New York Times
By Adam Liptak
February 14, 2016
Justice
Antonin Scalia’s death will complicate the work of the Supreme Court’s
eight remaining justices for the rest of the court’s term, probably
change the outcomes
of some major cases and, for the most part, amplify the power of its
four-member liberal wing.
It
takes five votes to accomplish most things at the Supreme Court, and
until Saturday, that meant Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was in control
when the court’s four-member
liberal and conservative blocs lined up against each other. But with
three remaining conservatives, only the liberal side can command a
majority if it attracts Justice Kennedy’s vote. And if it does not, the
result is a 4-to-4 deadlock.
If
that happens, the court can automatically affirm the decision under
review without giving reasons and without setting a Supreme Court
precedent. Or it can set the case
down for re-argument in the term that starts in October in the hope
that it will be decided by a full court.
“It
has been an extraordinarily long time since the Supreme Court has been
forced to deal with a departure that occurs in the middle of the term,
as the court does here
with Justice Scalia’s death,” said Justin Driver, a law professor at
the University of Chicago. “This event almost certainly throws many
cases that had been tentatively decided by 5-4 margins into grave doubt,
and will likely require the justices to reassess
many opinions.”
Closely
divided cases are the exception rather than the rule at the Supreme
Court, and Justice Scalia’s death will not affect ones decided
unanimously or by lopsided margins.
The majority opinions he had been drafting will be reassigned to other
justices.
But
six big cases are on the court’s docket this term — on abortion,
contraception, unions, voting rights, affirmative action and immigration
— and Justice Scalia’s death
may affect all of them.
The
clearest impact is likely to be in Friedrichs v. California Teachers
Association, No. 14-915, on the power of public unions. When the case
was argued in January, it
seemed clear that the court was headed toward a closely divided
decision in which the conservative majority would rule that workers who
chose not to join public unions could not be made to pay for the union’s
collective bargaining work.
The
likely outcome now is a 4-to-4 split that would leave in place a
decision from the federal appeals court in California upholding the
mandatory payments. That would
be a major victory for the liberal justices and public unions.
A
similar dynamic may be in play in Evenwel v. Abbott, No. 14-940, an
important voting rights case. It concerns the meaning of “one person,
one vote,” asking who must
be counted in creating voting districts: all residents or just eligible
voters?
The
difference matters because people who are not eligible to vote —
children, immigrants here legally who are not citizens, unauthorized
immigrants, people disenfranchised
for committing felonies, prisoners — are not spread evenly across the
country. Except for prisoners, they tend to be concentrated in urban
areas, amplifying the voting power of Democrats.
A
ruling requiring or allowing the counting of only eligible voters now
seems less likely, and a 4-to-4 split would leave in place an appeals
court decision upholding
Texas’ practice of counting everybody.
“They
can return to the issue later,” David A. Strauss, a law professor at
the University of Chicago, said of the justices. “It’s been unsettled
for 60 years, so it can
wait.”
While re-arguments are not uncommon, they generally involve a full court that wants to take another look at an issue.
Some
of the most important cases in history, including Brown v. Board of
Education in 1954, Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission in 2010,
were decided after re-arguments. Under Chief Justice John G. Roberts
Jr., the court had two cases re-argued after Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.
replaced Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006, apparently to resolve
deadlocks. In at least one of them, Hudson v.
Michigan, the result seemed to change.
But
the court is unlikely to tip its hand until the end of June. Its
criteria for deciding between affirmances and re-arguments are opaque,
and they may be influenced
by an assessment of how soon a replacement for Justice Scalia could be
confirmed.
In
the major abortion case the court will hear next month, Justice
Scalia’s absence may have no consequence. Abortion rights groups already
had reason to think, based
on an earlier vote on a stay application in the case, that there are
five votes to strike down some of the law’s restrictions.
A
4-to-4 split in the case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, No.
15-274, would be a loss for those groups, as the restrictions in Texas
would then go into place. But
Justice Scalia’s death seems to make a more restrictive revision of the
constitutional standards nationwide quite unlikely, as the court’s four
liberals would not go along.
Things
are trickier in a challenge to regulations under the Affordable Care
Act requiring some employers to provide contraception coverage to female
workers or to sign
a form opting out. The lower courts are divided on whether those
options violate a federal law protecting religious liberty, and the
Supreme Court agreed to hear seven separate petitions in the case, Zubik
v. Burwell, No. 14-1418. It is scheduled to be argued
next month.
A
voting rights rally in Winston-Salem, N.C., in July. An important
voting rights case before the court also will be affected by Justice
Antonin Scalia’s death. Credit
Travis Dove for The New York Times
“Affirming
by an evenly divided court will leave the circuit split,” said Erwin
Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California,
Irvine. “I think
that may cause pressure to see if there is a way for them to come up
with a majority or, if not, to put the cases over for re-argument.”
Another
tricky case is Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No. 14-981, a
challenge to the university’s race-conscious admissions plan. When the
case was argued in
December, only eight justices were present, as Justice Elena Kagan had
recused herself based on her work on the case as United States solicitor
general. Now, only seven justices can vote in the case.
“To
do something momentous by a 4-3 vote seems really unlikely,” Professor
Strauss said. But the case restores Justice Kennedy to the court’s
center, with blocs of three
justices on either side, and a loss for the university on narrow
grounds remains a possibility.
Fisher, then, is the sole case in which Justice Scalia’s death eliminated rather than created the possibility of a tie.
Perhaps
the most closely watched case is a challenge from Texas and other
states to President Obama’s plan to defer the deportations of more than
four million unauthorized
immigrants, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674. Here, an equally
divided court would represent a big loss for the administration, as the
decision under review affirmed a nationwide injunction blocking the
plan.
On
the other hand, it is possible that Chief Justice Roberts, Justice
Kennedy or both may join the liberals in rejecting the challenge,
perhaps on the ground that Texas
lacks the direct and concrete injury that gives it standing to sue.
Gaming
out the possible consequences of Justice Scalia’s death so soon may
seem unseemly. The court will certainly take time to adjust to the
absence of its longest-serving
member.
“Justice
Scalia’s sad and untimely death will cast a pall over the entire term
and a shadow over the court as a whole at least until a successor is
nominated and confirmed,”
said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard.
But
Justice Scalia’s death is also a vivid reminder of the vast
consequences that follow from a single change in the court’s makeup, and
of how much timing can matter.
On Tuesday evening, for instance, the Supreme Court’s five-member
conservative majority blocked Mr. Obama’s ambitious effort to combat
climate change. Had the justices waited until their next regular
conference, this Friday, to vote on the request for a stay,
the regulation would have remained in place.
“No
less than the viability of the historic climate change agreement
reached in Paris may well be in peril,” said Richard J. Lazarus, a law
professor at Harvard. “And
without Justice Scalia’s vote, that stay would have been denied.”
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment