Posted by Amy Howe on Monday, January 11, 2021 2:10 pm
Supreme Court Monday morning Post more orders The judge’s private meeting last week.Rear 14 new cases added During their tenure on Friday afternoon, the judges did not want to review other cases on Monday, and neither did they. Nonetheless, Monday’s list of orders is worth noting, as the judge rejected a set of requests to expedite the consideration of the petition in a case trying to undo the results of the 2020 presidential election. Refusal to confirm that the judge will not consider the petition until after President-elect Biden is sworn in, effectively exaggerating the dispute is meaningless.
Eight petitions challenged and achieved results in the four battlefield states of Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Biden won all of these petitions. Many lower courts rejected these challenges, prompting President Donald Trump’s campaign and the President’s Republican alliance to file a final appeal to the Supreme Court. The challenger’s lawyers have asked the justices to fast track the court’s review of the petition, usually in late December or early January, so that the court can evaluate it before Congress counts the electoral votes in January. 6. However, the justices (their last regular meeting held before January 6th) were held on December 11, but refused to consider the request to fast track until the next regular meeting on January 8. Refused to explain without any explanation. Now, justices may not consider any petitions until mid-to-late February at the earliest, long after Biden’s inauguration on January 20, when it was too late for the court to approve any relief related to 2020. Election sought by challengers.
After the inauguration, two other election-related petitions in Pennsylvania still have a chance to be accepted by the Supreme Court, although this gesture will not affect the 2020 election.Petition in Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar with Scanati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party It involves the challenge of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extending the absentee voting period last year. The challenger initially tried to reverse the Pennsylvania investigation, but after the judge refused to expeditiously intervene, the Republicans admitted the case in a briefing on December 15 “Can’t change the resultThe 2020 general election”. They still maintain that the court should review the law to clarify future elections.
The court found Bokval with Lean The first petition at the meeting on January 8.The court takes no action on the petition, and files Entries Because these cases indicate that they have been relisted for further consideration at this Friday’s meeting.
The judges did raise another objection to the constitutionality of Nevada’s full-time order to deal with the “COVID-19” crisis.The judge ordered the state to respond by January 19 Petition to the Little Church Dayton Valley, A church argued that the state’s more preferential treatment of casinos and other secular places, although limiting church attendance, violated the “First Amendment.” The Supreme Court rejected the church’s emergency relief request in July, but the composition of the court has since changed. Conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett replaced the late judge Ruth Bard. · Ruth Bader Ginsburg.The justice instructed the church to respond at noon on January 21, possibly allowing them to consider the case at the January 22 meeting (the last meeting before the winter recess) and, if they give a review, they can listen to oral arguments And decide the word
The justice refused Bruni v. City of PittsburghThis is a challenge to the Pittsburgh Act, which creates a “buffer” around abortion clinics. Anti-abortion activists who want to be able to talk to patients entering the clinic go to court on the grounds that the law violates their First Amendment rights. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit concluded that the decree allowed “sidewalk consultation,” while the challenger appealed to the Supreme Court, which announced Monday that it would not consider it.
Judge Clarence Thomas issued a statement on the court’s decision not to participate in the dispute. He wrote that “buffer zones” like Pittsburgh often “restrict freedom of speech.” In addition, he observed that the standards used by the Supreme Court to maintain the constitutionality of the “Buffer Zone” Act in the 2000 case contradicted the Court’s “Current First Amendment” doctrine. Thomas agrees that the court’s refusal to review in this case is correct, “because it involves preliminary issues where the correct interpretation of state law is unclear.” But he added that the justices should “resolve this under appropriate circumstances. Problems to resolve the apparent tension in our precedent.”
The judge did not take action on several other high-profile cases, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization., This is a challenge to Mississippi state law, which generally prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, and United States v. TsarnaevIn the petition, the federal government reviewed the case of the Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, whose death sentence was announced to withdraw from the First Circuit. The judges considered all these cases for the first time at last week’s meeting and have been relisted for re-examination at Friday’s meeting.
This post was originally posted on Howe on the court.
The judge issued more orders from the Friday meeting to reject fast-track election-related cases,
SCOTUS blog (January 11, 2021, 2:10 pm), https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/justices-issue-more-orders-from-fridays-conference-decline-to-fast-track- Election-related cases/