On Monday, the Supreme Court decided four important cases. Perhaps the most interesting of which was the Second Amendment case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, discussed below. The other cases are also worth understanding.
In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the Court ruled that state colleges can limit status for campus groups to those that admit all comers. Hugh Hewitt argues against the ruling, while Eugene Volokh argues that the Court got this one right.
In Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board, the Court determined that the protection of an accounting board created by Sarbanes-Oxley is unconstitutional. The case dealt with separation of powers. Jonathan Adler and Kevin Russell comment.
There was also an important patent case that was decided. In Bilski v. Kappos, the Court struck down a business method patent without ruling out the potential for patenting business methods. Commentary and summary can be found at Patent Baristas, Patently-O, and Philip Brooks’ Patent Infringement Updates.
As for McDonald v. City of Chicago, this was a major constitutional case on the heels of the Court’s ruling in DC v. Heller. Not only did this case deal with gun ownership rights, but also with the question of whether or not the Second Amendment applies to the states. The Court ruled 5-4 that it does, on the basis of the the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The more interesting opinion, perhaps, was that of Justice Thomas, who concurred separately with more than 50 pages. As Ilya Somin notes, the plurality used the Due Process Clause instead of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Justice Thomas, however, did use the Privileges or Immunities Clause as justification, writing that “the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.”
Justice Thomas uses his opinion to explore the Fourteenth Amendment in some depth, addressing its history and application, and explaining his break from stare decisis in this case. In doing so, he attempts to correct the record on the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether you agree or disagree with Justice Thomas, you should find his opinion worth reading and considering.
As for the impact of McDonald, Ilya Somin makes his predictions here.
0 Responses to “Second Amendment Highlights Big Day at Supreme Court”