“Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next,” wrote Justice Bryer in dissent
By Andrea Germanos, staff writer for Common Dreams. Published 5-13-2019
“Hard not to read this as a veiled warning about Roe v. Wade,” tweeted law professor Nicholas Bagley of the new ruling. (Photo: Phil Roeder/Flickr/cc)
The U.S. Supreme Court’s liberal justices sounded alarm on Monday after the court issued a ruling overturning a four decades-old precedent.
“Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next,” Justice Bryer wrote in his dissent (pdf), in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
Some observers expressed fear one of the those cases could be Roe v. Wade.
The Supreme Court just overturned a 40-year-old precedent. Justice Breyer’s warning is clear: other precedents could be next. #CourtsMatter https://t.co/oIwnZXbikX
— Planned Parenthood Action (@PPact) May 13, 2019
English translation of Justice Breyer’s dissent today in Hyatt: “Roe v. Wade is doomed.” #SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/T2VoeYntRY
— Jeffrey Toobin (@JeffreyToobin) May 13, 2019
From Justice Breyer’s dissent in Franchise Tax Board. Hard not to read this as a veiled warning about Roe v. Wade. https://t.co/Sgt7CxA9sm pic.twitter.com/rdVbPTTkrt
— Nicholas Bagley (@nicholas_bagley) May 13, 2019
The new decision is in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which centers on the issue of “sovereign immunity.”
Per The Hill:
In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s conservative justices found that a state cannot be sued by a private party in another state court system without that state’s consent. The ruling overturns a previous 1979 decision that found the Constitution does not shield the states from private lawsuits in other states.
Civil rights lawyer Sasha Samberg-Champion broke down the ruling in a Twitter thread, and offered his thoughts on what it may say about the conservative court’s approach to what is called “stare decisis”:
This is exactly right. https://t.co/jHIXKx3DRg
— Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
This is the entirety of the majority’s reasoning as to why it is appropriate to overturn a decades-old precedent. Consider how much of this reasoning would apply to, say, the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. pic.twitter.com/LsySFALFUw
— Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
There _should_ be high bar for the Court to disregard stare decisis — something more than “we think our precedent was wrongly decided” — or else stare decisis is meaningless. The cavalier way the Court approached that analysis here suggests that stare decisis won’t matter much.
— Sasha Samberg-Champion (@ssamcham) May 13, 2019
“No significant change in factual circumstances or evidence of unworkability warranted the Court’s unusual decision to disturb this long-standing precedent,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, in a statement.
“Right now,” she said, “we are witnessing coordinated attacks on Roe v. Wade, affirmative action, and more across the country. The forces driving these cases are banking on a Supreme Court majority that will be willing to reopen guiding precedent and remake the law.”
“This action by the Supreme Court sends a dangerous message that its precedents are fair game and that prior rulings may not be adhered to,” added Clarke. “This action also suggests that it’s open season when it comes to precedents that have long safeguarded civil rights and reproductive freedom in our country.”
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
