Friends, I hope you’re well.

The days are finally getting longer. We’re getting an early spring (at least according to Punxsutawney Phil). 

But on the other hand, this Supreme Court season is in full swing.

We are once again living in unprecedented times. Last week, the court heard arguments in a case that could disqualify Donald Trump from Colorado’s ballot. We’re also waiting to see how the court will respond to Trump’s request for immunity from prosecution for his refusal to cede power following the 2020 election. 

This is, somehow, all unfolding in the middle of an election year. It’s a mess. And we’re stuck between a rock (a Supreme Court that does everything in its power to help out Republicans) and a hard place (further confusion and chaos in our election processes if the court fails to make quick decisions in the cases it has chosen to take up).

But amazingly, Trump’s great many legal troubles (91 counts and counting) aren’t everything. Read up on some other super consequential cases at the court below, and thank you for everything you do to strengthen our fight to reform and expand this broken court.

Surprising absolutely no one, in one of its first big tests, the ethics code put forth by the nine justices late last year has failed catastrophically.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard Trump v. Anderson, the case that will determine Donald Trump’s eligibility to appear on Colorado’s ballot this year. It should be an open-and-shut case; the 14th Amendment bars insurrectionists from holding public office, and there’s no doubt that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6th. 

But this court has proven time and again that they have no problem putting politics ahead of the law. And in the case of Justice Thomas, the same holds true for ethics.

Clarence Thomas’ wife Ginni Thomas was intimately involved in the deadly attempted coup on the Capitol. It’s plain as day that that constitutes a monumental conflict of interest for Thomas — one that should mean he recuses himself from Trump v. Anderson and any other insurrection-related cases that may come before the court.

But Thomas didn’t recuse himself. Instead, he ignored the calls from the American people and leading lawmakers alike, and will rule on it alongside his colleagues.

If this is what following the court’s ethics rules looks like, why have them at all?

Of course, we all knew this as soon as the court put them out. That’s why it’s urgent and imperative for Congress to pass a binding ethics code with a real enforcement mechanism — not just a set of suggestions that the justices can pretend to follow, with no accountability for their misconduct.

We have to keep the pressure up and let these justices know that we are watching them — and we’re not afraid to call out their misbehavior.

The Atlantic | The Supreme Court Has Itself to Blame for Texas Defying Its Orders

"The four justices’ little act of sympathy with Abbott’s antics has created a problem for the Court. If states can openly defy Supreme Court orders, then the justices no longer have influence.”

ProPublica | Senate Investigation “Casts Fresh Doubt” About the Validity of Harlan Crow’s Yacht Tax Deductions

“‘Any effort to mischaracterize a yacht used as a pleasure craft as a business is a run of the mill tax scam, plain and simple,’ Wyden wrote.”

MSNBC | Thanks to the Supreme Court, attacks on LGBTQ rights are exploding

“The push for these new laws has been building for years, but until recently Supreme Court precedent stood in the way. But the current Supreme Court, shaped by the Federalist Society, former President Donald Trump and Republican senators, has bestowed gifts on Christian right activists and Republican state lawmakers, rather than antagonizing them.”

It’s a busy time at the Supreme Court — and that means a full-on assault on our rights and freedoms.

• WHAT: Grants Pass v. Johnson. This case may give cities and states the ability to destroy shelters and penalize unhoused people who have no other housing alternatives. The justices could reverse existing Supreme Court precedent that barred cities from punishing people for violating anti-camping policies. It’s a cruel and dehumanizing attack on people who do not have the option to shelter elsewhere.
  
  
• WHEN: The case hasn’t been added to the court’s calendar yet, but will likely be heard this Spring.

• WHAT: Ohio v. EPA. This case challenges a California law limiting tailpipe emissions — an effort by right-wing lawmakers from 16 states hoping for the court to further dismantle environmental protections. 
  
  
• WHEN: Oral arguments in this case are scheduled for February 21, 2024.

• WHAT: NRA v. Vullo. This case provides the right-wing Supreme Court an opportunity to hand the National Rifle Association an extraordinary remedy to a gun safety protection. As Vox’s Ian Millhiser explains, “Among other things, that could prevent New York from enforcing its law prohibiting insurers from selling products that encourage people to shoot other people.”
  
  
• WHEN: Oral arguments in this case are scheduled for March 28, 2024.

Thank you for reading. As always, we promise to keep you in the loop on the latest news and how you can support the fight. 

If you enjoyed this edition of Full Court Press, I hope you’ll consider chipping in to support our work to expand the Supreme Court to put power back where it belongs – with the people.