The legal team of People For the
American Way Foundation, PFAW’s affiliate foundation, publishes an
end-of-term wrap-up at the close of every Supreme Court term and
previews every new term with a report highlighting the issues that will
arise in the coming year.
Here are PFAWF’s most recent
reports, which you can download in Acrobat PDF form. (Don’t have
Acrobat? Download it for free by clicking here.)
A conversation on the future of the Supreme Court under an Obama presidency with panelists Julius Chambers, Dahlia Lithwick, John Payton, and Jamin Raskin
In the 2008-2009 term, the Court is already set to consider a number of important cases involving voting rights, employment discrimination, free speech, and access to justice. It will also hear a case involving federal preemption of injured consumers' state law claims against the manufacturers of inadequately labeled prescription drugs.
People For the American Way Foundation has documented in a series of reports the damage that Bush nominated judges have done to the Constitution — and to Americans' ability to seek and expect justice in the federal courts when challenging unlawful treatment by corporations, government agencies, and other powerful entities. This report looks at a selection of cases with an eye to the human cost of a federal judiciary dominated by an ideology that is all too willing to sacrifice individual rights and legal protections.
The Supreme Court’s 2007-08 term was the third with Chief
Justice John Roberts at the helm. Although not marked by as many 5-4
rulings as was the prior term of the Roberts Court, this past session
left no doubt that the Court remains "sharply divided
ideologically on some of the most fundamental constitutional
questions."
President Bush's final State of the Union address will in part be an effort to shape the public view of his presidency. But here's something he won't say: a long-lasting part of his legacy will be the weakening of Americans' rights and legal protections due to the dangerous state of the federal judiciary created by judges he has placed on the federal bench.
The Supreme Court moved sharply to the right in the 2006-2007 term, the
first full term in which the Court’s newest justices — Chief
Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — served together on
the bench. In fact, the term gave truth to the many predictions
made when Roberts and Alito were nominated about the direction in which
they would move the Court if confirmed, including weakening legal
protections for Americans and limiting their ability to seek justice in
the courts.
The 2005-06 term was clearly a period of transition for the Supreme Court, as Chief Justice Roberts replaced Chief Justice Rehnquist, and two justices in a sense replaced Justice O'Connor — Justice Alito took her seat on the Court while Justice Kennedy replaced her as the "swing" vote in a number of closely divided cases.
This carefully researched report documents what it would mean to
Americans if the coming vacancies on the Court are filled with people
who share the radical right’s dangerous approach to the law and
the Constitution. The short answer is that a Court with more justices
who share the radical legal philosophy of the far right’s
favorites — Scalia and Thomas — would reverse decades of
legal and social justice accomplishments by turning back the clock on
civil rights, privacy and reproductive choice, environmental protection,
separation of church and state, worker and consumer rights, and more.
The Supreme Court decided a number of important cases concerning
civil rights and civil liberties in its 2004-2005 term. Overall, the
Court protected key civil rights and liberties, and disappointed those
seeking to expand property rights and limit Congress’ power
— often by narrow margins — though some narrow decisions
regarding access to justice and immigrant rights were disappointing.
The Supreme Court’s 2003-04 Term saw a number of crucial
decisions that protected key civil liberties and civil rights
principles. Crossing some of the usual ideological lines on the Court,
eight justices rejected the Bush administration’s claim that it
can indefinitely detain U.S. citizens incommunicado as "enemy
combatants" without any due process rights.
President George W. Bush has often stated that he is looking for judges who will interpret the law, not make it. But a new report by People For the American Way Foundation shows that many of the President's nominees that have already been confirmed to lifetime seats on the federal judiciary are trying to do just that.
The Supreme Court’s 2002-2003 Term underlined the importance of
future nominations to the Court. The justices remain narrowly divided on
a number of key issues concerning civil and constitutional rights, and
came within one or two votes of adopting extreme positions advanced by
Justices Thomas and Scalia in several important cases.
The Supreme Court’s 2001-2002 Term was a troubling one for
civil rights and civil liberties. In cases concerning school vouchers
and church-state separation, the rights of disabled Americans,
"federalism" and states’ rights, and the privacy
rights of students, the Court significantly restricted civil and
constitutional rights and federal authority.
At the close of its 2000-01 term, the Supreme Court remains narrowly
divided on a number of issues that are extremely important to the rights
of all Americans. Out of 87 decisions by the Court this term, more than
33% (30) were decided by 5-4 or 6-3 margins.
The United States Supreme Court is just one or two new Justices away
from curtailing or abolishing fundamental rights that millions of
Americans take for granted. A Court with two or three more right-wing
Justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would reverse
decades of Supreme Court precedents in civil rights, reproductive
rights, privacy, separation of church and state, worker and consumer
rights, environmental protection, campaign finance reform and more.
Facebook
Change.org
MySpace
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr