 would require Presidents to include in their financial disclosures the liabilities and assets of any “corporation, company, firm, partnership, or other business enterprise in which” they or their immediate family members have “a significant financial interest
  • Bill H.R. 706 would require sitting Presidents and presidential candidates to “submit to the Federal Election Commission a copy of the individual’s income tax returns” for the preceding nine or ten years
  • Bill H.R. 745 “would amend the Ethics in Government Act to make the Director of the Office of Government Ethics removable only for cause” (pp25-27).

The US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit then held that the issues which were the subject matter of the legislation Congress was working on, were in fact subject to Congressional regulation. The Court, for instance, pointed to the the United States Code which contained a whole range of rules regulating Presidents’ finances and records. It also rejected President Trump’s claim that such regulation would unconstitutionally add further requirements for candidates seeking the office of the President of the United States, contrary to the judgments of the US Supreme Court in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), and U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). Consequently, the Court found a valid legislative purpose related to matters which fell under the Congressional purview (pp36-45).

At the same time, the US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit rejected President Trump’s claim that the supposed legislative purpose was merely pretextual and the Committee was in fact engaged in a law-enforcement investigation. The Court held that Congress could investigate whether any criminal activity had taken place to inform itself what type of legislation it should pass to address such an activity (pp27-31).

Finally, the US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit found that the information sought by the subpoena in question was material to its legislative purpose. Even with information concerning financial records going back to 2011 (i.e. long before Mr Trump became the President of the United States), the Court held that the Committee had a legitimate interest in those records because, in theory, it could use them when deciding whether the Ethics in Government Act should require financial disclosure going back more than one year, as it was currently required (pp50-54).

Accordingly, the subpoena was upheld by the majority of the bench. However, Judge Roa dissented arguing that “when Congress seeks information about the President’s wrongdoing, it does not matter whether the investigation also has a legislative purpose. Investigations of impeachable offenses simply are not, and never have been, within Congress’s legislative power“. She argued that the subpoena could not be upheld because the Committee was investigating a sitting President (alongside exercising a legislative function), which could only be done through the impeachment process (pp1-3). Judge Roa pointed to the early practice as the best source of information as to what was permitted under the Constitution. “Founding Era practice confirms the Constitution’s original meaning—investigations of unlawful actions by an impeachable official cannot proceed through the legislative power” (p20). She agreed that “the cases cited by the majority demonstrate that during an investigation of private activity, the incidental revelation of criminal activity is tolerated when Congress has a legitimate legislative purpose,” however, the subpoena cited the investigation into a potential wrongdoing by President Trump as one of the main reasons behind it (p46). Consequently, she would have invalidated the subpoena as issued outside a valid legislative purpose.

The case of Trump v. Mazars USA, LLPNo. 19-5142 (D.C. Cir. 2019) was decided on partisan lines with Judges Tatel (appointed by President Clinton) and Millett (appointed by President Obama) voting against President Trump and Judge Roa (appointed by President Trump himself) voting in his favour. However, even beyond that, it is clearly visible from the majority and dissenting opinions that while the former put emphasis on the accountability of the executive branch as the overarching objective, the latter focused on the separation of powers as understood through the lenses of originalism.

The case of Trump v. Mazars USA, LLPNo. 19-5142 (D.C. Cir. 2019), like the case of Trump v Vance Jr19‐3204 (2019) decided by the US Court of Appeals for 2nd Circuit (discussed here), is part of a long dispute over President Trump’s financial records. With President Trump consistently refusing to release his tax returns, his political opponents have been attempting to obtain them by various legal routes, including subpoenas from the House of Representatives and a New York State Grand Jury. Both subpoenas have now been upheld by the US Courts of Appeals. However, the judgment in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLPNo. 19-5142 (D.C. Cir. 2019) will be appealed by requesting another hearing before an en benc panel of the US Court of Appeals for DC Circuit. Both cases could also be eventually appealed to the US Supreme Court.

New Justices Appointed to UK Supreme Court

The UK Supreme Court has announced that three new Justices will join its bench in 2020. Lord Justice Hamblen will join on 13 January 2020, Lord Justice Leggatt will join on 21 April 2020 and Professor Andrew Burrows will join on 2 June 2020. They will replace Lady Hale of Richmond, Lord Carnwath of Notting Hill and Lord Wilson of Culworth. At the same time, Lord Reed, the current Deputy President of the Court, will take up the position of President of the Court which is now held by Lady Hale.

Lord Reed was appointed as a Justice of the Supreme Court in February 2012. Prior to his appointment, he served as a Judge in the Scottish Court of Session between 1998 to 2012. He is also a member of the panel of ad hoc judges of the European Court of Human Rights and a Non-Permanent Judge of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. He was educated at the Universities of Edinburgh and Oxford. Lord Justice Hamblen served as an Assistant Recorder in 1999 and as a Recorder from 2000. He has sat as a Justice in the High Court from November 2008. He was educated at St John’s College, University of Oxford and Harvard Law School. Lord Justice Leggatt sat as a Recorder on the Western Circuit for 10 years. He was also appointed to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court in 2012, later promoted to the Court of Appeal. He was educated at King’s College, Cambridge and the Harvard University. Professor Andrew Burrows is Professor of the Law of England at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of All Souls College. He has been sitting as a part-time judge for over 20 years, first as a Recorder and then as a Deputy High Court Judge. He was educated at Prescot Grammar School, Knowsley, Merseyside and Brasenose College, Oxford (UK Supreme Court).

The UK Supreme Court was established in 2009 by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 replacing the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords which had served as the UK’s highest Court for centuries. Unlike in the United States, Justices of the UK Supreme Court are selected by a non-political panel and are subject to mandatory retirement.

Border Wall Funding Upheld (SCOTUS)

On 26 July 2019, in Trump v. Sierra Club, 588 U. S. (2019), the US Supreme Court stayed an injunction blocking President Trump’s allocation of funds for a border wall with Mexico. The decision was supported by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts, with Justice Breyer concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration had “made a sufficient showing at this stage that the plaintiffs have no cause of action to obtain review of the Acting Secretary’s compliance with Section 8005.” The injunction was lifted on the grounds that the Trump Administration would suffer ‘irreparable harm’ if the injunction had been left in force. This was based on the fact that if the funds had not been released, the Trump Administration would not have been able to finalise contracts with building companies by 30 September 2019, meaning that the funds would have had to be “returned to the Treasury and the injunction [would] have operated, in effect, as a final judgment.” The injunction is stayed pending the appeal before the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and a potential appeal from that Court to the US Supreme Court, if pursued.

In his partly-concurring and partly dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer, the least liberal of the four liberals on the US Supreme Court, argued that the injunction should have been stayed in so far as to allow the Trump Administration to finalise the contracts but not to begin construction. According to Justice Breyer, this would have allowed the Trump Administration to use the funds before they expire on 30 September 2019, yet at the same time, it would have prevented the wall from being erected before the case was properly decided on the merits.

The original injunction was prompted by Proclamation 9844 declaring a state of emergency at the Southern border issued by President Trump under the National Emergencies Act 1976 on 15 February 2019. The National Emergencies Act 1976 contains a list of special 136 emergency powers which can be relied on once an emergency has been declared. Under Proclamation 9844, the Trump Administration relied on section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2019 allowing the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds for military purposes if the Secretary determines that the transfer is “for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements” and “the item for which funds are requested has [not] been denied by the Congress.” Under Proclamation 9844, the Trump Administration moved $8 billion from the Department of Defense to the Department of Homeland Security to finance the construction of the wall at the US-Mexico border after Congress had refused to allocate more than $1.375 billion for that purpose (NY Times).

As soon as Proclamation 9844 was issued, the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition, two advocacy groups represented by the ACLU, sued claiming that Proclamation 9844 violated the Appropriation Clause of Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution which identifies Congress as the only body responsible for the allocation of funding. In May 2019, in Sierra Club v Trump, 19-cv-00892-HSGthe District Court for the Northern District of California imposed a preliminary injunction declaring that the redirection of the funds towards the construction of the wall violated the Appropriation Clause. Then, in June 2018, in a second decision, the same Court made the injunction permanent. The Trump Administration appealed against the injunction, but in a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declined to lift the injunction pending a full appeal. Now, that the US Supreme Court has stayed the injunction, the construction of the wall will proceed while the case is being considered by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the merits.

However, the case of Sierra Club v Trump is not the only Court case against Proclamation 9844. On the announcement of Proclamation 9844, the House of Representatives, being co-responsible for the allocation of funding under the Appropriate Clause, sued in the District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to block the redirection of funds for the wall. On 3 June 2019, the Court ruled, in US House of Representatives v Mnuchin, 1:19-cv-00969, that the House of Representatives had no legal standing to sue the President and, therefore, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. No decision on the merits was issued (The Washington Post).

Interestingly, the decision in US House of Representatives v Mnuchin, 1:19-cv-00969 can be contrasted with a recent case of US House of Representatives v. Burwell, 130 F. Supp. 3d 53, 81, where, in September 2015, the same District Court for the District of Columbia (although a difference Judge) held that the House of Representative (with a Republican majority) had a legal standing to sue the Obama Administration for unauthorised payments under a cost-sharing program under the ObamaCare. In fact, in its subsequent decision on the merits in May 2016, in US House of Representatives v. Burwell, 185 F. Supp. 3d 165, the Court ruled that those payments had in fact violated the Appropriate Clause. However, the ruling was stayed while the Obama Administration pursued an appeal before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In December 2017, with the 2016 presidential election intervening, the lawsuit was settled with the new Administration. Nevertheless, when it comes to the question of the House of Representatives’ legal standing to sue for unauthorised spending, the case produced a definite positive answer at the District Court level (HealthAffairs).

Prorogation of UK Parliament Declared Unlawful (UKSC)

On 24 September 2019, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in the case of R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41, that the prorogation of the UK Parliament ordered on 28 August 2019 was unlawful and therefore null and void. The prorogation had been ordered by the Queen on advice of Prime Minister Boris Johnson as part of his Brexit strategy.

Prorogation of Parliament is a standard procedure, which normally follows the end of a parliamentary session. In practice, in means that neither Houses of Parliament can meet and all bills automatically lapse. The procedure can only be ordered by the Queen herself, as part of her royal prerogatives. It takes effect when a royal proclamation issued by the Queen-in-Council is read to both Houses of Parliament. Usually, prorogation means that Parliament does not reconvene until the State Opening of Parliament.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson advised the Queen to prorogue Parliament starting from between 9 and 12 September 2019 and lasting until the State Opening of Parliament on 14 October 2019. According to the Minutes of the Cabinet meeting held by conference call on 28 August 2019, the “decision to prorogue Parliament for a Queen’s Speech was not driven by Brexit considerations: it was about pursuing an exciting and dynamic legislative programme to take forward the Government’s agenda”. However, the prorogation was generally viewed as a means of preventing Parliament from interfering with the Brexit process. First of all, the requested length of the prorogation was unusual as Parliament had not been prorogued for more than three weeks since 1979 and is typically prorogued for no more than one week. Secondly, Prime Minister Boris Johnson was determined to secure a no-deal Brexit by 31 October 2019 and this was no secret. Thirdly, by the end of August 2019, it was becoming clear that the government would lose its majority in Parliament if it were to try to force a no-deal Brexit and, therefore, Parliament was likely to stand in his way.

In fact, immediately before the prorogation entered into force, on 4 September 2019, the House of Commons passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Bill  requiring the Prime Minister to seek a Brexit extension of three months, unless by then Parliament has either approved a withdrawal agreement or approved leaving without one. The Bill then passed the House of Lord under a special procedure and received Royal Assent on 9 September 2019, therefore becoming a law.

On the announcement of prorogation, Gina Miller (the same Gina Miller who successfully brought the claim in R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5) launched proceedings in the High Court (in England and Wales), seeking a declaration that the Prime Minister’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament was unlawful. This petition was heard by the heads of the UK judiciary (Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Master of the Rolls and President of the Queen’s Bench Division) on 5 September 2019. They rejected the claim on 11 September 2019 on the ground that the issue was not justiciable, i.e. was of political nature and therefore outside the Courts’ power of review. The High Court, however, granted a ‘leap-frog’ certificate allowing the appeal to be heard directly by the UK Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeal.

The UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in the opinion written by Lady Hale and Lord Reed, that the issue was in fact justiciable as it fell under a standard supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the executive. It was held that the case was essentially about the limits of the power to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament and the Courts had jurisdiction to decide on the existence and limits of this power [paras 28-37].

Then, the Supreme Court considered what the limits of the power to advise the Queen to prorogue Parliament were. The Court held that allowing the executive branch of Government, through the use of the prerogative, to prevent Parliament from legislating for extended periods of time would undermine the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, which is a cornerstone of the UK constitutional system. Furthermore, proroguing Parliament for extended periods of time also breached the principle of Parliamentary accountability, dictating that the executive was collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament. For the Court, “a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive” [paras 38-51].

In answering this question, the Supreme Court took into account that the requested prorogation:

  • was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen’s Speech;
  • prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and Brexit day;
  • took place in the exceptional circumstances of a huge constitutional change prompted by Brexit;
  • prevented the House of Commons, as the elected representatives of the people, from having a voice in how that change comes about;
  • was not justified in any reasonable manner beyond being ‘desirable’ [paras 55-60].

In those circumstances, the Court ruled that there was not “any reason – let alone a good reason – to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks, from 9th or 12th September until 14th October” 2019 and therefore such prorogation was unlawful [para 61].

Interestingly, at that point, the Supreme Court turned to the question what remedy, other than a declaration of unlawfulness, was appropriate in this case. The Prime Minister argued that in case of declaring the prorogation unlawful, the Court could not issue any further relief because the prorogation was a ‘proceeding in Parliament’ and therefore immune from any Court interference under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688. However, the Court ruled that the prorogation was not a ‘proceeding in Parliament’ because, although it took place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, it was not their decision.In fact, the prorogation ended the business of Parliament – exactly what the Bill of Rights of 1688 was designed to protect against, albeit from any potential Court interference. In consequence, the Court quashed the Order in Council ordering the prorogation which means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords with the royal proclamation ordering the prorogation, it “was as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper” [paras 62-71].

Crucially, although the proceedings leading to the Supreme Court declaring the prorogation to be unlawful were triggered by a clam that the Prime Minister’s motivation to request the prorogation (i.e. to prevent Parliament from interfering with the Brexit process) was unlawful, this is not the basis for the Court’s decision. In its judgment, the Court indicated that such an issue would likely not be justiciable, but decided that this would have only been required to be ruled upon if the prorogation were declared lawful [paras 53-54]. Ultimately, it was not the Prime Minister’s motivation that doomed the prorogation, but its effect on the Parliament’s functions to legislate and to hold the executive accountable.

The case of R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland [2019] UKSC 41 is yet another (next to R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5) high profile constitutional case which has been prompted by Brexit. On a practical level, the case means that the UK Parliament will have a say in the Brexit process. However, beyond that, from a constitutional perspective, the case limits the powers of the executive branch of Government and illustrates how vague concepts such as the separation of powers and the democratic form of government might be used by Courts as decisive factors in adjudicating public law issues.

Former Justice Stevens Dies at 99

On 16 July 2019, at the age of 99, passed away former Justice of the US Supreme Court John Paul Stevens. Justice Stevens was appointed to the US Supreme Court in 1975 as the only nominee of President Ford. He retired from the bench in 2010. At the time, he was the second-oldest-serving justice in the history after Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who was 90 years and 309 days when he retired in 1932.

Justice Stevens, although appointed by a Republican President, by the end of his time at the Court became one of the most liberal Justices. Justice Stevens wrote Majority opinions in landmark cases including Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (forcing Courts to give deference to government agencies’ interpretation of statutes they administer), Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (allowing the federal government to prosecute patients using medical marijuana even where such use is legal under state law) and Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (forcing EPA to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants). He also voted with the Majority in Grutter v. Bollinger539 U.S. 306 (2003) (to uphold affirmative action).

Justice Stevens was in dissent in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (voting to uphold a prohibition on flag-burning), United States v. Lopez514 U.S. 549 (1995) and United States v. Morrison529 U.S. 598 (2000) (voting to wider the federal government’s powers under the Interstate Commerce Clause), Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005) (voting to disallow a display of the Ten Commandments on a monument located at the Texas State Capitol in Austin), District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (voting against an individual right to own firearms at home) and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) (voting to allow restrictions on corporate spending on political campaign).

After his retirement from the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens was replaced by Elena Kagan nominated by President Barack Obama.

Trial with no Jury Upheld (UKSC)

On 6 June 2019, the UK Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, in the case of In the matter of an application by Dennis Hutchings for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2019] UKSC 26, that trials with no juries could continue for terrorism-related offences committed in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. The Court held that juries were neither indispensable for securing a fair trial, nor required under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Trials with no juries were introduced in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 in response to a report prepared in 1972 by Lord Diplock. They came to be known as Diplock trials and continued until 2007. Diplock trials were meant to ensure that defendants guilty of terrorism-related offences could not escape punishment because of biased juries. In 2007, the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 effectively abolished Diplock trials but allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to bring back this mode of trial on an exception basis.

Under section 1 of the the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, a trial without a jury can take place where “there is a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if the trial were to be conducted with a jury” (s1(2)(b)), “the offence or any of the offences was committed to any extent (whether directly or indirectly) as a result of, in connection with or in response to religious or political hostility of one person or group of persons towards another person or group of persons” (s1(6)) and there is no evidence of bad faith or dishonesty (s7(1)(a)&(b)). Such a trial also cannot violate the defendant’s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (s7(2)).

The Applicant in In the matter of an application by Dennis Hutchings for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2019] UKSC 26, Mr Hutchings, commanded a patrol of Life Guards regiment of the British Army in 1974 which routinely engaged in combat against the Provisional Irish Republican Army. On 15 June 1974, a Life Guards patrol encountered a man, Mr Cunningham, who seemed startled and, seeing the patrol, climbed a gate into a field and started running away. Mr Hutchings, together with two other members of the patrol, pursued the man and after shouting a number of commands to stop, Mr Hutchings and another soldier fired shots at Mr Cunningham who, as a result, was killed. Subsequently, it turned out that Mr Cunningham had limited intellectual capacity, was unarmed and was running towards his home.

In 2015, following a review, Mr Hutchings was charged with the attempted murder and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland certified his case under section 1 of the the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 as appropriate for a trial without a jury. Mr Hutchings filed a Judicial Review challenging this decision and the case eventually reached the Supreme Court.

On the relationship between a fair trial and juries, the Supreme Court ruled:

“34. It is important to focus on the need for a fair trial. Trial by jury is, of course, the traditional mode of trial for serious criminal offences in the United Kingdom. It should not be assumed, however, that this is the unique means of achieving fairness in the criminal process. Indeed, as the Court of Appeal’s statements in Jordan show, trial by jury can in certain circumstances be antithetical to a fair trial and the only assured means where those circumstances obtain of ensuring that the trial is fair is that it be conducted by a judge sitting without a jury.

“35. So-called Diplock trials took place in Northern Ireland between 1973 and 2007. No one suggests that this mode of trial failed to deliver fairness of process, by reason of the fact that the trial took place before a judge sitting without a jury. Although Article 6 of ECHR (which guarantees a right to a fair trial) is not prayed in aid by the appellant in this case, it is interesting to reflect that it has been held that this article does not require trial by jury. As the European Commission of Human Rights observed in X and Y v Ireland (Application No 8299/78) (1980) 22 DR 51, para 19, “… Article 6 does not specify trial by jury as one of the elements of a fair hearing in the determination of a criminal charge”.

“36. It is, of course, to be remembered that the system of trial introduced as a result of Lord Diplock’s report (Report of the Commission to consider legal procedures to deal with terrorist activities in Northern Ireland (1972) (Cmnd 5185)), required the trial judge to give a reasoned judgment if the defendant was convicted. And that a defendant, upon conviction, was entitled to an automatic right of appeal, not only on points of law but on the factual conclusions reached and inferences drawn by the trial judge. These remain features of trials without a jury since the 2007 Act – section 5(6) and (7).

“37. The statement made by Lord Judge CJ in R v Twomey [2010] 1 WLR 630 at para 10 (relied on by the appellant) that, “[i]n this country trial by jury is a hallowed principle of the administration of criminal justice … properly identified as a right, available to be exercised by a defendant unless and until the right is amended or circumscribed by express legislation” must be viewed against this background. In the first place, although the Lord Chief Justice described entitlement to trial by jury as a right, he did not suggest that this was an absolute right; indeed, he accepted that it could be constrained in certain circumstances…”

Diplock trials were introduced at the time when the UK was struggling with biased juries refusing to convict defendants guilty of violent offences committed as part of a religious unrest in Northern Ireland. Interestingly, a similar struggle took place in the 50s and 60s in Southern States in the US where all white juries often refused to convict defendants guilty of violence against African-Americans. However, the US Federal Government, unlike the UK Government, was not in the position to interfere with jury trials as this would have been contrary to the principle of federalism and would have also violated a constitutional right to being tried before a jury guaranteed by Article Three of the Constitution as well as the 6th Amendment (applicable to States by virtue of the 14th Amendment). Instead, the Federal Government often tried defendants acquitted in State Courts in Federal Courts on other charges, such as ‘violation of civil rights’. The UK Government, on the other hand, was never constrained by a written constitution and was able to introduce trials without juries to address the problem of biased jurors. In fact, biased juries is not the only reason a trial without a jury can take place in the UK. Apart from trials involving terrorism-related offences committed in Northern Ireland, trials without juries are also allowed in the UK in complex fraud cases and where there is a risk of jury tampering (sections 43-44 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003).

SCOTUS to rule on discrimination protections for LGBT workers

On 22 April 2019, the US Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari for the cases of Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., No. 15-3775 (2d Cir. 2018) and Gerald Lynn Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-13801 (11th Cir. 2018) concerning the question of protection against discrimination in the workplace due to sexual orientation and, separately, for the case of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, No. 16-2424 (6th Cir. 2018) concerning discrimination due to gender identity. All three cases will be heard under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964.

The application of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 to discrimination based on sexual orientation has so far divided the federal Courts. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964, discrimination is prohibited, inter alia, based on ‘sex’ and in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., No. 15-3775 (2d Cir. 2018), the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that Title VII applied to sexual orientation as well because it should be considered a ‘function of sex’ and therefore inextricably linked to the concept of ‘sex’. On the other hand, in Gerald Lynn Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-13801 (11th Cir. 2018), the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held, in a short per curiam opinion, that under Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 597 F.2d 936, 938 (5th Cir. 1979), “[d]ischarge for homosexuality [was] not prohibited by the Title VII.” This classic circuit split has prompted the Supreme Court to consolidate the two cases to answer the question whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation. Similarly, in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, No. 16-2424 (6th Cir. 2018), the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 also applied to discrimination based gender identity explaining that “it is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex.” The Supreme Court will now determine whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 in fact applies to discrimination based on gender identity as part of discrimination on account of ‘sex’ (The New York Times).

The question of the application of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity comes down to the manner of interpretation of Title VII. Under an ordinary literal interpretation, discrimination based on ‘sex,’ must necessarily refer to discrimination of women (comparing to men) or of men (comparing to women). This is further confirmed by the fact that Title VII offers an exhaustive list of characteristics that attract its protection – originally it included race, color, religion, sex and national origin and then, over time, pregnancy, age and disability were added (by Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). Out of these, ‘pregnancy’ is especially interesting as it is necessarily closely linked to sex, yet Congress considered it necessary to add it separately thereby reinforcing the position that ‘sex’ does not cover other characteristics that it is simply linked to. The same conclusion is arrived at using the originalist approach and looking at the understanding of this provision at the time it was being passed. Clearly, in the 1960s, Congress could not contemplate protection for homosexuals in the workplace given that many States at the time (and long afterwords) had anti-sodomy laws on the books. In fact, the unconstitutionality of such laws was only established by the Supreme Court in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). On the other hand, under a purposive interpretation, Title VII could be taken to be intended to prevent discrimination of minorities in the workplace. With such a purpose, the close relationship between sex and sexual orientation and sexual identity is probably enough to apply a wide construction equating those characteristics.

Given that the application of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 comes down to the manner of interpretation, the case is likely to be resolved along the ideological lines, with conservative Justices taking a literal/originalist approach and liberal Justices taking a purposive approach. The ultimate outcome of the case will probably lie with Chief Justice Roberts who, although an originalist, is also wary of political implications of the case. Chief Justice Roberts has a record of siding with the conservative Justices in gay rights cases (e.g. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013)Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015)), however this is the first time the Court will hear such a case after the departure of Justice Kennedy who, although a conservative, always sided with the liberals in cases concerning gay rights. This dynamics might affect the way Chief Justice Roberts will vote.

Originalist Approach to Capital Punishment Prevails (SCOTUS)

On 1 April 2019, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4, in the case of Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. (2019), that a person sentenced to death, who wants to challenge the method of execution on the grounds that it would cause excessive pain, must demonstrate that alternative methods of execution are available and would cause considerably less pain. Strictly speaking, the decision does not introduce any new rule to this area of law as this approach was already confirmed in Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955, 576 U.S. (2015), however it is illustrative of the growing dominance of the originalist approach among the Court’s majority.

The case concerned Russell Bucklew who had been sentenced to death for raping his former girlfriend and murdering her lover. He challenged the use of lethal injection, as an execution method, on the grounds that his medical condition (cavernous hemangioma) could prevent the execution from being effective and cause him tremendous pain before death. The challenge was brought under the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting ‘cruel and unusual punishments’.

Since the 1970s, when dealing with challenges to the capital punishment under the 8th Amendment, the Supreme Court, in its majority opinions, has used a mixture of originalism and more liberal methods of interpretation to establish what form of punishment could be considered ‘cruel and unusual’, therefore forbidden. This has produced two sets of decisions. First, those decisions which declared the death penalty unconstitutional in certain circumstances, such as where used against mentally impaired perpetrators (Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)), those who committed the relevant crime while still being a minor (Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988)Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005)) or where no death was caused (Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977)Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008)). Those decisions had the liberal members of the Court (previously: Justices Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun; more recently: Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan) in the majority, usually with Justice Kennedy or O’Connor joining them, employing some progressive methods of interpretation such as an evolving standard of decency, ie, the idea that whether something is constitutional or not (here the death penalty or various methods of its execution) changes over time as social norms change. In those cases, conservative members of the Court (Alito, Roberts, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, etc) were always in dissent.

The second set of decisions upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty as such and all methods of its execution (Glossip v. Gross, No. 14-7955, 576 U.S.  (2015), Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008)) and minimised the number of procedural hurdles that need to be cleared before the penalty can be imposed (Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991); Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004)Oregon v. Guzek, 546 U.S. 517 (2006)Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006)Leal Garcia v. Texas, 564 U.S. 940 (2011)). Those decisions were usually issued with a majority opinion based on a ‘soft’ form of originalism (sometimes with a trace of more liberal methods of interpretation) and were supported by Justices such as Kennedy, O’Connor, Alito and Chief Justices Roberts or Rehnquist. However, they were always accompanied by concurring opinions of Justices Thomas and Scalia employing what might be called ‘hard’ originalism. In those decisions, the liberal members of the Court were always in dissent.

The difference between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ originalism in capital punishment cases is accurately summarised by Justice Gorsuch in his majority opinion in Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. (2019). The soft originalism:

“…teaches that where (as here) the question in dispute is whether the State’s chosen method of execution cruelly superadds pain to the death sentence, a prisoner must show a feasible and readily implemented alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain and that the State has refused to adopt without a legitimate penological reason.” (p13)

On the other hand, under their ‘hard’ originalist approach to the 8th Amendment, Justice Scalia and Thomas:

“…argued that establishing cruelty consistent with the Eighth Amendment’s original meaning demands slightly more than the majority opinion there (or the Baze plurality opinion it followed) suggested. Instead of requiring an inmate to establish that a State has unreasonably refused to alter its method of execution to avoid a risk of unnecessary pain, Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia contended that an inmate must show that the State intended its method to inflict such pain.” (p14)

The case of Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. (2019) is significant as it illustrates how the new majority of the Court (with two Justices appointed after 2016) gravitates towards ‘hard’ originalism. First of all, the very fact that the majority opinion was written by Justice Gorsuch, who is a proud originalist, sets the tone of this decision from the start. Secondly, in his opinion, Justice Gorsuch conducted a thorough analysis of the use of the capital punishment at the time of the adoption of the 8th Amendment as the only benchmark against which all decisions in this area must be taken (pp8-10). Then Justice Gorusch, speaking on behalf of the majority, confirmed the validity of old precedents upholding various methods of execution such as by firing squad (Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U.S. 130 (1879)) or using electric chair (In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436, 447 (1890)) (pp10-11). What is more, appreciating the difference in approach between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ originalists, Justice Gorsuch, and with him the majority, did not disapprove of the ‘hard’ originalist approach and instead concluded that:

“…revisiting that debate isn’t necessary here because, as we’ll see, the State was entitled to summary judgment in this case even under the more forgiving Baze-Glossip test [ie ‘soft’ originalist approach].”

Furthermore, even though Justice Thomas submitted his own concurring opinion, he dedicated it almost in its entirety to Justice Breyer’s dissent:

“I adhere to my view that “a method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment only if it is deliberately designed to inflict pain.” Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 35, 94 (2008) (opinion concurring in judgment); ante, at 14 [ie ‘hard’ originalist approach]. Because there is no evidence that Missouri designed its protocol to inflict pain on anyone, let alone Russell Bucklew, I would end the inquiry there. Nonetheless, I join the Court’s opinion in full because it correctly explains why Bucklew’s claim fails even under the Court’s precedents. I write separately to explain why Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion does not cast doubt on this standard…” (p1)

At the same time, Justice Kavanaugh, who also submitted his concurring opinion despite joining the majority, dedicated it solely to:

“…the Court’s additional holding that the alternative method of execution need not be authorized under current state law—a legal issue that had been
uncertain before today’s decision.” (p1)

Finally, what also makes Justice Gorusch’s opinion so significant is making it abundantly clear for future litigants that the 8th Amendment “forbids ‘cruel and unusual’ methods of capital punishment but does not guarantee a prisoner a painless death”.

Compensation for People with Quashed Convictions Limited (UKSC)

On 30 January 2019, the UK Supreme Court held 5-2, in the case of R (on the application of Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2, that people convicted of criminal offences, who have their convictions subsequently overturned, had no right to compensation unless they could demonstrate that the new evidence proved ‘beyond reasonable doubt‘ that they had not committed the offences.

The Appellant in this case spent about seven years in prison before his conviction was eventually quashed for being unsafe in light of newly discovered evidence. He then applied for compensation under section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (as amended by section 175 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014). The entitlement to compensation under Section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is based on the concept of ‘miscarriage of justice’ which is defined under section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as occurring ‘if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person did not commit the offence‘. The Appellant’s application for compensation was refused by the Secretary of State for Justice on the grounds that, inasmuch as newly discovered evidence cast doubt on his conviction as to render it unsafe and therefore resulted in quashing, it did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant had not committed the offence. The Appellant brought judicial review proceedings against the decision claiming that the requirement contained in section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was incompatible with the presumption of innocence under Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In the majority opinion written by Lord Mance, the five Justices held that based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, most notably the case of Allen v UK (App. no. 25424/09), the requirement contained in section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 did not breach Article 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was concerned with claims for compensation where new evidence rendered the conviction unsafe because, had it been available at the time of trial, a reasonable jury might or might not have convicted. This type of claims also falls short of the requirement contained in section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, yet the European Court of Human Rights did not consider it incompatible with Article 6(2) of the ECHR. Even though Allen v UK (App. no. 25424/09) was never concerned with the requirement to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt itself, the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights prompted the majority in R (on the application of Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2 to uphold section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and confirmed that the Appellant had no right to compensation despite spending seven years in prison.

Lord Reed and Lord Kerr dissented. Lord Reed, with whom Lord Kerr agreed, accepted that compensation could be denied under Allen v UK (App. no. 25424/09) in cases where new evidence rendered the conviction unsafe because, had it been available at the time of trial, a reasonable jury might or might not have convicted, but argued that section 133(1ZA) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 was nevertheless incompatible with the presumption of innocence under Article 6(2) of the ECHR, because it effectively required the Secretary of State for Justice to decide whether persons, whose convictions had been quashed, established that they were innocent (para 187).

Given the outcome of the case, it is possible that the European Court of Human Rights will have a final say on the issue.

Civil Asset Forfeiture Limited (SCOTUS)

On 20 February, the US Supreme Court unanimously held, in the case of Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), that the prohibition on excessive fines contained in the 8th Amendment applied to States (as well as the federal government) and prevented Indiana from confiscating a Land Rover worth $42,000 just because it had been used during a drug transaction. The judgment is significant because it is a rare case of the Court limiting States’ civil asset forfeiture powers but also because of its discussion of the Bill of Rights’ selective incorporation process.

Civil asset forfeiture is a legal tool used by law enforcement to confiscate private property from persons suspected of illegal activity without necessarily charging them with any wrongdoing. According to some estimations, between 2011 and 2014, local and state agencies confiscated $2.5 billion in approximately 62,000 cash seizures conducted ‘without search warrants or indictments’ (The Washington Post). When it comes to the federal government, in 1985, the Justice Department’s Assets Forfeiture Fund brought in $27 million but by 2017, that figure skyrocketed to $1.6 billion (The Atlantic). In Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, referred to the protection from excessive fines as a historically important safeguard recognised as early as the Magna Carta. However, the effective application of the Excessive Fine Clause of the 8th Amendment is a novelty in the Court’s jurisprudence as the Court found a violation of the Excessive Fine Clause for the first time in 1998, in United States v. Bajakajian524 U.S. 321 (1998).

The 8th Amendment prohibits, among other things, ‘excessive fines [being] imposed’. In Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas212 U.S. 86 (1909), the Supreme Court held that excessive fines were defined as fines ‘so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law’. In Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), the Court ruled for the first time that the Excessive Fines Clause applied to civil asset forfeiture conducted by the federal government, but the case was silent on its potential application to States’ actions.

Originally, just as the other Amendments constituting the Bill of Rights, the 8th Amendment was meant to apply only against the federal government. After the Civil War, with the enactment of the 14th Amendment, the Courts began to apply various safeguards contained in the Bill of Rights against States as well as the federal government. Throughout that time, the Courts usually invoked the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment as the provision rendering the Bill of Rights applicable against States. In Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), 7 Justices, in the opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, held that the 8th Amendment applied against the State of Indiana by virtue of the Due Process Clause. On the other hand, Justice Thomas, while concurring in the outcome of the case, produced a separate opinion on the issue of the selective incorporation where he explained that the application of the Bill of Rights against States was possible by virtue of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, rather than the Due Process Clause. Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined the majority opinion, also wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing with Justice Thomas on the issue of the selective incorporation.

The ruling is expected to have a considerable impact on the the use of civil asset forfeiture as it establishes a strong protection against its abuse, now applicable to both the federal and States’ governments. The case also signals potential future discussions among Justices on the effect of the 14th Amendment on the selective incorporation.

SCOTUS to Hear Citizenship Question Case Bypassing Court of Appeals

On 15 February 2019, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the census case on whether the Trump Administration could add the citizenship question to the 2020 census. The Court’s decision comes after, on 15 January 2019, the District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled in State of New York v US Department of Commerce, 18-CV-5025 (JMF) that Commerce Secretary’s decision to add the citizenship question violated the Administrative Procedure Act governing the creation of new regulations by administrative agencies. Following the ruling, the Justice Department asked the US Supreme Court to bypass the ordinary appellate stage at the US Court of Appeals and take the case in light of the approaching June deadline for printing census forms. The Court will hear the case in April 2019 and the ruling is expected to be delivered in June 2019, before the Justices adjourn for the summer (CNN).

Adding the citizenship question to the upcoming 2020 census became very controversial after some groups, such as the ACLU, had said that it would deter many illegal immigrants from participating in the census. This in turn would lower the official population numbers for States with a large portion of illegal immigrants, mainly California. This could have a considerable impact on the apportionment of federal funds and seats in the House of Representatives which directly depends on population numbers (US Constitution, Article 1, Clause 3). ACLU claims that adding the citizenship question would stop about 6.5 million people from entering their details in the census which could lead to the State of California loosing billions of dollars in federal funding as well as between one and three seats in the House of Representatives (The Hill).

The Trump Administration argues that the citizenship question is necessary in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act and that this question has been asked during all but one census from 1820 to 2000. But in January 2019, a District Judge (an Obama appointee) disagreed, holding that the rationale was ‘pretextual’ and the decision was made in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act because it had failed to ‘consider all important aspects of a problem’ as required by the Act, implying also that the true intentions behind the citizenship question was to deter participation (Bloomberg).

Ordinarily, the decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York would have to be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. However, as with many other unfavorable judicial rulings, the Trump Administration petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the appeal bypassing the Court of Appeals. For the first time, the Court agreed. The Court’s decision is clearly motivated by the urgency of the matter given that census questionnaires must be ready in the summer of 2019. With an ordinary appellate procedure, it would not have been possible to meet this deadline. Given how rare it is for the Supreme Court to accept cases bypassing the Courts of Appeals, it is understandable that the Trump Administration is holding this decision as a small victory.

Chief Justice Roberts Caught Up in Politics (SCOTUS)

It does not come as a surprise to anyone that the judicial appointment process in the United States has become very divisive in the recent years. With the refusal of Senate Majority Leader McConnell to hold a confirmation hearing for President Obama’s replacement for Justice Scalia in 2016, then the ugly confirmation hearing of then Judge Gorsuch for the same position in 2017 and the infamous confirmation hearing of then Judge Kavanaugh in 2018 as the replacement for Justice Kennedy, the US Supreme Court has become a central issue of a public debate in Washington. Unfortunately, this has not left the Court unaffected.

The latest bit of surprising news from the US Supreme Court came on 8 February 2019 when the Court, in the case of June Medical Services v Rebekah Gee, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals 586 U. S. ____ (2019)issued a stay of a new Louisiana law restricting access to abortion by requiring that physicians obtain surgical privileges in a nearby hospital before they are legally permitted to carry our the procedure. The decision of the Court relates only to an order preventing the law from going into effect until lower Courts rule on its constitutionality and is not a judgment on the merits. Nevertheless, the decision came as a surprise to many commentators because the case was decided 5-4 with Chief Justice Roberts siding with a liberal minority, something Justice Kennedy used to do from time to time in the past. Immediately after the decision was published, many conservative commentators declared Chief Justice Roberts to be the new Swing Vote (Fox News). However, it seems that the there is more to Chief Justice Roberts’s decision than just being the new Swing Vote.

 

Judicial Philosophy

With the appointment of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, President Trump has hoped to solidify a strong originalist majority on the US Supreme Court for decades to come. In fact, 4 out of 5 Republican-appointed Justices now do in fact identify as originalists, of some form at least (Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh). The case of the 5th, Chief Justice Roberts, is less straightforward. He is undeniably a conservative, but his underlying judicial philosophy has never been clearly articulated.

In fact, he has already been regarded by conservative commentators as an unreliable vote for a while now. As early as 2006, Chief Justice Roberts voted along side the 4 liberal Justices in Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006) holding that, before a home could be seized and sold in a tax-forfeiture sale, owners must receive effective notification. Perhaps the most famous case of Chief Justice Robert’s liberal sympathies was the 2012 case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) where the Chief Justice sided with the 4 liberal Justices and upheld the core of ObamaCare. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts rescued ObamaCare twice, again in 2015 in the case of King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), this time together with Justice Kennedy in a 6-3 decision though. Finally, in December 2018, Chief Justice Roberts again sided with the 4 liberals in declining to hear the case of Planned Parenthood v. Andersen, No. 16-3249 (10th Cir. 2018) therefore leaving intact the pro-choice judgment of the Court of Appeals in favor of Planned Parenthood.

Although Chief Justice Roberts has voted with the conservative/originalist majority (against the 4 liberal Justices) concerning many crucial issues such as abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007)), affirmative action (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007)), campaign financing (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)), religious freedom (Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. ___ (2014)), gay rights (Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)) and the exlusionary rule (Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. ___, 136 S. Ct. 2056 (2016)), it is clear from his voting record that Chief Justice Roberts has never been a full conservative/originalist, at least not the way Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito have been. He probably sits somewhere in between his former colleague Justice Kennedy and the pure originalists. He has voted with the 4 liberals less often than Justice Kennedy, but more often than any other Republican-appointed Justice in the recent decade.

 

Court Composition

Beyond the question of Chief Justice Roberts’s judicial philosophy, he appears to see himself as the man shaping the legacy of the today’s US Supreme Court. It is not without meaning when the Court is referred to by a name of the Chief Justice that presides over it. From the liberal Warren Court to the conservative Rehnquist Court, each Chief Justice has always left his imprint on the Court’s jurisprudence. Since 2005, the US Supreme Court is referred to as the Roberts Court and the Chief Justice does not take this responsibility lightly.

Between 2005 and 2018, what could be described as the ‘early’ Roberts Court, had no clear one majority. Although, Republican-appointed Justices held the majority, they did not share one common judicial philosophy. It all changed in 2018 with the retirement of Justice Kennedy who, although had been appointed by President Reagan, had some liberal sympathies and often sided with Democrat-appointed Justices. Now that Justice Kennedy has been replaced by Justice Kavanaugh, Chief Justice Roberts has 4 strong liberals to his left (Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan) and 4 strong originalists to his right (Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh) which leaves him in the very middle. Because Chief Justice Roberts is not a strict originalist unlike the other 4 Republican appointees, now that Justice Kennedy is gone, he has been naturally pushed towards the centre.

 

Court Legitimacy

On top of this internal dynamics of the US Supreme Court, there are also a whole range of external factors affecting the functioning of the Court. The political climate in Washington, especially around the judicial appointment process, has left Chief Justice Roberts genuinely worried about the Court’s legitimacy. According to the latest poll conducted in February 2019, 35% of voters choose the U.S. Supreme Court as the branch of the US Government that they trust the most but this is down from 45% in February 2017 (Fox News). The Court is clearly suffering collateral damage of the political fights between the Republicans and Democrats within the other two branches of the Government, perhaps in the Senate in particular which plays a vital role in the appointment process.

This was clearly visible in November 2018 when, in response to President Trump referring to a Judge who had ruled against his Administration as an ‘Obama Judge’ (as the Judge was indeed an Obama appointee), Chief Justice Roberts issued an official statement replying that “We do not have Obama Judges or Trump Judges, Bush Judges or Clinton Judges… What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated Judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.” (The Washington Post).

 

Conclusions

Given this combination of factors – Chief Justice Roberts’s lack of strong originalist beliefs, his personal responsibility for ‘his‘ Court, the natural push towards the centre in the absence of Justice Kennedy and the political fights within the other two branches of the Government – Chief Justice Roberts probably feels like he is forced to preserve the legitimacy of the Court by all means necessary.

Finally, inasmuch as Chief Justice Roberts might not be a full-blown originalist, it does not mean he has no leading judicial philosophy whatsoever. However, it appears that the Chief Justice’s judicial philosophy is more about the form than the substance. He has been a firm believer in a form of judicial formalism dictating that cases should be decided based on recent precedents and with a strong presumption of constitutionality of federal law. Chief Justice Roberts does not like judicial activism and that includes both the liberal push to expend the powers of the federal Government and socio-economic rights and the originalist push towards the opposite. The Chief Justice seems to like his status quo and judicial precedent because those values promote the Court’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

It is this judicial philosophy that explains how Chief Justice Roberts has been able to side with the liberals in upholding ObamaCare in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) and King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) (ie the presumption of constitutionality) and in protecting abortion access in Planned Parenthood v. Andersen, No. 16-3249 (10th Cir. 2018) (ie existing status quo) while at the same time he has voted for campaign financing freedom in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)) (ie existing status quote) and against gay rights in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015)) (ie existing status quote / precedent).

This also explains why in February 2019 Chief Justice Roberts sided with the 4 liberals in issuing a stay of a new Louisiana law restricting access to abortion in June Medical Services v Rebekah Gee, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals 586 U. S. ____ (2019)The law attempted to impose restrictions on who can perform abortion procedures in a similar way to a 2013 Texas law which the US Supreme Court had struck down in the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016). For Chief Justice Roberts, the case of June Medical Services v Rebekah Gee, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals 586 U. S. ____ (2019) was probably all about the precedent. The Court already ruled on this issue and the precedent must be followed. Given that this case was about nothing more than a stay while the issue was being considered by lower Courts, it must have been unthinkable for the Chief Justice to allow lower Courts to strike down a law that the US Supreme Court had upheld only 2 years earlier.

 

Epilogue

This is, however, not the end for the type of abortion restrictions which are subject of consideration in June Medical Services v Rebekah Gee, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals 586 U. S. ____ (2019)This is because the case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016)ie the case establishing the precedent Chief Justice Roberts decided to defend, had been decided 5-4 with the Chief Justice dissenting. This case was decided by the 4 liberals joined by Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts was in the minority along with the other originalists. This is why the case of June Medical Services v Rebekah Gee, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals 586 U. S. ____ (2019) describes Chief Justice Roberts so well – he was willing to vote with liberals against a law which he had voted to upheld only 2 years earlier because this was what was required to preserve the Court’s legitimacy.

That being said, the case of the new Louisiana abortion law might still return to the US Supreme Court in 2020 for consideration of on the merits and this time Chief Justice Roberts might have another go at it. With Justice Kennedy gone and Justice Kavanaugh already voting against the stay (ie in favour of the law), the Chief Justice will have the chance to flip the 2016 precedent and uphold the restrictions as constitutional. Whether he will do so remains to be seen. One thing is clear however at this point, for Chief Justice Roberts, if any Court is to flip a precedent of the US Supreme Court, it must the US Supreme Court itself.

SCOTUS to Hear 2nd Amendment Case for the First Time in 9 Years

In August 2018, The Jurist’s Corner speculated that one of the cases to look for in the next US Supreme Court term would be a 2nd Amendment case. On 22 January 2019, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear a case from New York concerning restrictions on transporting firearms outside one’s home (CNBC). The case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, No. 15-638 (2d Cir. 2018) comes 9 years since the Court last considered a 2nd Amendment case and 11 years since the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570. The Supreme Court will now decide if the New York law preventing gun owners from transporting lawfully owned firearms, except to and from shooting ranges, is compatible with the 2nd Amendment.

So far the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the 2nd Amendment is limited to two cases only. In 2008, the Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 2008 that the 2nd Amendment protected the individual right to possess firearms within the confines of one’s home for the purposes of self-defence. In 2010 the rule was extended in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 2010 to apply to States as well. However, since then, the Court has taken very few cases concerning the scope of the 2nd Amendment (but see e.g. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)). This has left at least two big issues largely unresolved. First, what types of firearms are covered by the 2nd Amendment? Secondly, does the 2nd Amendment cover public arena outside of one’s home? Both issues have been hotly litigated over, especially in the so called Blue States. On 24 July 2018 a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in the case of Young v State of Hawaii No. 12-17808 that the 2nd Amendment did in fact protect the right to bear arms in public. This is in spite of the 2016 decision of the same Court in Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 939 (2016), which, sitting en banc, upheld a complete ban on carrying any firearms outside one’s home. However, the latter case was distinguished on the grounds that it was concerned with a concealed-carry while the former was concerned with an open-carry. Regardless, the 2nd Amendment jurisprudence of the 9th Circuit stands in open opposition to other Circuits, such as the 7th Circuit which held in 2013 in the case of Moore v Madigan, USDC 11-CV-405-WDS, 11-CV-03134; 7th Cir. 12-1269, 12-1788 that a complete ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional. This situation constitutes a clear example of the so called ‘circuit split’ which creates a pressure on the Supreme Court to resolve the issue rather sooner than later.

However, in 2018, the Supreme Court refused to hear any case that would resolve the circuit split and avoided ruling on the wider issue of the right to carry firearms outside one’s home. Now, it seems, the Court is slowly engaging with this question, although it might take more than just one case to establish some clear principles on the issue. The appointment of Judge Kavanaugh as a new Supreme Court Justice will probably have a considerable impact on this case, and any similar cases in the future, as he has a strong record on the 2nd Amendment (e.g. Heller v. District of Columbia, No. 10–7036. 2011).

Homeschooling Unprotected by ECHR (ECtHR)

On 10 January 2019, the European Court of Human Rights ruled, in the case of Wunderlich v. Germany (App. no.: 18925/15), that the German ban on homeschooling did not breach the right to private and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case was brought by a Christian family who had refused to register their oldest daughter in a school in accordance with German law. As a result, they were fined and prosecuted by the German authorities and the child was temporary taken into care to enforce the school attendance requirement.

The European Court of Human Rights held that the actions of the German state, although interfered with the Article 8(1) rights, were justified for the purposes of protecting the health, rights and freedoms of the children (under Article 8(2)). When considering the case, the Court referred to its previous jurisprudence on the issue of compulsory public education. It recalled that “the State, in introducing such a system, had aimed at ensuring the integration of children into society with a view to avoiding the emergence of parallel societies, considerations that were in line with the Court’s own case-law on the importance of pluralism for democracy and which fell within the Contracting States’ margin of appreciation in setting up and interpreting rules for their education systems...” (para 50).

The Court held further that although the removal of the child from the parent’s care was a very intrusive measure, it was not disproportionate given that it was only temporary and that all other measures (such as fines and regulatory penalties) had already failed to persuade the parents to comply with the school requirement. In considering the question of proportionality, the Court gave “due account to the margin of appreciation to be accorded to the competent national authorities, which had the benefit of direct contact with all of the persons concerned, often at the very stage when care measures are being envisaged or immediately after their implementation...” (para 47).

The case leaves no doubt that homeschooling is not protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. In contrast, the US Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that the US Constitution protects the right to homeschooling. As early as 1925, in the case of Pierce, Governor of Oregon, et al. v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), the Court struck down an Oregon statute requiring all children to attend public school. It was held that children were not ‘the mere creature[s] of the state’ (para 535) and that the responsibility for education belonged to parents so the Court deemed the ability to make educational choices a ‘liberty’ within the meaning of the 14th Amendment (thereby expanding the so called Substantive Due Process doctrine in its jurisprudence). Furthermore, almost 50 years later, in the case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Court also upheld the right of an Amish family to withdraw their children from public school past 8th grade It was ruled that States could not force families to send their children to attend school where it would infringe their (legitimate) religious beliefs protected under the First Amendment.

Christian Baker Sues Colorado for Anti-religious Hostility

In June 2018, the US Supreme Court ruled 7-2, in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. (2018), that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated a Christian baker’s freedom of religion under the First Amendment when it punished him for refusing to create a personalised wedding cake for a gay couple. The Court held that the Commission, when considering the case, manifested hostility towards the baker’s religious beliefs.

Shortly afterwards, the Masterpiece Cakeshop got involved in another incident when it refused to make a cake with a transgender message, which, despite the earlier ruling from the Supreme Court, led to yet another set of proceedings before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (The Denver Post). In August 2018, the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner sued the State of Colorado in a federal District Court claiming religious persecution. The lawsuit alleges violation of the First and the 14th Amendments. On 08 January 2019, Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled that the lawsuit against Colorado could proceed (Fox News).

The case is considered of high importance as it is likely that regardless of its outcome before the District Court, it will move up the judicial ladder towards the Supreme Court. Although the Court has already ruled on this issue, its conclusions were reached on very narrow grounds. The wider question of the priority of the freedom of religion under the First Amendment over non-discrimination legislation still remains open.

Justice Ginsburg Hospitalised with Cancerous Growths in Lungs (SCOTUS)

On 21 December 2018, the US Supreme Court announced that Justice Ginsburg had had surgery at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York to remove two malignant growths from her left lung. It was also reported that doctors had found ‘no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body’ and no further treatment was planned at this point. Apparently, the growths were spotted during tests she had after fracturing her ribs in a fall on 7 November 2018. Since her appointment in 1993, Justice Ginsburg has already had 3 cancer-related procedures (ABC).

Justice Ginsburg is the oldest sitting Justice of the Court. She was originally appointed by President Clinton in 1993 at the age of 60 as the second woman ever appointed to the US Supreme Court. She is a known liberal who openly opposed the candidacy of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election (CNN). In fact, it is common knowledge that Justice Ginsburg will not voluntarily retire during a Republican president. Given her age, she was pressured to retire during the second term of the Obama’s presidency in case his predecessor turned out to be a Republican but she did not cave (NY Times). Now that President Trump appoints strictly conservative judges to the federal benches, Justice Ginsburg embraces herself to wait out his term in office. During the next presidential election in 2020, she will be 87 but her retirement plans will necessarily depend on whether President Trump is re-elected or not. If President Trump wins again in 2020, Justice Ginsburg will have no choice but to endure yet another 4 years on the bench. If successful, this would bring her to over 91 thereby beating the current record-holder, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who stepped down at the age of 90 years and 10 months. She would also beat her former colleague Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010 at the age of 90 years and 2 months. Justice Ginsburg, despite her history of cancer and regular nodding-off during official events, remains active both as an opinion writer on the bench as well as a public speaker outside the Court.

Assisted Suicide Remains Unlawful (UKSC)

On 27 November 2018, the UK Supreme Court refused, in the case of R (on the application of Conway) Secretary of State for Justice [2018] UKSC B1, to consider an appeal from the High Court (Divisional Court) where the Court had upheld the ban on assisted suicide as compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Assisted suicide remains illegal in the United Kingdom under the Suicide Act 1961, s2(1), despite numerous attempts to overturn the ban as in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. In its short opinion, the Supreme Court relied on previous precedents from the European Court of Human Rights leaving the question of the so called ‘right to die’ for states to decide. As the decision was merely on the application for permission to appeal, the Claimant had to demonstrate only a ‘prospect of success’ upon a full hearing that would justify giving the permission. Nevertheless, the Court held “not without some reluctance […] that in this case those prospects are not sufficient to justify giving permission to appeal” (at para. 8).

Since the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, rendering the European Convention on Human Rights directly applicable in the United Kingdom, there have been several challenges to the Suicide Act 1961 as incompatible with the Convention. Most notably, in the case of Pretty v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1, following a dismissal by the UK House of Lords, the European Court of Human Rights also ruled that Article 2 of the Convention could not be interpreted as containing any right to die. It was further held that although the ban on assisted suicide interfered with the right to private life under Article 8(1) of the Convention, it could be justified ‘for the protection of the rights of others’ under Article 8(2). 13 years later, a similar challenge was mounted in the case of Nicklinson v United Kingdom (2015) 61 EHRR SE7 but the European Court of Human Rights maintained its position from 2002 relying on a wide margin of appreciation states enjoyed on the question of assisted suicide. Interestingly, before the case reached the European Court of Human Rights, the UK Supreme Court (having succeeded the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords), had followed Pretty only 7-2, with Lady Hale and Lord Kerr dissenting. In her Dissenting Opinion, Lady Hale “reached the firm conclusion that [the] law [was] not compatible with the Convention rights […and…] little [was] to be gained, and much to be lost, by refraining from making a declaration of incompatibility.” (R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38 at para. 300).

Paradoxically, Lady Hale and Lord Kerr, who were both willing to hold the ban on assisted suicide incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights in 2014, constituted the majority of the Supreme Court panel (along with Lord Reed) refusing the permission to appeal in Conway. In fact, they were in the position to accept the case on behalf of the Court, even in the face of opposition of Lord Reed.

The End of Chevron Doctrine on the Horizon (SCOTUS)

The Chevron Doctrine is the key element of the modern administrative state in the US. It was created by the US Supreme Court in 1984 in the case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) and since then, it has been a subject of many heated debates among constitutional lawyers (Take Care). Recently, there has been more and more indications that the Court might be changing its mind and considering the Doctrine to be a dead end from which it needs to gallantly retreat. The original decision was unanimous in a sense that all Justices considering the case (Justices Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun and Powell) joined the Majority Opinion written by Justice Stevens. However the remaining 3 Justices (Justices Marshall, Rehnquist and O’Connor) took no part in the consideration of the case making it an unusual 6-0 decision. The holding of the case is rather simple and dictates that, in cases involving disputes between administrative agencies of the US Government (such as Environmental Protection Agency or Internal Revenue Service) and citizens or corporations, Federal Courts must always defer to an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute which it administers, so long as the interpretation is ‘reasonable’. This simple rule of construction has automatically tipped the scales in favour of administrative agencies over ordinary citizens and corporations.

It comes as no surprise that the composition of the Court has changed completely since 1984 and out of those new 9 Justices, at least 3 have publicly disapproved of the Chevron Doctrine. Justice Thomas wrote in his Concurring Opinion in the case of Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. (2015) that “Chevron deference raises serious separation-of-powers questions”. Similarly, Justice Gorsuch in his Opinion in the case of Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Lynch, No. 14-9585 (10th Cir. 2016) suggested that the Chevron was “a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of judicial duty” while Justice Kavanaugh described the Chevron Doctrine as ‘troubling’ (Harvard Law Review). It is not hard to see that this makes 1/3 of the current Supreme Court openly hostile to the Chevron Doctrine. The question remains whether the other Justices, especially Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts, share this hostility. This will only become clear once the Supreme Court come to deal with some case involving the Chevron Doctrine. A case like BNSF Railway Company v. Loos 17-1042.

On 14 May 2018, the US Supreme Court (with Justice Kennedy still on the bench) issued a writ of certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreeing to hear an appeal in the case of BNSF Railway Company v. Loos 17-1042. The case raises the question of “whether a payment to a railroad employee for lost wages on account of a personal physical injury is subject to employment taxes under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act,” with the Claimant arguing YES and the Respondent arguing NO (SCOTUSBlog). While the Act itself is silent on this issue, the Internal Revenue Service (which is an administrative agency) in its 1994 regulations stipulates that ‘pay for time lost’ is taxable under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. According to the Chevron Doctrine, given that the statute itself is silent (i.e. ambiguous), deference should be made to the interpretation put forward by the Internal Revenue Service (unless such an interpretation could be proved to be grossly unreasonable). If the Court was minded to follow the Chevron Doctrine, this would be a very simple case for the Claimant. In fact, under the Doctrine, it is surprising that the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled for the (now) Respondent, Mr Loos. The decision of the Court of Appeals might in itself be an indicator that lowers Courts feel that the US Supreme Court will not defend the Chevron Doctrine on appeal.

Interestingly, it is not only the lower Courts that can sense the hostility of the Supreme Court towards the Chevron Doctrine. Lisa Blatt, who appeared before the Court for the Claimant, mentioned the Chevron Doctrine only briefly at the end of her argument, even though the Doctrine clearly favours her client. Furthermore, Rachel Kovner, an assistant to the Solicitor General, who appeared as a ‘friend of the court’ in support of the Claimant, also almost completely ignored the Chevron Doctrine until the last moment before resting her case (SCOTUSBlog). The hostility of the Court transpires also from the questions that the Justices asked during the oral argument stage of the proceedings. Justices Gorsuch and Kegan seemed to be ready to recognise that the silence of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act on the issue of payments in question was not an ambiguity of the statute within the meaning of the Chevron Doctrine therefore making the Doctrine inapplicable in this case. Justice Kavanaugh was also skeptical when it comes to taking the Internal Revenue Service’s interpretation as a given and questioned the Claimant’s lawyer on the historical changes of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act that would suggest that the payment could not be construed as being subject to a tax (SCOTUSBlog).

The holding in the case of BNSF Railway Company v. Loos 17-1042, whatever it might be, may or may not overrule the Chevron Doctrine. However, the very manner in which this case was argued before the Supreme Court suggests that the Doctrine is not popular these days. It is difficult to predict its future at this point, but is seems that even if the Doctrine is no completely overturned one day, the Court might simply drastically limit its scope either by reading ambiguous states as sufficiently unambiguous, so not to bring the Doctrine into play at all, or it might regularly treat interpretations of ambiguous statutes put forward by administrative agencies as grossly unreasonably, therefore not worthy of any special deference under the Doctrine. In either case, any limitation to the the Chevron Doctrine will have a profound impact on the functioning of the administrative state.

Very interestingly, federal jurisprudence is not the only level at which the struggle against the Chevron Doctrine is unfolding. During the midterm election on 6 November 2018, the people of Florida passed the ballot measure called Amendment 6 which prohibits state Courts from deferring to state administrative agencies (such as Florida Department of Revenue) in cases of ambiguous statutes (Florida Today). The measure was clearly designed to rid state law of anything resembling the Chevron Doctrine. Although the Amendment does not apply outside the state of Florida, and even within the state it applies only to state (not federal) law, it is yet another signal that the Chevron Doctrine might be in trouble.

SCOTUS to Hear Cross-shaped War Memorial Case

On 2 November 2018, the US Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in the case of American Humanist Association v Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission No. 15-2597 2017, thereby agreeing to hear the case of a 93-year-old war memorial in the shape of a cross (SCOTUS Blog). The memorial was completed in 1925 to commemorate 49 local residents who had died in World War I. In 2014, the American Humanist Association sued Maryland public bodies responsible for the upkeep of the monument alleging that it “discriminates against patriotic soldiers who are not Christian, sending a callous message to non-Christians that Christians are worthy of veneration while they may as well be forgotten” (Fox News). In 2017, the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled 2-1 in the case of American Humanist Association v Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission No. 15-2597 2017 that even assuming that the monument had some nonreligious function, “the sectarian elements easily overwhelm the secular ones” and that “the cross is by far the most prominent monument in the area, conspicuously displayed at a busy intersection” [p22] and as such its presence on a public land violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In March 2018 the Court sitting en benc refused to reconsider the case and Maryland petitioned the Supreme Court for a permission to appeal (The Washington Post).

The jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court in cases concerning the Establishment Clause is far from being clear. The Court has struggled over the years to agree on a set of precise directions as to when a religious symbol on a public land would violate the First Amendment. This has led to confusing rulings whereby some symbols have been upheld and others not. For instance, in 2005, in the case of Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, the Court ruled 5-4 that a Ten Commandments monolith on the Texas State Capitol grounds did not violate the Constitution. On the other hand, on the same day in 2005, in the case of McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844, the Court also ruled 5-4 that a Ten Commandments display at the McCreary County courthouse in Kentucky did violate the First Amendment. The two cases were extremely similar yet the Court reached the opposite conclusions. In both cases it was Justice Breyer who acted as the Swing Vote. With those two cases, the US Supreme Court has sent mixed signals to lower courts on the subject of the Establishment Clause. Nevertheless, the Court is now almost 15 years older and its composition has also changed, presumably became more conservative in nature. As a result, the majority of the bench might now have enough votes to articulate some clear guiding principles as to how lower courts should deal with similar cases in the future.

Former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Announces She Has Dementia (SCOTUS)

On 23 October 2018, former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced she had dementia (SCOTUSBlog). Justice O’Connor was born in 1930 and was appointed to the US Supreme Court in 1981 by President Reagan as the first woman in history. She sat on the bench until 2006 when she retired and was replaced by Justice Alito appointed by President Bush. Justice O’Connor went down in history not only as the first female Justice of the US Supreme Court but also as the Court’s early Swing Vote. Appointed by a Republican President, Justice O’Connor believed in a limited federal government and as such was part of the so called Rehnquist Revolution whereby the US Supreme Court intended to set limits to the powers of the federal government. With cases such as United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) and United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the Rehnquist Court strove to return to the concept of the federal government as a government of enumerated powers after several decades of a rapid federal expansion. Justice O’Connor joined the other Republican-appointed Justices in deciding those cases.

In fact, Justice O’Connor started as a reliable conservative vote siding with (Chief) Justice Rehnquist 87% of the time during her first 3 years on the bench (Greenburg). Since 1984 until 1998, Justice O’Connor’s support for (Chief) Justice Rehnquist’s opinions ranged from 93.4% to 63.2% (Los Angeles Times). With the passage of time, Justice O’Connor started to slowly drift towards the liberal side of the Court and between 1994 and 2004, she voted with the liberal Justices a total of 28 times (Harvard Law Review). This included some key issues such as affirmative action (Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)), religious liberty (Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)) and abortion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)). In any event, Justice O’Connor will always be a symbol of an ever-changing Supreme Court.

Affirmative Action Goes on Trial (Again)

On 25 August 2018 The Jurist’s Corner speculated about possible legal issues to reach the US Supreme Court in its current term. This included the question of the constitutionality of affirmative action in the light of a DoJ investigation into the admission practice of the Harvard University which allegedly discriminated against Asian-American candidates. It is now confirmed that on 15 October 2018, a lawsuit against the Harvard University alleging race discrimination goes on trial before a federal District Court in Boston. The lawsuit is being brought by the Students for Fair Admissions founded by anti-affirmative action activist Edward Blum, and is supported by the Trump Administration. Affirmative action has been so far upheld by the US Supreme Court on numerous occasions, most recently in 2016 in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas (579 U.S. (2016), commonly referred to as Fisher II. However, even so upheld, affirmative action is legally limited only to situations where no race-neutral solutions would be effective in increasing the number of minority students accepted by a University. The lawsuit now alleges that the Harvard University has not properly considered race-neutral admission schemes before factoring race in its application process (Reuters). In this type of lawsuits, the burden of proof rests on a University to justify the use of race as a consideration in its admission process. On the other hand, if this cases proceeds to the US Supreme Court, it is possible the Court will declare affirmative action unconstitutional in its entirety. Affirmative action has always been very controversial and recent cases were decided 5-4 with Justice Kennedy joining the 4 liberal Justices in upholding it. Now that Justice Kennedy has been replaced by Justice Kavanaugh, it is possible the Court will vote 5-4 to strike down all affirmative action programmes as a form of unconstitutional discrimination under the 14th Amendment.

UK Judiciary Aligns with SCOTUS on ‘Gay Cake’ (UKSC)

On 10 October 2018, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the case of Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd (Northern Ireland) [2018] UKSC 49 that the business’s refusal to bake a cake with a message supporting gay marriage was completely lawful and not contrary to the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974) or the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 (made under the Equality Act 2006), as claimed by the Claimant. Writing for the Court, Lady Hale argued that “obliging a person to manifest a belief which he does not hold has been held to be a limitation on his article 9(1) rights” under the European Convention on Human Rights (Buscarini v San Marino (1999) 30 EHRR 208) and that “the freedom not to be obliged to hold or to manifest beliefs that one does not hold is also protected by article 10 of the Convention” (RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38; [2013] 1 AC 152) [at 50-2]. However, Lady Hale expressly distinguished between refusing to serve a customer based on his or her sexual orientation and forcing a business owner to prepare a product promoting a message he or she profoundly disagreed with [at 55]. Consequently, the Court was cautious not to create the impression that the ruling was a free pass to discriminate against homosexual consumers. Ultimately, the Court was of the opinion that forcing Ashers Baking Company to supply the requested cake would be a disproportionate limitation on the exercise of their rights to free speech and religion under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The decision of the UK Supreme Court comes not long after the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. (2018) that the decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission forcing a baker to supply a cake with an analogous message supporting gay marriage was unlawful. In June 2018, the Court held 7-2 (over the dissent of Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor) that in considering the case, the Commission had been guided by a prejudice towards religion and therefore its decision violated the First Amendment. The case was therefore decided on very narrow grounds and does not definitely resolve the question whether there is a right under the First Amendment to decline to provide a service on sincerely held religious grounds. Only Justice Thomas in his concurrent opinion argued that the Cakeshop owner was fully within his right to refuse to prepare a cake which would violate his religious beliefs. It seems that this question is bound to return to the US Supreme Court in the near future. In fact, shortly after the ruling, in August 2018, the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner sued the State of Colorado in a federal District Court claiming religious persecution involving another incident of a refusal of service, this time in relation to a cake with a transgender message (The Denver Post).

The issue of ‘gay cakes’ has become symbolic of a wider legal debate both in the United Kingdom and the United States on circumstances in which a business can refuse to serve a customer on the grounds of religious beliefs. The two recent judgments by the highest courts of both countries seem to tilt towards prioritising religious liberty over non-discrimination. It remains to be seen whether this will become a trend in both courts’ jurisprudence and to what degree their reasoning will overlap. Interestingly, in its ruling, the UK Supreme Court expressly relied on the approach taken by the US Supreme Court in its general First Amendment jurisprudence:

The respondent suggests that the jurisprudence in relation to “compelled speech” has been developed principally in the United States as a result of the First Amendment. There is indeed longstanding Supreme Court authority for the proposition that “the right to freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all”: see Wooley v Maynard 430 US 705, 714, per Burger CJ, citing Board of Education v Barnette (1943) 319 US 624, 633-634. But in the light of Laramore and RT (Zimbabwe) , and the Strasbourg case law on which they are based, it cannot seriously be suggested that the same principles do not apply in the context of articles 9 and 10 of the Convention.” [at 53]

On other hand, and in somewhat usual manner, the Ashers Baking Company judgment of the UK Supreme Court contains a postscript where Lady Hale addresses the Masterpiece Cakeshop judgment of the US Supreme Court:

“After the hearing in this case, while this judgment was being prepared, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down judgment in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission (unreported) 4 June 2018. The facts are not the same. A Christian baker refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his opposition to same sex marriage. There is nothing in the reported facts to suggest that the couple wanted a particular message or decoration on their cake. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, upheld by the Colorado courts, held that the baker had violated the Colorado law prohibiting businesses which offered sales or services to the public from discrimination based on sexual orientation. The baker complained that this violated his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of his religion… The majority recognised that businesses could not generally refuse to supply products and services for gay weddings; but they acknowledged that the baker saw creating a wedding cake as an expressive statement involving his First Amendment rights; and contrasted the treatment that he had received, which they perceived as hostile, from the favourable treatment given to three bakers who had refused to produce cakes with messages demeaning gay persons and gay marriages. Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor, in dissent, drew a clear distinction between an objection to the message on the cake and an objection to the customer who wanted the cake. The other bakery cases had been clear examples of an objection to the message rather than an objection to the customer. In their view the objection in this case was to the customer and therefore a violation. Justices Kagan and Breyer, who voted with the majority on the lack of neutrality point, also accepted that the Commission could have based its reasoning on that distinction – the other bakers would have refused to make cakes with the demeaning messages for anyone, whereas this baker had refused to make this cake because it was a gay couple who wanted it. Justices Thomas and Alito, on the other hand, considered that to make a cake for a gay wedding was expressive in itself and thus compelling it required strict scrutiny. Justice Gorsuch would also not have distinguished between a cake with words and a cake without. The important message from the Masterpiece Bakery case is that there is a clear distinction between refusing to produce a cake conveying a particular message, for any customer who wants such a cake, and refusing to produce a cake for the particular customer who wants it because of that customer’s characteristics. One can debate which side of the line particular factual scenarios fall. But in our case there can be no doubt. The bakery would have refused to supply this particular cake to anyone, whatever their personal characteristics. So there was no discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. If and to the extent that there was discrimination on grounds of political opinion, no justification has been shown for the compelled speech which would be entailed for imposing civil liability for refusing to fulfil the order.” [at 59-62]

In any event, the inherent conflict between religious rights and the ban on discrimination will inevitably prompt similar cases in both the United Kingdom and the United States within the foreseeable future.

Impeaching a Supreme Court Justice

The next day Justice Kavanaugh had been confirmed to the Supreme Court, some Democrats called for his potential impeachment, should they flip the House of Representatives after the November mid-term elections (The Washington Post). Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution stipulates that “... all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors“. Accordingly, the impeachment process has several elements. Firstly, the alleged wrongdoing must fall within the scope of an impeachable offence. Secondly, the House of Representatives must approve the Articles of Impeachment with a simple majority vote. Thirdly, the Senate must convict (i.e. removed from office) with at least 67 votes or otherwise the proceedings result in an automatic acquittal. Although a Justice of the Supreme Court (and any other federal Judge), as an Officer of the United States, is subject to impeachment, it is very unlikely that Justice Kavanaugh will be (successfully) impeached in any foreseeable future. First of all, it is not clear anyone could be impeached for any alleged wrongdoing taking place prior to the taking of the office. In Justice Kavanaugh’s case, most allegations were at least 30 years old therefore not in any manner connected with the office from which a successful impeachment would seek to remove him. Secondly, even if the Democrats win a majority in the House of Representatives in November, it is not clear they will have 218 House Members willing to vote in favour of the Articles of Impeachment, given how many of them would be coming from Red States supporting Justice Kavanaugh. Thirdly, even if the House votes to impeach, the impeachment will inevitably fail in the Senate given that the Constitution requires a two-thirds super majority to convict (i.e. remove) a person subject to the impeachment proceedings. As of now the Democrats do not even have a simple majority in the Senate and even if they manage to flip it in November, it will not amount to a two-thirds majority. From a purely legal point of view, raising the possibility of the impeachment of Justice Kavanaugh could not be taken seriously. This is even more so considering that no Justice of the Supreme Court has ever been removed from office by way of impeachment. In 1804 Justice Chase was impeached by the House of Representatives but a year later the impeachment failed in the Senate. In terms of lower courts Judges, only 14 have ever been impeached and of those only 8 have been actually removed from office by the Senate and an overwhelming majority of them on the grounds strictly related to their functions as a Judge, such as taking bribes or abuse of power (Federal Judicial Center). The possibility of impeachment by Congress is an extremely powerful tool which goes against the traditional separation of powers and therefore, by design, its use is severely restricted only to the most serious examples of the abuse of power.

Justice Kavanaugh Joins SCOTUS

On the night of 6 – 7 October Judge Kavanaugh was officially confirmed by a 51-49 majority of the US Senate as a new Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who was considered a swing vote, voted ‘present’ therefore opposing the candidacy. Another Republican swing vote, Susan Collins of Maine, aligned with a Republican majority after a forceful defence of Judge Kavanaugh on the Senate floor the day before. The Republicans also picked up one Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia who is facing a tough re-election fight in his deeply red state. The vote comes after weeks of investigations and hearings concerning sexual misconduct allegations against Judge Kavanaugh put forward by 3 different women, among which was that of Dr Christine Blasey Ford, which was a subject of a special Senate Judiciary Committee hearing (summary of allegations: Business Insider UK). In the last days of the process, many Senators saw protesters roaming the Senate halls demonstrating both their support and opposition to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation. This also included many examples of disorderly behaviour leading to hundreds protesters being arrested (The Guardian). The opposition to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation was based on a whole range of arguments, from those related to his judicial record, through the non-disclosure of old communication records, to those concerning sexual misconduct allegations and his short temper. On the other hand, the Republicans complained that the Democrats were adamant to derail the confirmation process with malicious behaviour from the start and none of their arguments had any merits. At the end of the day, however, Judge Kavanaugh has been dully confirmed and will now join the other 8 Justices of the Supreme Court who have already returned to work from their summer break.

The appointment of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is bound to create a reliable originalist majority for the first time in almost 80 years, i.e. since Justice Owen Roberts abandoned the originalist approach in the case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) thereby ending the so called Lochner era in the Court’s jurisprudence. Although since 1937 the Court has seen periods with a majority composed of Republican-appointed Justices, they have not been consistently originalist in their judicial philosophies. It was the appointment of Justice Scalia to the bench by President Reagan in 1986 that brought the originalist philosophy back from the exile to the mainstream. Since then, other originalists have been appointed to the Court, including Justice Thomas (1991), Chief Justice Roberts (2005), Justice Alito (2006), Justice Gorsuch (2017) and now Justice Kavanaugh. Although the originalism of Chief Justice Roberts is admittedly less rigorous than that of Justice Thomas, and in the incoming years he might be even moving more towards the centre, it seems that the current Court is bound to be concerned with the original meaning of the Constitution more than at any other point within the last 80 years.

These changes to the composition of the Supreme Court will have a profound impact on a whole range of cases which are likely to reach the Court in this term. Firstly, on the subject of the 2nd Amendment, the Court might be asked to decide what types of firearms are covered by the 2nd Amendment and whether the Amendment applies to all public spaces in addition to one’s home. In this respect there appears to be a circuit split between the 9th and the 7th Circuit Courts of Appeals (Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 939 (2016) v Moore v Madigan (USDC 11-CV-405-WDS, 11-CV-03134; 7th Cir. 12-1269, 12-1788)). Secondly, on the never-ending issue of ObamaCare, the Court will likely be asked to resolve the question whether the ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate (and possibly other parts of the statute with it) has been rendered unconstitutional by The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017 which eliminated the tax/penalty for not complying with it. At this point, several Red States are suing claiming that the elimination of the tax has rendered the Individual Mandate unconstitutional as now, in the absence of any tax attached to it, it could only be construed as an exercise of the Congress’s power to regulate inter-state commerce which was already declared invalid by the US Supreme Court in its famous 2012 case (Texas Tribune). However, the lawsuit goes even further and claims that the Individual Mandate is inseverable from the rest of the law, or at least from its certain parts, such as the community rating, and if it is in fact struck down by the Court, it might drag other parts of the ObamaCare with it. Given that the Trump Administration decided not to defend the lawsuit, the case is now bound to proceed further up the ladder towards the Supreme Court (The Atlantic). Thirdly, the Court might be asked to rule whether the DACA programme (and its rescission via executive action) is constitutional. The Trump Administration announced in 2017 that it would rescind the DACA programme altogether as incompatible with federal immigration laws on the books. However, on 3 August 2018, a DC District Court ruled in the case of Trustees of Princeton University v United States (1:17-cv-02325-JDB) that the rescission of DACA was unlawful because the Administration did not supply the Court with any valid reason for its decision. Now an appeal in this case is expected by the Trump Administration. Fourthly, also on the immigration subject, the Court might be asked to finally resolve the question of the legality of the so called sanctuary cities. In 2017 the Department of Justice decided to withdraw funding from cities refusing to cooperate with the federal government in respect of immigration enforcement and in March 2018 it sued the State of California for its sanctuary policies. On the other hand, in return, two of California counties sued the Department of Justice claiming that such a withdrawal of funds was unconstitutional and persuaded a local District Court as well as the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to grant an injunction (The Washington Post). Fifthly, the Court is likely to be asked again to rule on the constitutionality of affirmative action as last decisions on this subject have been extremely closely decided with Justice Kennedy always casting the deciding vote. So far there is no case pending before any federal court concerning affirmative action, however, there have been some moves by the Trump Administration to limits its impact, such as reversing President Obama’s policy on affirmative action in schools (NY Times) or investigating the impact of affirmative action programmes at the Harvard University on the Asian-American minority admissions (CNN). Finally, the Court will most likely, again, deal with abortion. On 4 May 2018 the State of Iowa passed into law in the so called ‘heartbeat’ Act banning abortions as soon as fetal heartbeat could be detected, which usually happens around the sixth week into pregnancy, which now constitutes the most restrictive abortion law in the country. Immediately, the American Civil Liberties Union sued in the Polk County District Court for a declaration of unconstitutionality as well as an interim injunction against the law which was granted on 1 June 2018 (Des Moines Register). The case is now being considered on its merits but regardless of the Court’s decision, it is bound to be appealed and eventually end up before the Supreme Court. Overall, given the multitude of important issues which await consideration by the US Supreme Court, the new originalist majority of the Court might leave a unique legacy for decades to come.

Payment of Widowed Allowance to Spouses Only Violates Human Rights (UKSC)

On 30 August 2018, the UK Supreme Court ruled In the matter of an application by Siobhan McLaughlin for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2018] UKSC 48 that the current rules for the payment of Widowed Parent’s Allowance (WPA) violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights read in conjunction with Article 14. WPA is a contributory-based social benefit offered under s39A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 to widowed parents with dependent children whose spouse or civil partner has died. The Court ruled that the requirement of a formal marriage or civil partnership as a precondition for receiving WPA discriminated against couples who although had children together, never formalised their relationship.

The Court was however cautious to say that not every type of social benefit requiring a formal union is necessarily incompatible with the Convention. It was held that WPA could not be dependent on the prior existence of marriage or civil partnership because it was designed to benefit children who have lost one of their parents rather than to make any form of compensation to the surviving parent him or herself. Accordingly, to condition the payment of WPA on the existence of a formal union between parents is to effectively discriminate between the so called legitimate and illegitimate children – a policy which was declared unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Marckx v Belgium (App. no.: 6833/74), back in 1979. It is on this basis that the Lady Hale, writing for the majority, attempted to distinguish the case of Shackell v United Kingdom (App. No.: 45851/99) where the European Court of Human Rights had held inadmissible complaints that the lack of a formal marriage should not deprive the surviving widow of an analogous benefit (paras. 25-28). The attempt was nevertheless not entirely convincing and Lord Mance in his Concurring Opinion (with which Lady Hale agreed) further elaborated on this point ultimately considering the reasoning in Shackell to be simply unsatisfactory (para. 49).

This approach of the majority however prompted Lorde Hodge to claim, in his Dissenting Opinion, that the majority was departing from a settled line of case law of the European Court of Human Rights which had recently been confirmed in the case of Burden v United Kingdom (App. no.: 13378/05). Moreover, Lord Hodge pointed out that although the WPA could be construed as designed to ultimately benefit children, it was nevertheless payable directly to the surviving spouse and depended heavily on his or her circumstances so that “if she remarries or enters into a civil partnership, so long as she cohabits with a partner of either gender, or if she dies, the WPA ceases to be payable” and “the sums payable to the Survivor are not related to the children’s needs or increased by reference to the number of children for whom she is responsible.” (paras. 76-78). At the end of the day, the UK Supreme Court under the presidency of Lady Hale again took an active approach to the protection guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

President Trump Unable to Flip Appeal Courts Circuits

President Trump has made clear on several occasions that judicial nominations are one of his top priorities. In terms of Appeal Courts, as of 15 September 2018, he has successfully appointed 26 Circuit Judges, with further 10 nominations pending before the Senate and another 3 positions awaiting his nomination (13 vacancies in total). Many commentators have been pointing out that President Trump might not only change the constitution of the US Supreme Court by appointing Judge Gorsuch (and most likely Judge Kavanaugh) to its bench, but also flip majorities of at least some Appeal Circuits. However, upon a closer examination, this seems rather unlikely, at least in President Trump’s first term in office.

The US Courts of Appeals are grouped in 11 Circuits in addition to the so called special DC Circuit. As of 15 September 2018, the 1st Circuit is the only one which has not had any vacancies since the last general election and as such it has a stable 4-2 Democratic majority. The 2nd Circuit has 3 vacancies but even if filled by President Trump, it will retain a Democratic majority of 7-6. The 3rd Circuit has 2 vacancies and it has already seen 1 judge appointed to its bench by President Trump in addition to 4 judges appointed by previous Republican Presidents so assuming President Trump fills those 2 empty seats, the Circuit will be evenly split 7-7 between the Republican and Democratic appointees. The 4th Circuit has also had 2 judges appointed to its bench by President Trump on top of 4 judges appointed by previous Republican Presidents but it retains a stable Democratic majority of 8-6. The 5th Circuit currently has 1 vacancy, 5 Trump appointees and 6 other Republican-appointed judges making its overwhelmingly Republican 12-5. The 6th Circuit is also overwhelmingly Republican with 4 Trump appointees on top of 7 other Republican-appointed judges adding up to a strong 11-5 Republican majority. The situation is similar in the 7th Circuit which has 4 Trump appointees in addition to other 5 judges appointed by previous Republican Presidents adding up to a stable 9-2 Republican majority. This is again seen in the 8th Circuit where President Trump has appointed 3 judges on top of 7 other Republican-appointed judges adding up to an overwhelming Republican majority of 10-1. The most liberal of all the Circuits, the famous 9th Circuit currently has 7 vacancies, 1 Trump appointee and another 5 Republican-appointed judges but even assuming all those vacancies are filled by President Trump, the Circuit will nevertheless retain a stable Democratic majority of 16-13. A stable Democratic majority of 7-5 will also hold in the 10th Circuit where President Trump has appointed 2 judges on top of another 3 appointed by previous Republican Presidents. The 11th Circuit is another Circuit which is evenly split 6-6 between the Democratic and Republican appointees after President Trump has appointed 3 judges in addition to another 3 Republican-appointed judges already on the bench. Finally, the DC Circuit consisting of 1 Trump appointee and 3 other Republican-appointed judges also retains a stable Democratic majority of 7-4.

Given the structure of vacancies inherited by President Trump, it is unlikely that his appointments will be able to flip any Appeal Circuit. As of 15 September 2018, despite any appointments made so far, and any other likely to be made in President Trump’s first term, Democratic-appointed judges hold majorities in 6 Circuits (1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, 10th and the DC Circuit) and Republican-appointed judges hold majorities in 4 Circuits (5th, 6th, 7th and 8th). The only difference made by President Trump’s appointments to the Appeal Courts could be observed in the 3rd and 11th Circuits which moved from stable Democratic majorities to being evenly split. In any event, with the appointment of Judge Gorsuch and the likely appointment of Judge Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court, it is not the Appeal Courts where President Trump intends to make his judicial legacy most visible.

After the Hearings: Kavanaugh Likely to be Confirmed

Between 5 and 7 September 2018, the Senate Judiciary Committee held confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh. The Committee composed of 21 members (10 Democrats and 11 Republicans) questioned Judge Kavanaugh on his judicial record and philosophy. As expected, it was a hugely contentious hearing with constant shouts from the audience leading to multiple arrests and Democratic Senators attacking the nominee’s credibility and independence. However, after 3 long days, Judge Kavanaugh came out of the hearings without any significant blunder. Most of the time he followed the so called Ginsburg Rule declining to answer any question concerning any legal issue which could possibly come before the Court. Perhaps most crucially, Judge Kavanaugh also described Roe v Wade as an ‘important precedent’ therefore making it possible for the 2 pro-choice Republican Senators Lisa Murkowsky of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine to support his nomination. The 2 Senators are considered the swing votes in the upcoming confirmation vote given that the Republicans need all their Senators to vote yes, assuming the vote would go down along the party lines, which is likely. Now that Judge Kavanaugh has not raised any red flags for any Republican Senator, he is likely to be confirmed by the Senate by the end of September so that he can join the Court by 01 October when its term starts.

The confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court will indeed be a historical moment. For the first time in almost 80 years the US Supreme Court will have a reliable originalist majority. The last time there was an originalist majority on the Court was prior to the so called ‘switch in time that saved nine’, i.e., before Justice Owen Roberts abandoned the originalist approach in the case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) thereby ending the so called Lochner era in the Court’s jurisprudence. For the next 80 years the Court will almost consistently decide cases coming before it based on the premise that the US Constitution is a living document whose meaning changes over time. Now all this is about to change. This, of course, does not mean that the Court will suddenly start overruling 80 years of precedents. However, given how much is at stake, it is no surprise the liberal forces are very anxious about their legacy.

Interesting Cases to Look For during the Next SCOTUS Term

While the US Supreme Court is in recess now, there are several potentially monumental cases which are either being processed in lower Courts at the moment or are likely to end up before the federal courts soon, which are due to eventually bubble up during the high court’s next term. As the Court reconvenes in October 2018, it will also most likely have a new member, Judge Kavanaugh, whom the Senate Republicans plan to confirm in September 2018 thereby consolidating a solid conservative majority on the bench. The Supreme Court so constituted, will face requests to adjudicate on a whole series of tough issues, some of which are now long overdue.

Here is a list of 6 big questions the US Supreme Court might be asked to answer during its next term:

1. Whether the 2nd Amendment Protects the Right to Bear Arms outside One’s Home

In its landmark 2008 opinion, the US Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570 2008) that the 2nd Amendment protected the individual right to possess firearms within the confines of one’s home for the purposes of self-defence. In 2010 the rule was extended in McDonald v. Chicago (561 U.S. 742 2010) to apply to States as well. However, since then, the Court has taken very few cases concerning the scope of the 2nd Amendment (but see e.g. Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)). This leaves two big issues largely unresolved. First, what types of firearms are covered by the 2nd Amendment? Secondly, does the 2nd Amendment cover public arena outside of one’s home? Both issues are hotly litigated over, especially in the so called Blue States. On 24 July 2018 a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in the case of Young v State of Hawaii No. 12-17808 that the 2nd Amendment did in fact protect the right to bear arms in public. This is in spite of the 2016 decision of the same Court in Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 939 (2016), which, sitting en banc, upheld a complete ban on carrying any firearms outside one’s home. However, the latter case was distinguished on the grounds that it was concerned with a concealed-carry while the former was concerned with an open-carry. Nevertheless, the State of Hawaii is entitled to apply for a reconsideration of this decision by an en banc Court which, given a strong liberal nature of the 9th Circuit, is likely to result in a reversal of the original decision. Regardless, the 2nd Amendment jurisprudence of the 9th Circuit stands in open opposition to other Circuits, such as the 7th Circuit which held in 2013 in the case of Moore v Madigan (USDC 11-CV-405-WDS, 11-CV-03134; 7th Cir. 12-1269, 12-1788) that a complete ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional. This situation constitutes a clear example of the so called ‘circuit split’ which creates a pressure on the Supreme Court to resolve the issue rather sooner than later. Here the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh as a new Supreme Court Justice might be of considerable impact as he has a strong record on the 2nd Amendment (e.g. Heller v. District of Columbia No. 10–7036. 2011).

2. Whether the ObamaCare’s Individual Mandate Has Been Rendered Unconstitutional by The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act 2017

So far the ObamaCare has withstood, albeit not in its entirety, several challenges before the federal courts and a new one is gaining momentum now. In 2012 the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (567 U.S. 519 2012) that, inter alia, although the Individual Mandate was not a valid exercise of the Congress’s power to regulate inter-state commerce, it could be read as a tax and thereby be a valid exercise of the taxation power instead. This is because the so called ‘penalty’ for breaching the Mandate was limited to a financial fee processed by the IRS together with individuals’ income taxes. This saving construction persuaded Chief Justice Roberts who joined the 4 liberal Justices on the Court and voted to uphold the Individual Mandate. However, The Tax and Jobs Act 2017 recently passed by Congress eliminates this so called tax while leaving the Individual Mandate as such intact. In those circumstances, several Red States sued again claiming that the elimination of the tax had rendered the Individual Mandate unconstitutional as now, in the absence of any tax attached to it, it could only be construed as an exercise of the Congress’s power to regulate inter-state commerce which was already declared invalid by the US Supreme Court in 2012 (Texas Tribune). However, the lawsuit goes even further as it claims that the Individual Mandate is inseverable from the rest of the law or at least from its certain parts, such as the community rating, and if it is in fact struck down by the Court, it might drag other parts of the ObamaCare with it. Given that the Trump Administration decided not to defend the lawsuit, the case is now bound to proceed further up the ladder towards the Supreme Court (The Atlantic). Interestingly, the replacement of Justice Kennedy with Judge Kavanugh might actually push the Court to reject any challenges to the ObamaCare as Judge Kavanaugh appears to have been more accommodating in this respect than his predecessor, siding with the approach of the Chief Justice rather than Justice Scalia (Seven-Sky v. Holder (No. 11–5047 2011)).

3. Whether the DACA Program (and its Rescission via Executive Action) is Constitutional

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was announced by President Obama via an Executive Memorandum in 2012 to allow for a temporary lawful stay of illegal immigrants brought to the United States as children. The policy was introduced in response to Congress not being able to pass the DREAM Act which would put it on a statutory footing. Since then, DACA has been often cited as an example of executive overreach given that it was introduced via executive action thereby circumventing the legislature. The policy has been challenged in the federal courts several times. A lawsuit against the original policy was dismissed on procedural grounds in 2013 (Fox News) but as President Obama attempted to extend the programme, the expansion was blocked by the US Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), although in a per curiam decision concerning an interim injunction with the crux of the matter soon becoming moot. The Trump Administration announced in 2017 that it would rescind the DACA program altogether as incompatible with federal immigration laws on the books. However, on 3 August 2018, a DC District Court ruled in the case of Trustees of Princeton University v United States (1:17-cv-02325-JDB) that the rescission of DACA was unlawful because the Administration did not supply the Court with any valid reason for its decision. This is yet another signature policy of the Trump Administration after the so called Travel Ban blocked by lower federal courts and therefore the decision is bound to be appealed by the Administration in hope that the US Supreme Court will vindicate its lawfulness, as it happened in the Travel Ban case (Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)). In this area the impact of the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is rather difficult to predict.

4. Whether the Policy of Sanctuary Cities is Constitutional

The question of the constitutionality of sanctuary polices has been looming for decades but so far it has never been properly decided. This, however, might change now that the Trump Administration vowed to crack down on Blue States shielding illegal immigrants from federal agencies. On the one hand, the Department of Justice decided to withdraw funding from cities refusing to cooperate with the federal government in respect of immigration enforcement and in March 2018 it sued the State of California for its sanctuary policies. On the other hand, in return, two of California counties (San Francisco and Santa Clara) sued the Department of Justice claiming that such a withdrawal of funds was unconstitutional and managed even to persuade a local District Court as well as the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to grant an injunction (The Washington Post). Accordingly, given how high this issue is on the Presidential agenda and how much litigation it has generated so far, one of those cases is bound to end up before the US Supreme Court sooner or later and this time the Court will have no choice but to rule on a wider issue of sanctuary policies in general. As with the DACA programme, the impact of the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court on sanctuary policies is not easy to predict.

5. Whether Affirmative Action is Constitutional

Technically, the constitutionality of affirmative action has already been confirmed on several occasions, for the first time in 1978 in the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (438 U.S. 265 1978), then in 2003 in Grutter v. Bollinger (539 U.S. 306 2003) and most recently in 2016 in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas (579 U.S. (2016), commonly referred to as Fisher II. However, the recent decisions have been extremely closely decided and Justice Kennedy has been the one casting the deciding vote. Now that Justice Kennedy is being replaced by Judge Kavanaugh, the Court might easily swing the other way. So far there is no case pending before any federal court concerning affirmative action, however, there have been some moves by the Trump Administration to limits its impact, such as reversing President Obama’s policy on affirmative action in schools (NY Times) or investigating the impact of affirmative action programmes at the Harvard University on the Asian-American minority admissions (CNN). Although no case has been brought on this issue so far, there are signs that affirmative action might once again end up before the federal courts and this time Justice Kennedy will not be around to save it.

6. Whether Fetal Heartbeat Legislation is Constitutional

The opposition of Red States to the constitutional right to abortion recognised in Roe v Wade (1973) is widely known. From time, to time, this opposition materliases in a form of some State legislation hindering access to abortion in hope that it would pass the Undue Burden test imposed on this type of legislation by the Supreme Court in the case of Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992). One of such measures was passed and signed into law in the State of Iowa on 4 May 2018. The so called ‘heartbeat’ Act bans abortions as soon as fetal heartbeat could be detected, which usually happens around the sixth week into pregnancy, and as such constitutes the most restrictive abortion law in the country. Immediately, the American Civil Liberties Union sued in the Polk County District Court for a declaration of unconstitutionality as well as an interim injunction against the law which was granted on 1 June 2018 (Des Moines Register). The case is now being considered on its merits but regardless of the Court’s decision, it is bound to be appealed and eventually end up before the US Supreme Court. This is especially interesting given that Judge Kavanaugh’s jurisprudence on abortion is very scarce and no one is able to predict how he might vote on this issue. If the newest Justice decides to side with the reliable conservatives on the Court, the fate of the right to abortion in the United States will depend solely on Chief Justice Roberts and he remains a huge unknown as well.

It seems that in its 2019 term, the US Supreme Court might be asked to decide at least 6 issues of historical importance and its decisions will be felt across the whole country in decades to come.

Withdrawal of Life-sustaining Treatment outside Courts’ Compulsory Jurisdiction (UKSC)

On 30 July 2018, the UK Supreme Court ruled, in the case of NHS Trust v Y (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) [2018] UKSC 46, that not all decisions concerning a withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment require the Courts’ approval. Unlike euthanasia or assisted dying, neither of which is legal in the United Kingdom (Suicide Act 1961,s 2), a withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from a patient in a vegetative state is treated as an omission (as opposed to an ‘act’) conducted in the best interest of the patient and therefore does not incur any criminal liability (Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] 1 All ER 821 HL). Up until now, however, any such decision was believed to require a declaration from a Court, usually the Court of Protection, that the withdrawal of treatment resulting in death would be lawful. In its opinion, the UK Supreme Court concludes now that such a procedure is only required where there is no agreement between the doctors and the family as to the withdrawal of treatment but where such an agreement has already been reached, no separate approval from any Court is needed.

In the recent years, there have been several attempts to legalise assisted dying in the United Kingdom, both through legislation and various Courts’ cases. However, in the 2014 case of R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38), the UK Supreme Court refused to recognise the right to assisted dying under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights basing its decision on the 2002 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Pretty v. United Kingdom (App. No.: 2346/02) and Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill was defeated in Parliament in 2015 (BBC). The decision in NHS Trust v Y does not change the status of assisted dying in the United Kingdom but it does remove most of life-death decisions from the immediate supervision of the Courts, at least where both the patient’s doctors and family members agree to withdraw the treatment. This decision should relieve the Courts from a considerable chunk of their workload in the area of medical treatment applications while at the same time reinforce the rights of family members of patients in a vegetative state by allowing them to make those critical decisions in the privacy of hospital rooms, without any state interference.

Justice Ginsburg Has no Plans to Retire

On 29 July 2018, Justice Ginsburg, who is currently 85 years old 
declared that she planned to remain on the Supreme Court for at least 5 more years (The Guardian). The Justice is already the oldest sitting Justice of the Court. She was originally appointed by President Clinton in 1993 at the age of 60 as the second woman ever appointed to the US Supreme Court. She is a known liberal who openly opposed the candidacy of Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election (CNN). In fact, it is common knowledge that Justice Ginsburg will not voluntarily retire during a Republican president. Given her age, she was pressured to retire during the second term of the Obama’s presidency in case his predecessor turned out to be a Republican but she did not cave (e.g. NY Times here). Now that President Trump appoints strictly conservative judges to the federal benches, Justice Ginsburg embraces herself to wait out his term in office. During the next presidential election in 2020, the Justice will be 87 but her retirement plans will necessarily depend on whether President Trump is re-elected or not. If President Trump wins again in 2020, Justice Ginsburg will have no choice but to endure yet another 4 years on the bench. If successful, this would bring her to over 91 thereby beating the current record-holder, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who stepped down at the age of 90 years and 10 months. She would also beat her former colleague Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010 at the age of 90 years and 2 months. Justice Ginsburg, despite her history of cancer and regular nodding-off during official events, remains active both as an opinion writer on the bench as well as a public speaker outside the Court. Given her spirit, she might as well be capable of achieving the title of the oldest ever sitting Justice of the US Supreme Court, that is provided nothing unexpected happens of course.

Civil Partnerships Opened to Everyone (UKSC)

On 27 June 2018, the UK Supreme Court ruled unanimously, in the case of R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) v Secretary of State for International Development (in substitution for the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary), that the unavailability of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples was incompatible with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights read in conjunction with Article 8. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 was introduced by the Labour Government to offer some form of formalised unions to homosexual couples at the time when British society was not ready for ‘gay marriage.’ Since it was designed to introduce formal relationships akin to marriage, the Act expressly applied to same-sex couples only as heterosexual couples could enter into actual marriage instead. This rationale was justified so long as same-sex couples could not marry. But this changed with the introduction of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. Since then, homosexual couples have been able to choose between civil partnership and actual marriage while heterosexual couples could only marry. This has been challenged as a form of direct discrimination based on sexual orientation contrary to Article 14 of the Convention as applied by virtue of Article 8. Now the UK Supreme Court held that the need to “wait and evaluate” before enacting any reform, an argument the Government put forward to justify the discrimination, does not, in this case, constitute a legitimate aim under the Convention as this is not an instance of a discrimination with a long tradition which is only gradually becoming unacceptable but rather a novel issue whose discriminatory nature was apparent as soon as it was introduced (paras. 42-43). At the end, the Court did not hesitate to issue a declaration of incompatibility explaining that absent any legitimate aim, deference to a parliamentary process is not justified (paras. 54-57). The ruling goes a step further than the hitherto jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights which held in 2013, in the case of Vallianatos v Greece (App. Nos.: 29381/09 and 32684/09), that the availability of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples only violated Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 because homosexual couples were not in a ‘comparable situation’ as they could neither marry nor enter into civil unions while heterosexual couples could do both (paras. 78-79). The same, however, could not be said about the situation of heterosexual couples in the United Kingdom. Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights ruled, in April 2018, in the case of Ratzenbock and Seydl v Austria (App. No.: 28475/12), that the unavailability of civil partnerships to heterosexual couples did not violate the Convention given that they could enter into marriage while same-sex couples could not. The Court was of the opinion that “the institutions of marriage and the registered partnership are essentially complementary in Austrian law.” (para. 40) – the same state of affairs one could observed in the UK between 2004 and 2013 but not since then. Accordingly, the judgment of the UK Supreme Court appears to have been built on the existing jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights while shrinking any deference to the legislature within the presumed margin of appreciation. Now it is only a matter of time before Parliament amended the Civil Partnership Act to remedy the injustice.

The End is Near for Strict Northern Irish Abortion Laws

On 7 June 2018, the UK Supreme Court ruled, 4-3, In the matter of an application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2018] UKSC 27, that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission had no legal standing to bring challenge the Northern Irish abortion law and, therefore, the original ruling of the Northern Irish High Court was void. However, at the same time, and somewhat unusual, it was held that had there been jurisdiction, the Court would have found the current Northern Irish abortion law incompatible with Article 8 of the Convention in cases of rape and incest (4-3 vote) and fatal foetal abnormality (5-2 vote).

Northern Ireland has one of the strictest abortion laws in Europe. It also differs from the rest of the United Kingdom where abortion is easily accessible under the Abortion Act 1967. But Northern Irish women can only access abortion where the mother’s life or health is in danger. This was recently challenged by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission as incompatible with Article 8 and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2015 the Commission won a surprising victory at the Northern Irish High Court ([2015] NIQB 96) where the Court held that Northern Irish law failed to strike a fair balance between the right of the mother to private life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention and the need to protect the life of the foetus, in cases of pregnancy resulting from sexual crimes (prior to the point of viability) and foetus deformity (throughout the pregnancy). But this ruling was subsequently overruled by the Northern Irish Court of Appeal ([2017] NICA 42).

This line of cases dating back to 2015 is extraordinary for at least three reasons. Firstly, the European Court of Human Rights has never found that strict abortion laws comparable to Northern Irish statutes, as a matter of substance, violate any Article of the European Convention on Human Rights, even when it was expressly invited to do so in A, B, C v Ireland (2011). For a domestic Court to find a violation of any Convention right in this situation is to curtail a wide margin of appreciation given to states by the European Court of Human Rights in relation to abortion regulations, at the expense of the legislature. Secondly, Northern Irish society is known to be extremely prone to social unrest and given how controversial the abortion debate is, the Courts have shown real courage by stepping into this debate so decisively. Thirdly, even though the case was ultimately thrown out on procedural grounds, the UK Supreme Court has sent a clear message that the Northern Irish abortion law must be liberalised as it considered it incompatible with the Convention. It is inconceivable that this unequivocal message could be ignored and as such, it is now a matter of time before Northern Irish abortion laws undergo a deep reform.

President Trump’s ‘Record-breaking’ Number of Judicial Appointments

With the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh for Justice Kennedy’s seat at the Supreme Court, some commentators raised the issue of President Trump rapidly transforming the Federal Courts by appointing a record number of District and Circuit Court Judges (e.g The Guardian here and here). This claim is based mostly on the fact that a record number of such Judges have been appointed in President Trump’s first 1,5 years in the office comparing with previous Presidents (e.g. The Hill here). In as much as this is probably true, the claim that President Trump will appoint an unprecedented number of lower Courts Judges is rather misleading.  As of 25 July 2018, President Trump has nominated 137 Judges of the so called Article III Courts (USCourts.gov). Although this seems like a high number for only 1,5 years into the presidency, so far the US Senate has confirmed only 44 of those 137 nominations (including 1 Justice of the Supreme Court, 23 Judges for the United States Courts of Appeals and 20 Judges for the United States District Courts). This is still claimed to be one of the highest numbers for any presidency after only 1,5 years. However, even if this pace is maintained, and President Trump is re-elected in 2020, he will have only appointed around 234 Judges throughout his two terms. This is not even close to his predecessor, President Obama, who appointed 308 Judges between 2008 and 2016. It is also far from the three record-holders in this regard, President Clinton, President Reagan and President W. Bush, who appointed 357, 347 and 310 Judges, respectively.

Even this calculation is based on the assumption that (a) President Trump will be re-elected and (b) that the Republicans are able to retain the Senate majority of at least 51 votes throughout the two presidential terms. Both assumptions are easy to displace. In fact, the Republicans might as well lose the Senate majority in the November mid-term elections and, given the degree to which the judicial confirmation process has been politicised, none of President Trump’s nominees awaiting a confirmation hearing might receive his or her judicial commission after all. It is clear that a Democratic Senate will not help President Trump elevate conservative Judges to the Federal Courts. In such case, President Trump might end up on the lower end of the SCOTUSBlog ranking with no more than 50 judicial appointments in total.

Judgment In the matter of an application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland Abortion Case)

The Judgment of the UK Supreme Court In the matter of an application by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) concerning the compatibility of the Northern Irish abortion law with the European Convention on Human Rights.