MEMO: The Supreme Court Term, Civil Rights & Our Democracy
MEMO: The Supreme Court Term, Civil Rights & Our Democracy
To: Interested Persons
From: The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
Re: Upcoming Supreme Court decisions
This term, several of the cases before the nation’s highest court could further dismantle our multiracial democracy and disrupt how our government functions. Sadly, some of these cases were brought by extremist, anti-civil rights forces who are trying to prevent us from reaching the full promise of our nation’s ideals.
Already, in its decision last week in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Court made it more difficult to challenge unconstitutional racial gerrymandering — dealing a tremendous blow to the ability of communities of color to elect candidates of their choice. And it was authored by a Supreme Court justice who, according to recent reporting, has flown multiple anti-democratic flags outside his homes — flags that were flown during an insurrection that was rooted in white supremacy and represented a backlash to increased political participation by communities of color.
As this Supreme Court term makes clear, we are living in an era of relentless threats to our democracy and our fundamental rights. Still, a majority of people in America believe in a vision of our nation that protects civil rights, embraces differences, and understands that a thriving multiracial democracy is the only path forward.
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights is monitoring the following pending cases because of their potential to further harm our communities and diminish our democracy:
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce
At their core, these cases are a challenge to one of the most important principles of administrative law — known as the “Chevron Doctrine” — and could have drastic implications for the government’s ability to deliver on civil rights for the American people and for our democracy as a whole. If the Court either restricts or overturns the Chevron Doctrine, it will upend nearly 40 years of administrative law and could throw into question thousands of regulations affecting civil rights, the environment, food safety, airline safety, consumer protection, health care, education, and many other aspects of life. Overturning Chevron wouldn’t immediately take away any rights, but it would sow doubt and confusion and make it much harder to fight discrimination.
Murthy v. Missouri
This case addresses the ability of the government to collaborate with social media platforms to stop harmful disinformation. The spread of election disinformation is not a partisan issue nor an issue of free speech. It’s an underlying threat to the fabric of our democracy and civil rights. Ahead of a consequential election in November, it’s essential that the government is empowered to work with these companies — who have already weakened their trust and safety teams — so that they have the support and ability to curb election disinformation. If the Court upholds an earlier ruling from the 5th Circuit, voters could not count on access to reliable and accurate information about the election, and the spread of voting disinformation and hate speech online could stoke fear and distrust in our election infrastructure and sow hate against communities of color and other historically marginalized communities.
- Read the amicus brief we joined here.
FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
The plaintiffs in this case asked the Court to uphold lower courts’ rulings ordering the FDA to impose burdensome and medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone — one of two medications most commonly used in medication abortion in the United States — which was approved more than 20 years ago and has been used by more than 5 million people to safely and effectively end a pregnancy. The plaintiffs were emboldened by the Dobbs ruling and have asked the Court to further curtail reproductive rights. A ruling against the FDA would exacerbate the current reproductive health care crisis by making it substantially more difficult, or even impossible, for people to access medication abortion. And the implications would go beyond access to medication abortion — it would threaten the FDA’s authority over the medication approval process more broadly and could have far-reaching consequences for patients’ access to other FDA-approved medications.
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson
This is the most important case in decades addressing the rights of people experiencing homelessness. The Supreme Court will decide whether the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” protects people who are facing homelessness from being punished under laws that prohibit camping in public areas. If the Court rules in favor of the city of Grants Pass, we are deeply concerned that other cities will ramp up their laws to punish people who sleep outside because they have nowhere else to go. In the absence of an adequate supply of affordable homes, a ruling in favor of the city would ultimately increase homelessness, not reduce it.
Idaho v. United States
This case will decide whether Idaho’s state abortion ban trumps the longstanding requirements of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) and whether states can force doctors to turn away patients suffering from emergency pregnancy complications. EMTALA is a longstanding federal law that requires hospitals to treat patients experiencing an emergency medical condition with stabilizing care. The case has nationwide implications for a patient’s right to receive emergency abortion care and could lead to pregnant people being excluded from the right to treatment for emergency medical conditions under EMTALA. It is part of the agenda of anti-abortion extremists to make it easier to ban emergency abortion care nationwide.
Recently, the Court decided Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Inc., rejecting a challenge to the CFPB’s funding structure and allowing the agency to continue its vital work protecting consumers.
While we’re grateful that the Court maintained the status quo in this case, the civil rights community has not forgotten this Court’s recent reversal of abortion rights, the weakening of affirmative action in higher education, the devastating gutting of the Voting Rights Act and last week’s gerrymandering decision, and other cruel decisions undermining civil and human rights. We urge the Court this term to do the right thing by protecting civil rights and the multiracial democracy that we the majority deserve.
If you have any questions or if you’d like to speak with one of our experts, please contact Patrick McNeil at [email protected].