Salem Radio Network News Thursday, December 8, 2022

Politics

U.S. Supreme Court opens new term with a fresh face and environmental case

By Andrew Chung and Nate Raymond

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court opened what promises to be an eventful new term on Monday, hearing arguments in an environmental dispute, taking up some new cases to be decided over the next nine months and welcoming a history-making justice to the bench.

The court’s 6-3 conservative majority has become increasingly assertive, as evidenced by its rulings last term overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide and expanding gun rights.

President Joe Biden’s appointee Ketanji Brown Jackson – the first Black woman justice – joined its liberal bloc after being confirmed by the Senate in April to replace now-retired Justice Stephen Breyer.

Jackson, who heard arguments as a justice for the first time on Monday, became the sixth woman ever to serve on the court. For the first time, four women serve on the court together – Jackson, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

It is on the first Monday in October annually that the court gets back to work hearing cases. Before hearing its first arguments, it announced a series of new cases to hear during the term and turned away other appeals.

The court agreed to hear a challenge to federal protections for internet and social media companies freeing them of responsibility for content posted by users in a case involving an American student fatally shot in a 2015 rampage by Islamist militants in Paris.

It also agreed to hear Turkish state-owned lender Halkbank’s bid to avoid criminal charges of money laundering, bank fraud and conspiracy for allegedly helping Iran evade economic sanctions in a case that has strained American relations with NATO ally Turkey.

The justices declined to hear a challenge to a federal ban on devices called “bump stocks” that enable semi-automatic weapons to fire like a machine gun – a firearms control measure prompted by a 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting.

They turned away a Ukrainian government bid to avoid paying a $173 million judgment to Russian oil and gas company Tatneft as ordered by a Paris-based arbitration panel.

The court also rebuffed a Republican former congressman’s challenge to a map charting Pennsylvania’s U.S. House of Representatives districts that the state’s highest court adopted in place of one drawn up by Republican lawmakers.

They justices declined to hear a challenge by Missouri and nine other states – mostly Republican-led – to Biden’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for workers in healthcare facilities that receive federal funds.

Mike Lindell, a prominent ally of former President Donald Trump, must face a $1.3 billion lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems Inc accusing him of defamation for pushing false claims that its voting machines rigged the 2020 presidential election, with the justices turning away his appeal.

The court heard arguments in a case that could limit the scope of a landmark federal environmental law – the Clean Water Act of 1972 – as they consider for a second time a married Idaho couple’s bid to build on property that the U.S. government has deemed a protected wetland.

Chantell and Mike Sackett, who planned to build a home on their property in Priest Lake, Idaho, are appealing a lower court’s ruling favoring the government. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2007 determined that the property was part of a wetland and that the Sacketts were required to obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act before beginning construction, which they had failed to do.

There has been litigation and political debates over how much of a connection with a waterway a property must have in order to require such a permit. A 2006 Supreme Court ruling led to further uncertainty. The new case gives the conservative majority an opportunity to embrace an approach favored by business groups, with a ruling due by the end of June.

On the term’s second day on Tuesday, the justices are set to hear arguments in an Alabama case that threatens to cripple the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung and Nate Raymond; Editing by Will Dunham)

Previous
Next

Editorial Cartoons

View More »

Gary Varvel
Fri, Dec 2, 2022

X CLOSE