<[link removed]>

Actual shocker: Supreme Court isn’t the worst for once




It’s the latter half of June, which means everyone is bracing for disaster,
thanks to the Supreme Court saving all the big cases for the end of the term.
This year, they’ve sat on a lot of them, though they do this so often now that
having 17 cases remaining is actually lower than previous years.

Two opinions issued last Thursday weren’t ones everyone is waiting on with a
mixture of worry and despair, like whether the court will give even more power
to President Donald Trump to fire heads of independent agencies, whether there
are enough terrible votes from terrible justices to uphold Idaho’s complete ban
on trans athletes, and whether there are any justices who are so far afield
from the constitution that they vote to get rid of birthright citizenship.

But while Thursday’s decisions don’t have the staggering scope of those
cases, they’re nonetheless consequential. They also made for some very strange
bedfellows.

First up: U.S. v. Hemani, where Trump’s Department of Justice finally found
one type of gun regulation it liked: illegal drug users, even intermittent
ones, even medical marijuana patients, cannot have guns.

Unfortunately for the DOJ, this stance runs headlong into the court’s current
Second Amendment jurisprudence. In 2022’s New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the court’s conservatives went spelunking through
history to declare that all firearms regulations must be “consistent with the
Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

This newly invented test led to courts invalidating gun control laws if they
couldn’t find some sort of equivalent regulation from back when we had muskets.
Here, there were actually founding-era laws that were roughly equivalent,
barring “habitual drunkards” from owning firearms. However, Justice Neil
Gorsuch’s opinion for a unanimous court explained that while the founders loved
to pound some brews, that didn’t make them “habitual drunkards” as it was
understood at the time. Instead, that term applied only to people who drank so
much, so routinely, that they were deprived of their “ordinary reasoning
faculties.”

Intermittent drug users, said Gorsuch, are not equivalent to those
founding-era habitual drunkards. Since there was no “historical tradition of
firearm regulation” that barred less-than-habitual drinkers from owning guns, a
modern law barring casual drug users from owning guns was unconstitutional.

If this discussion feels oddly familiar, it’s probably because this was the
law under which Hunter Biden was convicted. Perhaps he should reach out to
Trump’s DOJ and ask about a pardon?





 

No billionaire backers, no paywalls. Daily Kos news exists because of YOU, our
small-donor community. Now, we need your help. Please donate today.
<[link removed]
On Record&addr1=&city=Cedar Knolls&state=District of Columbia&phone=>

Click here to donate
<[link removed]
On Record&addr1=&city=Cedar Knolls&state=District of Columbia&phone=>

 

All jokes about Hunter Biden aside, this statute has been rampantly abused to
lock up Black and brown people in droves, and this decision takes one of those
tools away.

Also, make sure to peep the concurrence from Justices Samuel Alito and Elana
Kagan, who very possibly may have never written a concurrence together, but
joined forces here to basically say that everyone smokes weed now, and
marijuana is just modern alcohol, man.

The DOJ lost again in Hunter v. United States, a case about what due process
is owed to criminal defendants.

When defendants agree to plead guilty, that often includes an “appeal waiver,”
which is exactly what it sounds like: the defendant gives up their right to
appeal.

In theory, this makes sense. The bargain is that a defendant gets a better
deal than they would at trial and the government gets finality and the end of
the case. However, that theory doesn’t work in practice because a defendant has
pretty much zero power compared to the vast power the government wields.

Additionally, when defendants take a plea and waive their right to appeal,
they don’t have complete information about what their ultimate sentence might
be. Prosecutors make recommendations to judges as part of plea deals, but the
judge ultimately determines the sentence.

Here, when Hunter was sentenced, the judge imposed an unexpected condition,
requiring Hunter to take any prescribed mental health medication once he was on
supervised release. But Hunter never had an opportunity to negotiate that
forced medication requirement because that requirement didn’t exist until the
judge handed down his sentence—after Hunter had waived his right to appeal.

Hunter tried to appeal his sentence—not his conviction—saying the appeal
waiver shouldn’t bar him from challenging the medication requirement as
unconstitutional. Lower courts rejected that argument, but in an 8-1 decision
written by Justice Kagan, the court held that appeal waivers were unenforceable
“when it would result in a miscarriage of justice—meaning, when it would leave
in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into
disrepute.”

Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji
Brown Jackson—see? Strange bedfellows—came in hot. Gorsuch called out how “the
jury trial has given way to a conveyor belt of plea bargains” and that “when
confronted with coercive prosecutorial tactics designed to induce defendants to
take plea deals, the Court has often condoned those practices or let them pass
in silence.”

The concurrence begins to lay the groundwork for dismantling plea bargaining
as it currently exists, where the parties are in no way equal. It highlights
exactly how unbalanced things are, such as how the waiver completely bars a
defendant from appealing, no matter what, while the government remains
completely free to appeal anything it doesn’t like.

Unsurprisingly, Gorsuch came to this conclusion by yammering on about what was
happening in the 1800s or whatever: “Two hundred years ago, it was likely
unimaginable that almost every federal criminal case would be resolved by plea
bargain.”

Look, whatever it takes. If this is how to get Gorsuch and other conservatives
to sign on here, so be it.

And now, we wait to see how quickly the court will get around to those
remaining 17 opinions and just how bad things will be.



Click here to check out this story on DailyKos.com.
<[link removed]>


 



We're not asking for much



The average donation to Daily Kos is just $9.44. These gifts may seem small,
but they’re a big deal to us—in fact, they’re our largest source of income. We
couldn’t keep going without them.Will you join thousands of other Daily Kos
readers and donate $9.44 right now to help us close our funding gap?

Donate $9.44
<[link removed]
On Record&addr1=&city=Cedar Knolls&state=District of Columbia&phone=>



 



You received this email because you signed up for newsletters from Daily Kos.
To stop receiving this newsletter, unsubscribe
<[link removed]>
ormanage
<[link removed]
On Record&city=Cedar Knolls&state=District of Columbia&country=United
States&metadataCustom=testunsub> which newsletters you receive.