PORTERVILLE — The suspect who killed a Tulare County Sheriff’s deputy Thursday after TCSO tried to issue an eviction notice at a residence was killed himself when he was run over by a Kern County SWAT BearCat vehicle.Read more

Bakersfield attorney Daniel Rodriguez filed a precursor to a lawsuit Thursday in the case of Maria Vasquez, 88, of Shafter, who died of injuries she suffered March 22, when the car she was riding in was involved in a collision…Read more

Panelists at an energy conference Thursday at Cal State Bakersfield examined potential trade-offs if Kern County moves forward with development of data centers that, for all their tax revenue generation, could strain local water resources and drive up energy costs…Read more

Small groups of Bakersfield residents have gathered over the last two days to protest the ongoing war with Iran, calling on Kern County’s congressional representatives to oppose funding and military operations.Read more

The Supreme Court justice memoir, so lucrative for its authors, tends to be a less than illuminating genre. Justice Neil Gorsuch’s A Republic, If You Can Keep It reiterated the case for originalism and attempted to illustrate why he was a worthy successor to Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s Listening to the Law recited high school civics lessons. And in Lovely One, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson described her family history and life in detail. The promise of a justice telling his or her life story is that it will help us further understand the jurisprudence of the person who is shaping the path of the law. But, truth be told, each of these books does little more than buff the public image of the judge presented at their hearings.      Hence, the pleasant surprises in reading Justice Anthony Kennedy’s memoir, Life, Law & Liberty, published last fall and promoted by Kennedy in an interview this year. Unlike so many other judicial memoirs, the retired justice provides a revealing portrait of the person who wore the robe. Just as surprising is the revelation that Kennedy loves literature – which, in his words, not only “document[s] human experience but also” seeks “to edify it” – and gracefully incorporates literary references throughout the text. On the first page of the prologue, as Kennedy explains that his “view of the world was defined by the West,” he quotes from Willa Cather’s O Pioneers! to support his belief that the land shapes the people as much as people shape the land. Similarly, a Wallace Stegner quotation at the start of part one suggests the source of Kennedy’s inveterate, old-fashioned optimism: “One cannot be pessimistic about the West,” Stegner wrote. “This is the native home of hope.”  In describing Sacramento, where he grew up, Kennedy cites to authors as diverse as Mark Twain, Langston Hughes, and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o on the importance of rivers in defining a place. Kennedy observes that the city is at the confluence of the American River “coming down from the Sierra Nevada mountain range” and the Sacramento River, to which the American pours in and flows south and west to San Francisco Bay. His description flows effortlessly.      Kennedy left Sacramento to attend Stanford and Harvard Law School then began to practice law at a San Francisco law firm. In 1963, while he was an associate at that firm, his father died of a heart attack at the age of 61. Shortly thereafter, Kennedy and his wife, Mary, returned to Sacramento so that he could take over his father’s law practice. In his chapter on that period, Kennedy refers to James Gould Cozzens’ The Just and the Unjust – a perfect literary reference to illustrate what it was like to practice law in a small town, which is what Sacramento felt like for Kennedy. “Sacramento’s leading attorneys and most of the judges had known my father and our family, as well as Mary’s family,” Kennedy writes. “They went out of their way to show that they were pleased that a younger attorney with those ties could continue the traditions of Sacramento’s bar.” Kennedy was an excellent attorney but nevertheless acknowledges the assistance he received from the “old-boy network” – and recognizes that its support was not available to all but only “those who were part of it.”  *** Perhaps more surprising than Kennedy’s engagement with the world of literature, however, is how it contrasts with his writing as a justice. In his memoir, Kennedy’s writing about his life is thoughtful and self-aware, precise, and elegant – at times even minimalist. As a justice, Kennedy’s prose could be sweeping and was often criticized as grandiose and imprecise. Exhibit A is from Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, the 1992 abortion decision in which the court upheld rather than overruled Roe v. Wade. Elaborating on constitutional protection for certain personal decisions, Kennedy and fellow Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and David Souter wrote: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” While some celebrated Kennedy’s capacious understanding of liberty, others, notably Scalia, mocked it as so broad and vague as to be devoid of legal force or meaning. Adding insult to injury, Scalia tarnished the sentence by later referring to it as the “famed sweet-mystery-of-life passage.” Undaunted, Kennedy repeated these same words in Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 decision in which the court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick, and invalidated a Texas law criminalizing intimate sexual conduct between two persons of the same sex. In his majority opinion, Kennedy further added that “[f]reedom extends beyond spatial bounds” and that “[t]he instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.” Not surprisingly, Kennedy and Scalia squared off again in the same-sex marriage case, Obergefell v. Hodges, which Kennedy began with sweeping language on the “promises” of liberty and the ability of “persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity.”Scalia’s dissent was perhaps the most disparaging that he ever lodged at another justice: If . . . I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie. And although Scalia was the most acerbic critic of Kennedy’s writing, he was not alone. Adam Liptak, now chief legal affairs correspondent for the New York Times, noted in 2011 that Kennedy’s “opinions can meander.” Professor Eric Berger, who has written about judicial decision making in constitutional cases, in 2019 described Kennedy as “the most inscrutable of justices.” Professor Michael Dorf, a former law clerk for Kennedy who defended the justice’s “soaring rhetoric” in Obergefell, acknowledged that occasionally Kennedy’s judicial opinions could be “windy or even pompous.” How, then, do we reconcile the modest yet elegant prose of Life, Law, & Liberty with the oft-criticized sweeping rhetoric of his judicial opinions? The answer, I believe, follows from Kennedy’s role in each context. As a justice, Kennedy wrote law – literally, in many cases, as he so often was the author of the majority opinion. Accordingly, Kennedy penned his decisions to be authoritative, and, in doing so, he intended them to be decisive and conclusive, and, on occasion, inspiring and majestic. The rhetoric in Kennedy’s judicial opinions was informed by the values that shaped him: his optimism and patriotism and his confidence in courts and the rule of law. The voice in Justice Kennedy’s opinions was that of the law, not simply the musings of Anthony M. Kennedy of Sacramento, California. In his memoir, by contrast, Kennedy uses a very different voice to write about himself rather than for the highest court in the nation. As an author accounting for his life, Kennedy is utterly human – gracious, personally modest, and well aware that each of us is fallible. This voice is more personal and precise, and because of that more convincing.  It is, of course, ironic that the judicial rhetoric of Kennedy’s opinions could be less compelling than the personal voice of his memoir. Perhaps more ironic is Kennedy’s failure to recognize this. In the chapter on gay rights in his memoir, for example, Kennedy states that the justices “must aspire to write so that all” – not just the parties – “can understand, and we hope, be persuaded” that the court properly reached its decision. Here, Kennedy may have been inspired by Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, in which the court held that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. One of the “strengths” of Warren’s opinion, he writes, is that it was “neither intricate, nor lengthy, nor written in lofty rhetoric,” and could “be understood by those without a formal legal background.”    Indeed. Instead of attempting to invoke the majesty of the law in his judicial opinions and sounding high-flown and ornate, Kennedy could have been more persuasive as a jurist by drawing on his love of literature and writing in a way that reminded all of us that law is a human enterprise. The post Law, memoir, and the mystery of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s writing appeared first on SCOTUSblog.Read more

During oral argument in January on an Idaho law barring transgender athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports, Justice Sonia Sotomayor briefly reflected on the spotlight that comes with being involved in a Supreme Court case, noting that having your name on a brief draws attention to you not only as a litigant, but as a person. But some parties before the court have a spotlight on them well before the justices view their name on a filing. Among the petitions for review awaiting the justices’ attention this spring, there are at least four that involve well-known petitioners or “friends of the court,” including sports figures, rappers, and two of the country’s most famous magicians. Here’s an overview of those four petitions and their significance, and a brief reflection on what a public figure’s involvement can mean for a case. An NFL coach v. the NFL Can the NFL grant its own commissioner complete authority to determine if a coach’s claim against it is successful? That’s the question at the center of a petition for review in a case pitting the NFL and three of its teams against one of its most prominent Black coaches. The petition stems from a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by former Miami Dolphins head coach Brian Flores in 2022 against the NFL, Dolphins, New York Giants, and Denver Broncos. Flores alleged that his status as a Black man had played a role in the Dolphins’ decision to fire him and the Giants’ and Broncos’ decision not to hire him. The class-action lawsuit later expanded to include two other Black coaches as plaintiffs and three more NFL teams. Citing the NFL Constitution and team-specific arbitration agreements, the league and teams moved to compel arbitration, contending that Flores, who is currently the defensive coordinator for the Minnesota Vikings, and the other coaches had accepted NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s authority over employment disputes when they signed their various coaching contracts. In March 2023, a federal district judge “compelled arbitration as to the claims in which there was a specific employment contract between the respective coach and team,” but did not compel arbitration of Flores’ claims against the Broncos, Giants, Texans, and NFL. The decision cleared the way for those claims from Flores to move forward in federal court, rather than in the league’s internal arbitration process.  The NFL, Broncos, Giants, and Texans appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which affirmed Flores’ victory in August 2025. Specifically, it held that the league’s arbitration agreement was an arbitration agreement “in name only” and is therefore unenforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. The “provision fails to bear even a passing resemblance to ‘traditional arbitral practice,’” according to the 2nd Circuit’s decision. “Instead, it offends basic presumptions of our arbitration jurisprudence by submitting Flores’s statutory claims to the unilateral substantive and procedural discretion of the ‘principal executive officer’ of one of his adverse parties, the NFL.” In January, the three teams and NFL asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the case, contending that the 2nd Circuit claimed an authority to subjectively determine whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable that it doesn’t actually have. “The text and history of the Arbitration Act make clear that the Act protects not only the parties’ decision to arbitrate but also their chosen arbitration procedures, including their choice of arbitrator,” the petition said. In his response to the petition, Flores asserted that the 2nd Circuit’s decision will not, as the league and teams predicted, send shockwaves through the legal landscape by weakening the Federal Arbitration Act. “The Second Circuit’s decision is consistent with all other circuit courts in holding that an employer—whether a professional sports league, restaurant, retail store or otherwise—cannot force employees to arbitrate statutory employment discrimination claims before the employer’s own chief executive,” Flores wrote. New York Football Giants, Inc. v. Flores will be considered by the justices at their private conference on Friday, April 17. A former NBA star’s vaccine battle Utah Jazz legend John Stockton’s post-basketball life took an unexpected turn during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Hall of Famer became an outspoken critic of vaccine mandates and other public health measures, and he joined a lawsuit against Washington state officials over their push to stop the spread of what they viewed as COVID misinformation. The lawsuit, Stockton v. Brown, centers on the Washington Medical Commission’s efforts to investigate and sanction licensed physicians in the state who discourage COVID-19 vaccination and promote treatments such as ivermectin in media appearances. Specifically, Stockton, three physicians, and Children’s Health Defense, a nonprofit formerly led by HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., contend that the commission is violating free speech by preventing targeted doctors from sharing their beliefs about COVID-19 and preventing interested listeners, like Stockton, from hearing their controversial messages. In 2024, U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice dismissed the case, holding that the federal lawsuit could not proceed while the commission’s proceedings against the doctors were ongoing. Rice also held that the free speech claims were not yet “ripe” for review, because the doctors appeared to still be freely sharing their anti-vaccine views and Stockton and CHD members could still easily access those views. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed Rice’s decision in September 2025, emphasizing that Stockton and others who brought the lawsuit had not suffered a concrete injury as a result of the commission’s work. “The Plaintiffs’ theory of injury would seemingly give any listener who has an interest in a speaker’s work standing to challenge laws that purportedly restrict the speaker’s speech. We refuse to countenance such a ‘startlingly broad’ theory of injury,” the 9th Circuit wrote. In November, Stockton, the doctors, and Children’s Health Defense appealed to the Supreme Court, and their petition for review is expected to be addressed by the justices at a private conference later this month. They position their case as a complement to Chiles v. Salazar, in which the court held on March 31 that Colorado’s “conversion therapy” ban, as applied to talk therapy, regulated speech based on the speaker’s viewpoint. “Deciding this case (even if only by a grant, vacate and remand resulting from the Chiles decision), will allow the Court to cover the processional speech field,” the petition says. Hip-hop artists rally behind death row inmate As noted above, sports stars aren’t the only celebrities involved in pending Supreme Court petitions. Several hip-hop artists have joined friend-of-the-court briefs urging the justices to hear the case of James Garfield Broadnax, a death row inmate in Texas. Broadnax was convicted in 2009 for the murders of music producers Stephen Swan and Matthew Butler. During the sentencing phase of his trial, prosecutors introduced “over 40 pages of his handwritten rap lyrics” to the predominately white jury, arguing that the lyrics showed his propensity toward violence. In his petition for review, Broadnax describes the lyrics as “racially inflammatory” and inappropriately prejudicial evidence and accuses prosecutors of “exploit[ing] racial stereotypes commonly associated with rap lyrics and the Black community to transform Mr. Broadnax’s artistic expression into a death warrant.” Broadnax asks the justices to take up his case and hold that the introduction of the lyrics rendered his sentencing “fundamentally unfair.” Last month, two friend-of-the-court briefs were filed in support of Broadnax by hip-hop artists, including Travis Scott, T.I. and Killer Mike, and several music scholars. The rappers explained that, although rap is incredibly popular, it’s often misunderstood. “[R]ap music’s characteristics as a genre, divorced from context, uniquely position it to be abused by prosecutors against criminal defendants and increase the likelihood that juries will be influenced to convict or inflict harsher sentences on improper grounds,” Scott contended. In an interview about the briefs with The New York Times, Killer Mike said that violent lyrics are “an interpretation of the human spirit … not an admission of guilt.” The petition for review in Broadnax v. Texas is expected to be addressed during the justices’ private conference on Friday, April 24. Broadnax’s execution is scheduled for April 30. Star magicians on hypnosis Another death row inmate with high-profile supporters is Charles Don Flores, who was sentenced to death in Texas in 1999 after being convicted of murdering Betty Black during a robbery. Flores’ petition for review raises investigators’ use of “investigative hypnosis” with a key witness to the crime, contending that “his trial was irreparably tainted by junk science and official misconduct.” According to the petition, the “witness initially described perpetrators who looked nothing like Flores” and “failed to pick a recent picture of him out of a photo lineup.” Yet the witness later identified Flores as “the perpetrator” after being “subjected to ‘investigative hypnosis’ and,” as the petition put it, “other suggestive procedures.” The Emmy-award winning magician duo Penn & Teller have filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Flores, in which they share their experience with and beliefs about hypnosis. They note that they reject “exploitative” use of this practice, which stems from the illogical and unscientific belief “that hypnosis is a tool for traveling back in time to extract picture-perfect memories.” “Penn & Teller believe it would be a ‘failure of integrity’ not to speak up and use their skills as manipulators of perception to expose flim-flam when they see it. And they see it in the case of petitioner Charles Don Flores,” their brief says. Texas officials have not yet filed their response to Flores’ petition for review. The case will likely be addressed by the justices at a private conference in late May or June. What celebrity involvement brings As Sotomayor noted in January, the Supreme Court’s attention alone can turn someone into a public figure. But how does the involvement of someone famous affect the court’s own view of a case? Perhaps the most common assumption is that celebrity involvement in a case will benefit whichever side the celebrity supports. Then-Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson alluded to that belief in his statement on the district court ruling against Stockton and his co-plaintiffs, calling them out for attempting to capitalize on Stockton’s fame. “Adding famous names to a baseless lawsuit can’t change what it is,” Ferguson said. In the context of Supreme Court petitions, it seems clear that such involvement helps draw attention to cases that might otherwise get lost among the thousands of petitions filed with the court each term. After all, this very story was inspired by news articles and social media posts about two of these petitions. It’s less clear, however, if increased attention from the media and public increases the odds that the justices will take up a case. When assessing petitions, the justices are considering factors like whether there is a circuit split – that is, a disagreement between the federal courts of appeals on the same legal issue – and other signals of the case’s potential legal impact, not whether their cousin’s favorite Las Vegas performers have filed an amicus brief. And as Sarah Isgur noted during an episode of the Advisory Opinions podcast about Ghislaine Maxwell, a bright spotlight on a petition can actually work against the petitioner if the celebrity involved is more infamous than famous – likely because the justices are wary of deepening public distrust in the court.   We should learn the fate of these four celebrity-related petitions by the end of this term. The post The sports stars, hip-hop artists, and celebrity magicians playing a role in pending Supreme Court petitions appeared first on SCOTUSblog.Read more

On April 10, 1869, Congress passed legislation increasing the number of Supreme Court justices from seven to nine, where it’s remained since. At the Court The Supreme Court on Thursday denied Sam Ronan’s request to block Ohio election officials from removing him from the state’s Republican primary election ballot. Read Amy’s analysis to learn more about the dispute. The court will next hear arguments on Monday, April 20, the first day of its April sitting. Morning Reads Trump May Use Emergency Law for Iran Tariffs Despite Court Ruling, Adviser Says Hadriana Lowenkron and Greg Stohr, Bloomberg National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett said Thursday that “President Donald Trump has the authority to enact new Iran-related duties under an emergency law,” the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, that “the Supreme Court previously ruled could not be used to impose tariffs,” according to Bloomberg. “This is clearly within the president’s tariff power,” Hassett said. “If we’re in a state of conflict, then you know, the IEEPA policy is exactly designed for that. And so countries really should be careful.” Bloomberg noted that the court’s tariffs ruling said “IEEPA ‘does not authorize the president to impose tariffs,’” and did not “carv[e] out an exception for military conflicts.” Judge halts Trump administration move to end protections for Ethiopians Zach Schonfeld, The Hill U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy “blocked the Trump administration from ending temporary deportation protections for thousands of Ethiopians, ruling on Wednesday that it likely disregarded the rules Congress set up for” the Temporary Protected Status program, according to The Hill. Specifically, Murphy held that “the DHS failed to consult with the proper agencies” before ending Ethiopians’ participation in TPS, describing its decision as “pretextual.” Later this month, the court will hear argument in two related cases – “challenges to ending protections for Haiti and Syria.” Supreme Court remade by Trump ushers in historic defeats for civil rights Justin Jouvenal, The Washington Post A new analysis of 270 Supreme Court decisions handed down “between 2020 and 2024 — the first five terms of the six-justice conservative majority” — shows that, over that period, the court became “the first since at least the 1950s to reject civil rights claims in a majority of cases involving women and minorities,” according to The Washington Post. “The analysis shows that in addition to civil rights, the court powered by Trump’s picks — Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — has pushed to the right of any modern court on religious rights and voting issues.” Supreme Court Secrecy Includes Reasons for Recusal Adam Liptak, The New York Times In the latest edition of his newsletter for The New York Times, Adam Liptak highlighted a recent study on “the justices’ decisions about whether to disqualify themselves from cases in which they may have a conflict of interest.” The study from Harvard law professor Richard Lazarus, who is a close friend of Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasized the lack of information about recusals and suggested policies that could assure court watchers that the ethics “guidelines are not mere lip service.” “One was the creation of a formal ethics office at the court that the justices could consult. The other, the focus of this item, was a little sunlight. In the absence of unusual circumstances, he wrote, justices should ‘release formal written statements explaining their reasons for recusing or not recusing.’” Winning For Workers Before A Conservative Court: Jennifer Bennett David Lat, Original Jurisdiction For his Substack, Original Jurisdiction, David Lat spoke with Jennifer Bennett of Gupta Wessler, who “has argued five cases before the high court, and of the four that have been decided, she won all of them—with unanimous decisions each time.” They discussed how she prepares for oral argument before the Supreme Court and moments that stand out from her five appearances before the justices. “[T]he first time I was ever in the Supreme Court was my first Supreme Court argument,” Bennett recalled. “And you walk into the Court, and the bench is incredibly close to your face. And I just remember thinking, ‘If they hate you, they could spit at you!’” On Site Contributor Corner Conversion therapy and professional speech In his Courtly Observations column, Erwin Chemerinsky reflected on the court’s decision in Chiles v. Salazar, in which it “essentially declar[ed] unconstitutional the Colorado law prohibiting talk therapy to attempt to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.” The ruling “continues a pattern of inconsistent decisions concerning the ability of the government to regulate speech by professionals,” Chemerinsky wrote. Contributor Corner Legislative history lives on – in secret In her Clear Statements column, Abbe R. Gluck examined the court’s current approach to statutory interpretation, pushing back against claims that textualism has displaced the use of congressional intent. “Rumors of the textualist triumph over legislative history have been greatly exaggerated,” Gluck wrote. “Whether the justices want to admit it or not, the court today is paying attention to legislative history and what it reveals about statutory purposes.” Podcasts Advisory Opinions Trump’s ‘War Crimes’ Sarah Isgur and David French discuss President Donald Trump’s rhetoric over Iran, what constitutes a war crime, and what happens if a military officer fails to obey an order or regulation. A Closer Look: Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson Very few Americans have held prominent positions in all three branches of the federal government. The 13th chief justice was one of them. Frederick Moore Vinson was born in 1890 in Louisa, Kentucky, a small town near the border of West Virginia and Kentucky, to a southern family of “reduced circumstances.” While on the campaign trail a few decades later, Vinson would joke that he was “born in jail” – which was not entirely untrue, given his father worked as the county jailer and the family lived in front of it. Vinson interacted with the law fairly early on, as a local judge sometimes allowed him to sit near the bench while a case was in session. But Vinson’s interests weren’t entirely cerebral: the future chief justice was also reportedly an excellent student athlete, playing as quarterback of his football team before heading off to Kentucky Normal School (yes, it was called “Normal School”) and then to Centre College, where he graduated from its law department – at the top of his class – in 1911. In a special January 1924 election, Vinson was elected to Congress as a Democrat. He would serve until 1938, with just one interruption due to a 1928 defeat, the first and only election that Vinson lost. In Congress, he was known as an expert on fiscal policy and became a reliable ally of the New Deal. Vinson also “played a leading role in shaping the Social Security Act (1935) and supporting President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Court-packing plan.” In 1938, Roosevelt appointed Vinson to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. But the country’s involvement in World War II led Vinson to move to the executive branch; in 1943, Vinson became director of the office of economic stabilization, where he helped oversee the wartime American economy and controlled inflation. In July 1944, Vinson chaired the American delegation to the Bretton Woods Conference to reshape the world’s monetary order. In 1946, President Harry Truman named him Secretary of the Treasury. (Vinson’s seeming willingness to take on whatever Washington needed earned him the nickname “Available Vinson“). After Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone died in 1946, former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and former Associate Justice Owen Roberts both recommended Vinson as chief to Truman, with Hughes noting that “the Chief Justice of the United States should not only know the law but that he should understand politics and government.” Truman took Hughes’ advice and nominated Vinson to the center seat on June 6, 1946. The Senate confirmed his appointment on June 20. Truman’s hope was that Vinson (who, by the way, had  been a regular at his White House poker games) could calm a divided court, led by Justice Hugo Black on one side and Justice Felix Frankfurter on the other. Despite his impressive background, Vinson did not exactly establish himself as a heavyweight on the bench. Vinson preferred a restrained judiciary, encouraging the court to defer to the executive branch when evaluating its actions. In 1951’s Dennis v. United States, for example, Vinson wrote for a court plurality affirming the convictions of Communist Party leaders under the Smith Act, extending the “clear and present danger” test to cover conspiracies advocating violent overthrow of the government even if the perceived threat was relatively remote. Vinson also dissented in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, where he argued that Truman’s seizure of the steel mills during the Korean War was a legitimate use of presidential power to prevent a strike. Nor, as Truman had hoped, was Vinson able to tame a fractured court: although he was in the majority a staggering 97% of the time in one term, only around 30% of his court’s decisions proved unanimous (during the Roberts era, that figure is around 42%). Vinson’s more enduring legacy, however, may lie in the realm of civil rights. In 1948’s Shelley v. Kraemer, Vinson held that enforcement of “racially restrictive [housing] covenants” violated the equal protection clause. Two years later, in Sweatt v. Painter, Vinson wrote for a unanimous court that a qualified Black law school applicant could not be constitutionally denied admission to the University of Texas Law School under the “separate, but equal” doctrine. Although Vinson heard Brown v. Board of Education, he never got to decide it – just before Brown was scheduled for reargument, the chief justice died of a heart attack at the age of 63. It is unclear how Vinson would have voted in Brown – while some have expressed doubt that he would have been willing to make such a momentous decision, others contend that Vinson would have – like his successor, Chief Justice Earl Warren – authored a unanimous opinion invalidating segregation in public schools. According to Carlton Larson on SCOTUSblog back in 2012, had Vinson lived only slightly longer, “Brown would be seen not as the opening salvo of the Warren Court, but as the logical culmination of Vinson’s decisions in a line of unanimous race cases.” SCOTUS Quote “When you go see an argument, you’ve been on the opposite side, you know that this court is an extremely well-prepared court, that the justices have read the briefs, that the justices know the case. And I think our conversation in conference reflects that. It’s substantive. It’s a conversation that only people who have really done the reading and done the thinking could have. And again, I think if you were a fly on the wall, you would be pretty proud of the institution.” — Justice Elena Kagan  (2019) The post SCOTUStoday for Friday, April 10 appeared first on SCOTUSblog.Read more