Note from Elie: The Supreme Court: Conservative Outcomes, Activist Means 10:15

There's nothing worse than getting home from your trip only to find out you missed a can't-miss travel experience. That's why you need Viator. Book guided tours, excursions, and more in one place to make your trip truly unregrettable. There are over 300,000 travel experiences to choose from so you can find something for everyone. And Viator offers free cancellation and 24-7 customer service. So you always have support around the clock.

Download the Viator app now to use code VIATOR10 for 10% off your first booking in the app. Regret less. Do more with Viator.

Hey everyone, Ellie here wishing you a very happy summer Friday. The legal news just never ends, but every once in a while I do start to notice a little bit of what I consider a trend. And I'm seeing one in some recent court decisions that we've seen handed down by the Supreme Court and other federal courts that I thought was worth commenting on here. So check it out. Thanks for listening as always. And thanks for your thoughts, questions, and comments. Please keep sending them in to letters at cafe.com.

Not all capital C conservative jurists are actually lowercase c conservative on the bench.

Now, this discordant capitalization is, of course, intentional. I'm going to use the capital C, conservative, here to refer to ideological orientation. Small government, lower taxes, strong national defense, and the rest. Of course, traditional notions of political conservatism have been subjugated momentarily by whatever Donald Trump says. Witness, for example, the one-time party of law and order as it lashes out against law enforcement and calls for pardons of January 6th rioters.

hardly conservative bedrocks. And herein, we'll use the lowercase conservative in the judicial sense. Careful selection of cases, insistence on compliance with procedural formalities, disposition on the narrowest possible grounds, minimalistic intrusion into other branches of government and the private affairs of the citizenry.

During its recent annual midsummer publishing of All the Big Decisions, the Supreme Court threw out the Biden administration's student debt relief program, ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions, and allowed a Colorado wedding website designer to discriminate against LGBTQ couples in the name of free speech. These are, capital C, conservative ideological outcomes that

But the court used decidedly non-conservative means to get there. The court also, by the way, reached liberal policy outcomes in high-stakes voting rights cases with cross-ideological majorities.

Now, let me make clear before we proceed that my central point here is not to comment on the merits of the court's recent rulings. If I had to, I agree with the student debt outcome. I'm torn on affirmative action. I object to the LGBTQ discrimination decision, and I agree with the voting rights rulings. What I'm addressing here is judicial methodology.

And on that note, the court has strayed from core tenets of judicial conservatism first by blowing out standing, the fundamental notion that a party must have an actual legally cognizable stake in a dispute before a court can take the case and rule on it.

Standing ordinarily serves as a limiting principle, a gatekeeper, preventing parties without a dog in the fight from presenting what-ifs to the courts and seeking forward-looking advisory opinions. Going back centuries, our courts have proudly declared that they are not to be bothered with mere thought experiments because they only take on real cases or controversies.

But in the Colorado website design case, the court ruled on a hypothetical. What if this web designer who objects to gay marriage might someday refuse to create a website for a gay couple? And then what if that couple sued the designer? The court breezed right past this glaring procedural deficiency. Nobody had actually sued or been sued or suffered any harm by reasoning that, well, it's probably going to happen at some point down the line.

Herein lies the problem. You've heard the aphorism, bad facts make bad law, and it's less utilized converse about good facts and good law. The point both ways is that the details around an actual lawsuit can influence or dictate outcomes. Let's take that Colorado case, for example.

Exactly what speech did the web designer refuse to engage in? Who exactly is the victim? Who was denied services and how and why? What if the designer was willing to do the work but charged extra to gay couples? What if nobody ever actually objected or sued the designer at all? Might those facts have had some influence on the ultimate ruling? And by the way, the court similarly adopted a broad view of standing to take on the student debt relief case, even though the plaintiff, several Republican-led states,

suffered only attenuated secondhand financial losses. Now, a truly conservative lowercase c court would have rejected the Colorado case for sure and maybe the student debt case. We don't do theoretical discussions around here. Come back to us when your case is actually a case.

While the court has fudged standing requirements to help itself to a wider range of cases, it also has ruled with diminished regard for established precedent. Every Supreme Court nominee now goes through the same familiar dance during his or her Senate confirmation hearings. Question from the senator. Do you believe in upholding precedent? Answer, yes.

Question, do you also believe that at times precedent must be reversed? Answer, of course, at times. Question, so when is it appropriate for the court to reverse precedent? Answer, vaguely legalistic mishmash, including made up phrases like super precedent that really boils down to whenever five or more of us feel like it.

Over the past year, we've seen the Supreme Court deliver two seismic reversals of precedent. The court rescinded the constitutional right to abortion in the 2022 Dobbs decision, and now it's ended affirmative action in college admissions. Both had stood for around half a century, and both had been reaffirmed by the court since they arrived. I'm not saying it's always wrong to reverse precedent. Sometimes it's absolutely necessary. See, for example, Brown v. Board of Education.

But the court remains rudderless as to when it will abandon established precedent and why. Now, a lowercase c conservative approach would call for reversal of longstanding, deeply entrenched holdings only in the most rare and extreme scenarios or only when some specific circumstance has demonstrably changed. Instead, the current court has given us two whoppers in the past year, both justified essentially with the time has come.

Beyond the Supreme Court, we saw a remarkable decision from a federal district court judge in Louisiana. Chief Judge Terry Doughty, who modestly quotes and implicitly compares himself to Voltaire, Orwell, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, found that recent presidential administrations, including both Trump and Biden, but almost entirely Biden, had, quote, coerced.

and quote, colluded with social media giants to regulate content relating to COVID, the 2020 election, Hunter Biden, and other politically sensitive topics.

The judge issued a sweeping nationwide preliminary injunction that prohibits essentially the entire federal executive branch from communicating with any major social media companies about, well, something. The judge purports to delimit his ruling with the unhelpful and circular non-clarification that it applies only to, quote, protected free speech.

No kidding, Your Honor. But not to certain speech relating to national security and the like. Yet Judge Dowdy offers no reliable way to determine what does or does not qualify under either heading, nor does he offer any guidance as to who

My problem with this ruling is not necessarily on the merits, though it's a little tough to discern exactly what the merits are given the breadth of the decision. The judge cites some compelling examples of the Biden administration using heavy-handed methods to try to influence the content of online postings. The decision also provides examples where the social media companies did whatever they wanted, even if contrary to the administration's wishes, freely and without consequence, as it should be.

My objection is that the ruling purports to micromanage on a forward-rolling basis all communications between a massive swath of our government and essentially the entire internet. Who on earth is going to clarify this ruling or monitor it or enforce it?

Anytime a mid-level supervisor at, say, the CDC wants to make the case to Twitter that some post contains disinformation, do the parties have to run it by the judge in Louisiana first? If a deputy secretary at DHS spots a Facebook post that might promote extremist violence, does she need to call into chambers and run it by Judge Dowdy before she takes action?

Or must any such communications, dozens or hundreds per day potentially, go to the judge for some kind of after-action review? Shall we set up a brand new administrative body and interpose it between the federal government and all of social media? The judge provides the parties with an indecipherable standard and no practical plan on how to make it work.

Note also that the social media companies themselves, the supposed victims here, didn't bring this case. Two Republican state AGs did, including the AG from Louisiana, and that was good enough for the court. Take whichever side of the merits debate you prefer here. But this is not a judicially conservative ruling.

Maybe this is mostly a problem of nomenclature. Capital C conservatism and lower C conservatism are the same word, but they don't mean the same thing, and they no longer go hand in hand. To the contrary, some of our most powerful conservative jurists have recently taken on a decidedly activist bent. Thanks for listening, everyone. Stay safe and stay informed.

On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Watch Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll, and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet, and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app to watch live. Learn more at globalcitizen.org.