March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010
August 2010
September 2010 October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022 January 2023 February 2023 March 2023 April 2023 May 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29
30
31
News Every Day |

Justice Gorsuch’s Legal Philosophy Has aPrecedent Problem

pa href=https://www.cato.org/people/josh-blackman hreflang=undJosh Blackman/a/p div class=lead mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default pJustice Neil Gorsuch is anbsp;proud textualist. According to this approach, what Congress intended, or expected, when it passed anbsp;law doesn’t matter. What matters are the words printed on paper. In practice, Justice Gorsuch will strictly follow the text of statutes, no matter what result it yields. Last month, he decided that the 1964 Civil Rights Act has always prohibited LGBTQ discrimination. Everyone had simply missed it for half anbsp;century. And at the close of the Court’s term, he determined that an 1833 treaty between the federal government and American Indian tribes was never formally rescinded. Who knew that eastern Oklahoma has been Indian Country all along?/p /div , div class=mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default pIn both cases, Justice Gorsuch insisted he was sticking to the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text. Alas, he wasn’t. His interpretation was shaded by the work of justices who had not been so careful about text. And in both cases, Justice Gorsuch failed to acknowledge that the Court’s precedents were inconsistent with textualism. In doing so, he inadvertently undermined textualism’s justification. One can’t profess to follow the original meaning of anbsp;text while in fact following precedents that ignored that meaning. Going forward, he should criticize prior decisions that failed to take text seriously, and either reluctantly follow them, or formally abandon them./p pThe first of these two decisions wasnbsp;emBostock v. Clayton County/em. Here, the Court split 6–3. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and the Court’s four progressives. Gorsuch parsed the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This statute made it unlawful for employers to “discriminate against” employees “because of … sex.” Justice Gorsuch did not begin his analysis by interpreting this text on anbsp;blank slate. Rather, he simply assumed that decades of case law had accurately interpreted the crucial phrasenbsp;emdiscriminate against because of sex/em. Indeed, he treated decades of precedent as part of the “law’s ordinary meaning” in 1964. This approach built an elaborate textualist framework on quicksand./p /div , aside class=aside--right aside--large aside pb-lg-0 pt-lg-2 div class=pullquote pullquote--default div class=pullquote__content h2 pIf Justice Gorsuch wants to move the law away from nebulous, flimsy reasoning toward more textualist, neutral principles, he must account for both text and precedent /p /div /div /aside , div class=mb-3 spacer--nomargin--last-child text-default pAll nine justices agree that the Court must determine the meaning of anbsp;statute, regardless of whether that meaning leads to anbsp;policy that is unwise or unjust. In this case, my view is that the phrase “discriminate against” must inform the meaning of “because of.” In thenbsp;a href=https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3585940 target=_blank1960s/a, that phrase formed anbsp;single linguistic unit. Recently, anbsp;biopic was made about the life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Its title,nbsp;emOn the Basis of Sex/em, was an homage to the widespread understanding of what it meant to discriminate against anbsp;woman on the basis of sex. When these elements are combined, the phrasenbsp;emdiscriminate against because of sex/emnbsp;references discrimination based on bias or prejudice about anbsp;person’s sex, and not discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Justice Gorsuch relied on decades of precedents that focused primarily on “because of” and not the entire clause. Doing so eliminated the requirement that some sort of bias or prejudice exists based on anbsp;person’s sex. In effect, he severed the statute in half, and concluded that if sex plays any role in the discrimination, the employers’ actions are unlawful. The Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett and Inbsp;a href=https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/justice-gorsuch-title-vii-cases-half-way-textualism-surprises-disappoints/ target=_blankhave described his approach/anbsp;as “halfway textualism.” Gorsuch followed old precedents narrowing anbsp;small component of the statute, even when those cases are at odds with the meaning of the entire statute./p pThe decision in the second case,nbsp;emMcGirt v. Oklahoma/em, was split 5–4, with Justice Gorsuch joined by the four progressive justices. This case considered whether Congress had formally “disestablished” an American Indian reservation that covers half of Oklahoma. No federal law dictates what precise steps are needed to disestablish anbsp;reservation. Thus, textualists have no relevant statute to parse. Instead, the courts have incrementally developed anbsp;century of case law about how Congress can eliminate American Indian sovereignty over territory. That framework, alas, is not itself textualist. The Court has never set out some magic words that Congress must utter to wind down tribal authority. Instead, the Court’s approach considers many factors that, when viewed in context, reveal an intent to disestablish the reservation./p pChief Justice Roberts, who dissented innbsp;emMcGirt/em, described the Court’s “well‐​settled” approach: “We determine whether Congress intended to disestablish anbsp;reservation by examining the relevant Acts of Congress and ‘all the [surrounding] circumstances,’ including the ‘contemporaneous and subsequent understanding of the status of the reservation.’” The Court has acknowledged that “explicit language” is not needed for anbsp;finding of disestablishment. Roberts explained, “The appropriate inquiry does not focus on the statutory text alone.” Without question, the Court has adopted anbsp;framework that favors Congress, to the detriment of the tribes. These precedents put anbsp;thumb on the scale of disestablishment./p pThis sort of fluid approach is, no doubt, anbsp;bitter pill for textualists to swallow. So innbsp;emMcGirt/em, Justice Gorsuch simply spit it out. Unlike innbsp;emBostock/em, Justice Gorsuch refused to treat the Court’s non‐​textualist precedents concerning Indian territory as part of the “law’s ordinary meaning.” He did not approach Congress’s entire body of work as the Court has instructed. Over the course of many years, Congress diminished the tribes’ authority, and established anbsp;commission to bring the territory under the jurisdiction of the state of Oklahoma. But Justice Gorsuch deemed this evidence too fragmented to establish anbsp;unified congressional intent. Rather, he inspected individual congressional actions that concerned the territory in anbsp;fragmented, balkanized fashion. Unsurprisingly, Congress did not meet his novel standard for disestablishment. As anbsp;result, Justice Gorsuch found that Congress’s 1833 promise to the tribes had not been explicitly repealed, and remained in effect. Congress hadn’t said the magic words. And how could it? Untilnbsp;emMcGirt/em, no one knew the precise textual standard that was needed to disestablish anbsp;reservation. In this case, Justice Gorsuch’s halfway textualism has literally cut Oklahoma in half./p pLet’s put these two decisions in perspective. Innbsp;emBostock/em, Justice Gorsuch quietly accepted precedent that paid little attention to text. Innbsp;emMcGirt/em, he quietly rejected precedent that paid little attention to text. In both cases, he erected elaborate textualist structures on top of anbsp;foundation well worn by the Court’s prior decisions. And in neither case did he acknowledge the relationship between precedent and textualism. In doing so, Inbsp;believe the justice erred./p pGenerally, the Supreme Court will follow the doctrine known as stare decisis, which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” (I saynbsp;emgenerally/emnbsp;because justices of all stripes can always muster sufficient justification to overrule old decisions.) Textualists, particularly those of an originalist bent, have an especially tough time with stare decisis. In many instances, the text of anbsp;statute, or the Constitution, has anbsp;meaning that conflicts with the Court’s long‐​standing interpretation. Or the Court has adopted anbsp;method of reading anbsp;specific statute that requires consideration of subjective extrinsic factors, such as legislative history or policy concerns. What is anbsp;textualist to do? There are three general approaches./p pFirst, the textualist can acknowledge the conflict between text and precedent, but maintain that stare decisis compels anbsp;result that conflicts with textualism’s basic principles. This approach has the virtue of humility, even if it reaches the “wrong” result, at least by anbsp;textualist standard. Chief Justice Roberts spoke to this method in hisnbsp;emMcGirtnbsp;/emdissent: “Unless the Court is prepared to overrule these [old] precedents, it should follow them.”/p pSecond, the textualist can overrule the non‐​textualist precedent in order to enforce the statute’s natural sense. Here, stare decisis gives way to textualism. This approach has anbsp;significant downside, however: It disturbs arrangements that the people and government have come to rely on. Yet at least it has the virtue of candor: The jurist can explain thenbsp;emwhynbsp;/emandnbsp;emhow/emnbsp;of anbsp;departure from settled law. And Inbsp;find this sort of honesty refreshing. Justice Clarence Thomas is the member of the Court most likely to take Door No. 2. (Though innbsp;emMcGirt/em, he joined the chief justice behind Door No. 1.)/p pJustice Gorsuch, however, favored Door No. 3nbsp;innbsp;emBostocknbsp;/emandnbsp;emMcGirt/em. He professed to apply anbsp;form of unadulterated textualism. But he failed to account for contrary precedent. Innbsp;emBostock/em, he quietly baked into his analysis decisions from the 1980s and ’90s that were hardly textualist. And innbsp;emMcGirt/em, he demanded anbsp;level of textual precision from Congress that had never been demanded before./p pRepeating, over and over again, that Congress can amend the statute if it disagrees with the Court’s decision is not enough. Of course it can. But this argument goes only so far. Congress has been operating under certain presumptions for decades; it thought the scope of Title VII and the boundaries of Oklahoma had been settled long ago. But Justice Gorsuch maintains thatnbsp;emeveryonenbsp;/emwas wrong about Title VII for five decades, and thatnbsp;emeveryonenbsp;/emwas wrong about eastern Oklahoma for anbsp;century. At least in the unique context of Indian law, the Court had established a “well‐​settled” method of reading tribal law. And this framework is itself subject to stare decisis. (The Court has treated century‐​old antitrust laws in this common‐​law fashion.) Departures from that methods are permitted, but should be addressed./p pFinally, Inbsp;am not sanguine about the prospects for the future of textualism. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan are savvy enough to recognize the limits ofnbsp;emBostocknbsp;/emandnbsp;emMcGirt/em. The quartet recognizes full well that Gorsuch’s opinions leave enough wiggle room to avoid anbsp;strict textualist holding in the future. They are in no sense tied to the mast of textualism. They are free to depart as needed./p pBut Inbsp;don’t think Justice Gorsuch is trying to lock them in. Indeed, Inbsp;have anbsp;newfound respect for him. In these cases, he was utterly disinterested in how his opinions would be received. He doesn’t care. There is no political calculation. There is no long game. There is no three‐​dimensional chess.nbsp;emBostocknbsp;/emdropped anbsp;a href=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-gay-transgender-rights.html target=_blankthermonuclear bomb on the conservative legal movement/a, and Justice Gorsuch wasnbsp;a href=https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/06/65043/ target=_blankexcoriated by many of his supporters who felt betrayed/a. The first Trump appointee, no political slouch, must have anticipated that possible reaction. But he followed his principles. Inbsp;commend his temerity./p pMy disagreement, then, is methodological. Textualism, like originalism, must start from the blank slate of anbsp;statute, without regard to how the Court has interpreted that statute in the past. Justice Gorsuch cannot begin from the 50‐​yard line. He must start from his own end zone. In its present form, Justice Gorsuch’s textualism is far too fragmented to form anbsp;coherent jurisprudence. In the future, he must grapple with the interplay between stare decisis and textualism. When feasible, he should choose Door No. 2, and reject precedents that ignored textualism. If that approach is not viable, he should stay behind Door No. 1, and at least cast doubt on why that precedent is flawed, but follow it anyway. But Door No. 3nbsp;is misleading. It preaches textualism, but practices precedentialism. This approach, in the long run, will serve only to undermine textualism. If Justice Gorsuch wants to move the law away from nebulous, flimsy reasoning toward more textualist, neutral principles, he must account for both text and precedent./p /div Josh Blackman is anbsp;constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.
Москва

Город заключил почти 10 тыс. электронных договоров по сделкам с недвижимостью

Top 5 Websites to Watch FREE Movies - TV Shows (No Sign up!)

The 10 Intense New Action Movies on Netflix That Left Me on the Edge of My Seat!

Top 10 Love Affair Movies of the 2000s and 2010s

I was diagnosed with cancer aged 39… you are never too rich, too famous or too young, says Dr Philippa Kaye

Ria.city






Read also

DARPA Aims To Develop AI, Autonomy Applications Warfighters Can Trust

Police robot dog ‘Roscoe’ shot during standoff with armed suspect

Man Utd now favourites to sign €178k-a-wk star, ready to pay 'soft release clause' - report

News, articles, comments, with a minute-by-minute update, now on Today24.pro

News Every Day

Top 5 Websites to Watch FREE Movies - TV Shows (No Sign up!)

Today24.pro — latest news 24/7. You can add your news instantly now — here


News Every Day

I was diagnosed with cancer aged 39… you are never too rich, too famous or too young, says Dr Philippa Kaye



Sports today


Новости тенниса
Елена Рыбакина

Рыбакина о том, что не играла в Индиан-Уэллс из-за болезни: «К сожалению, восстановление заняло много времени»



Спорт в России и мире
Москва

Отставка Кудашова и уход Гусева и Уила: кого «Динамо» рискует потерять после вылета из Кубка Гагарина



All sports news today





Sports in Russia today

Москва

Актера Свиридова госпитализировали из-за инфицирования после операции в Москве


Новости России

Game News

Cyberpunk 2077 станет временно бесплатной для PlayStation и Xbox


Russian.city


Москва

Эксперты КА «Главный Советник» приняли участие в форуме «Тренды и антитренды корпоративного видео сегодня»


Губернаторы России
КАМАЗ

КАМАЗ обновил дизайн электробуса — первое фото


Андрей Бочкарев: Более 40 расселенных домов снесли по реновации с начала года

Переходим на цифру

Шапки женские на Wildberries — скидки от 398 руб. (на новые оттенки)

Шапки женские вязаные на Wildberries, 2024 — новый цвет от 392 руб. (модель 466)


Провести свой Большой Концерт. Тариф Большой Концерт.

Певица Любовь Успенская назвала россиян своей семьей

Shot: комик Семен Слепаков решил ликвидировать ИП в России

Вывод Песни, Альбома, Клипа в ТОП Музыкальных Чартов!


Азаренко вышла в полуфинал турнира WTA-1000 в Майами

Теннисистка Александрова оказалась сильнее полячки Швентек на турнире WTA в США

Рыбакина о том, что не играла в Индиан-Уэллс из-за болезни: «К сожалению, восстановление заняло много времени»

Хачанов победил Черундоло и пробился в 1/8 финала турнира ATP в Майами



Всем по местам: в России назвали топ благополучных регионов

В России назвали топ самых благополучных регионов по итогам 2023 года

Каждый пятый российский зумер планирует переехать из города-миллионника в Москву

Выпуск ЦФА на платформе «Атомайз» поможет снизить нагрузку на экологию


Зампред Мосгордумы Андрей Медведев призвал привлечь к ответственности азербайджанского миллиардера, владельца «Крокуса» Араза Агаларова

Invest AG настраивает на своем // Земли в Новой Москве останутся структурам компании на жилых условиях

Актриса Яна Поплавская станет одним из почетных гостей Национальной премии «СВОИМ» в Нижнем Новгороде

Продолжается регистрация на форум «Мы вместе.Спорт»


В Москве в педофилии обвиняют пенсионера, ходившего по школам под видом ветерана

В России для получения водительских прав будут требовать СНИЛС с 1 апреля

Клуб НХЛ «Калгари» указал Крым в составе России при географическом представлении игроков

Сочи или Подмосковье: эксперт рассказала, где дешевле отдохнуть в начале мая



Путин в России и мире






Персональные новости Russian.city
ГУАП

Финал всероссийского студенческого трека Олимпиады Кружкового движения НТО «Летающая робототехника» 2024



News Every Day

Top 5 Websites to Watch FREE Movies - TV Shows (No Sign up!)




Friends of Today24

Музыкальные новости

Персональные новости