Conservative Victories at the Supreme Court
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- The 2021-2022 Supreme Court term featured a number of cases that are significant victories for the legal doctrine of originalism.
- Conservative victories this term were possible because of the three justices nominated by President Trump and confirmed by Senate Republicans.
- Conservatives justices ruled to strengthen religious liberty, protect the Second Amendment, reduce the authority of unelected bureaucrats, and return power to the people through their elected representatives.
The 2021-2022 Supreme Court term was historic. It was the first full term with the six-justice conservative majority made possible by Senate Republicans confirming Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Of the court’s cases this term, 74% had a conservative ruling, making it the most conservative Supreme Court in nearly a century. In addition to its ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which has received the bulk of the media’s focus, the court embraced the doctrine of originalism and its role of defending the Constitution in several other significant cases.
“The term was a triumph for the theory of constitutional interpretation known as originalism” – New York Times, July 1, 2022
Conservative justices ruled to strengthen religious liberty protections, protect the Second Amendment rights of people to defend themselves outside of their homes, reduce the power of unelected bureaucrats, and return power to the people through their elected representatives.
“The Court not only resisted further mischief, it repeatedly stood up for the Constitution and the rule of written law to the point of rolling back ground seized by the anti-constitutionalists.” – National Review, July 1, 2022
restoring representative democracy
“The Congress shall have power… to make all Laws” – U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8
West Virginia v. EPA
In 2015, at the height of the “pen and phone” era of the Obama administration, the Environmental Protection Agency attempted to implement aggressive, expensive rules and requirements targeting carbon emissions at power plants. The rules would have gutted the coal industry and damaged the U.S. economy. The EPA claimed its authority to issue such sweeping rules was based on vague provisions in the 1970 Clean Air Act.
The court, in a significant victory for representative democracy, held that for a federal agency to issue a rule with “vast economic or political significance,” it must have clear, unambiguous direction from Congress to take the specific action. While the court did not directly overrule the Chevron doctrine, which gives broad deference to agency interpretations of unclear statutes, vague statues passed decades ago are no longer going to cut it. In the future, Congress will need to be much more explicit in writing statutes and delegating authority to agencies.
“On EPA’s view … Congress implicitly tasked it, and it alone, with balancing the many vital considerations of national policy implicated in the basic regulation of how Americans get their energy. There is little reason to think Congress did so.” – Chief Justice John Roberts
The court also ruled that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had no authority to issue sweeping, nationwide eviction moratoriums, and that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration had no authority to issue, in the name of workplace safety, unprecedented vaccine mandates that would have affected 84 million workers and virtually every business in America with more than 100 employees.
In each of these cases the court upheld the Constitution and recognized the fundamental role the people and their elected representatives play in the American system. The cases are victories for government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
strengthening religious liberty
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
When Joseph Kennedy began his tenure as a football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington, he began a personal practice of quietly praying at the 50 yard line after games ended. He also continued the school tradition of pregame prayers in the locker room. The Bremerton School District sent Mr. Kennedy a letter forbidding him from engaging in “any overt actions” that would seem as if the district was “endorsing prayer.” Mr. Kennedy complied, halting the practice of the pregame prayer in the locker room and opting to continue his silent prayer after the game, a time when all attendees and players were free to do as they pleased.
The school district fired Mr. Kennedy for his postgame prayers, and he filed suit claiming the district violated both the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment. In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court held that Mr. Kennedy’s postgame prayers were protected speech under the First Amendment as they were not tied to his responsibilities as a public employee.
“Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic. Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a personal religious observance, based on a mistaken view that it has a duty to suppress religious observances even as it allows comparable secular speech. The Constitution neither mandates nor tolerates that kind of discrimination.” – Justice Neil Gorsuch
Carson v. Makin
The state of Maine established a tuition-assistance program for areas that lack public schools to ensure all children can receive the education they need. In order to apply the tuition benefit to a private school, the school had to be approved, meaning it had to meet the state’s accreditation standards and a requirement that the school be “nonsectarian.” Three families were denied tuition assistance on the grounds that the private schools they chose failed to meet the “nonsectarian” requirement because the schools were religiously affiliated.
The families filed suit claiming the state’s requirement violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. In a 6-3 opinion, the court held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement violated the Free Exercise Clause.
“Maine’s program cannot survive strict scrutiny. A neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” – Chief Justice John Roberts
In both of these cases, as well as a case where it allowed a religious flag to be flown on public property, the court upheld religious speech in the same manner it has upheld secular speech. All of the cases are consequential victories for the First Amendment right all Americans have to practice their religion free from government interference.
protecting second amendment rights
New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen
In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment gives people the individual right to own guns for self-defense in the home. This term, the court ruled in a case called New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen that people also have a Second Amendment right to carry guns for self-defense outside the home.
The state of New York had required people to show “proper cause” in order to receive the license needed to carry a firearm in public. Two New York residents who applied for a permit to carry firearms were denied because they could not show “special or unique dangers” to their lives. They filed suit against the state, claiming the “proper cause” requirement violated their Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
The court, in a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Thomas, held the New York statute violated the Constitution by “preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.” New York and other states with similar statutes will be forced to respect the Second Amendment rights of their citizens to keep and bear arms. They will no longer be able to treat a fundamental right as some sort of special privilege available only to a select few who they deem worthy.
“The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different.” – Justice Clarence Thomas
Throughout the term, the court embraced its role as protector of the constitutional order in a way it hadn’t in years. The court preserved fundamental First and Second Amendment rights, issued major cases reducing the power of regulators and bureaucrats, and restored power to the American people by declaring that elected representatives are the correct people to write our laws. It was a historic term, and the justices confirmed by Senate Republicans were critical to its success.
Next Article Previous Article