The Supreme Court: The Last Day
John Christie • July 20, 2021
On Thursday, July 1, the last two opinions were released in the cases accepted and argued during the Court’s 2020 term, which began on the first Monday of last October. One week into the 2020 term, a new Justice arrived, as Amy Coney Barrett replaced Ruth Bader Ginsberg, becoming the third justice nominated by Donald Trump to the highest court.
Formerly, with four conservatives and four liberals, Chief Justice John Roberts, an institutionalist, was able by his own vote to determine a case outcome. Now with five conservatives and three liberals he would no longer be the ideological center of the Court. Smart money assumed that this term would be marked by a sharp conservative swing.
However, as the 2020 term got underway, and opinions began to be released, this widely accepted assumption appeared to lose some traction. Several high profile, politically sensitive cases were resolved with majorities that included the more liberal justices and other, more conservative justices.
The Affordable Care Act survived yet another challenge on a procedural issue that attracted a majority consisting not only of the three surviving liberal justices and Roberts, but the votes of Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett as well. By unanimous vote, the Court found a narrow way to dispose of a case that potentially set up a sharp conflict between same sex marriage couples and religious values. The free speech rights of a cheerleader who sent vulgar Snapchat messages were protected in a majority opinion authored by Justice Breyer. If any justices registered dissatisfaction with the majority opinion in these cases, it was from the most conservative end of the Court, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch.
But then came the last day and the two significant final opinions that changed the overall cast of the term. They also perhaps constituted a better bellwether picture of where the future of this Court lies, at least as presently constituted.
The first of these last two cases was Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, where the Court struck down a California requirement that charities and nonprofits operating in the state provide the state attorney general’s office with the names and addresses of their largest donors. Writing for a six-justice majority, Chief Justice Roberts concluded that the rule violates the First Amendment by potentially deterring donors from making contributions even while conceding that the state has an important interest in preventing “wrongdoing” by charitable organizations.
In a dissent joined by Justices Breyer and Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested that the ruling could have an effect far beyond the nonprofit and charitable worlds to include political campaign contributions, writing that the majority’s ruling marks reporting and disclosure requirements with a “bull’s-eye” for future legal challenge.
In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the Court issued a major decision on voting rights that will make it more difficult in the future to contest state election regulations under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in election practices. By another 6-3 vote, the Court upheld two Arizona voting provisions that the appellate court below had determined had disparate impacts on members of minority groups. In a majority opinion by Justice Alito, the Court declined to provide an “exhaustive list” of what circumstances courts should consider in determining whether a law violates Section 2. Instead, the Court outlined “several important circumstances” that, particularly when taken together, strongly suggest it will be more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in the future in cases asserting that a state voting law violates Section 2.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan complaining that the majority “undermines Section 2 and the right it provides.” The majority’s concerns that the Voting Rights Act was too “radical” and that the statute, as written, would invalidate “too many” state voting laws, results in reading Section 2 much too narrowly in her opinion. This “cramped reading” leads the Court to uphold two state election provisions “that discriminate against minority voters.” “What’s tragic,” she concluded, “is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimination in voting.’”
John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
Common Sense for the Eastern Shore
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
Apparently, some people think that the GOP’s “big beautiful bill” is a foregone conclusion, and that the struggle over the budget and Trump’s agenda is over and done. Not true. On Sunday night, the bill — given the alternate name “Big Bad Bullsh*t Bill” by the Democratic Women’s Caucus — was voted out of the House Budget Committee. The GOP plan is to pass this legislation in the House before Memorial Day. But that’s not the end of it. As Jessica Craven explained in her Chop Wood Carry Water column: “Remember, we have at least six weeks left in this process. The bill has to: Pass the House, Then head to the Senate where it will likely be rewritten almost completely, Then be passed there, Then be brought back to the House for reconciliation, And then, if the House changes that version at all, Go back to the Senate for another vote.” She adds, “Every step of that process is a place for us to kill it.” The bill is over a thousand pages long, and the American people will not get a chance to read it until it has passed the House. But, thanks to 5Calls , we know it includes:
Let's talk about our Eastern Shore Delegation, the representatives who are supposed to fight for our nine Shore counties in Annapolis, and what they actually got up to this session.
For the first time in recent memory, Virginia Democrats have candidates running in all 100 House of Delegates districts — a milestone party leaders and grassroots organizers say reflects rising momentum as President Donald Trump’s second term continues to galvanize opposition.
The 447th legislative session of the Maryland General Assembly adjourned on April 8. This End of Session Report highlights the work Shore Progress has done to fight for working families and bring real results home to the Shore. Over the 90-day session, lawmakers debated 1,901 bills and passed 878 into law. Shore Progress and members supported legislation that delivers for the Eastern Shore, protecting our environment, expanding access to housing and healthcare, strengthening workers’ rights, and more. Shore Progress Supported Legislation By The Numbers: Over 60 pieces of our backed legislation were passed. Another 15 passed in one Chamber but not the other. Legislation details are below, past the budget section. The 2026 Maryland State Budget How We Got Here: Maryland’s budget problems didn’t start overnight. They began under Governor Larry Hogan. Governor Hogan expanded the state budget yearly but blocked the legislature from moving money around or making common-sense changes. Instead of fixing the structural issues, Hogan used federal covid relief funds to hide the cracks and drained our state’s savings from $5.5 billion to $2.3 billion to boost his image before leaving office. How Trump/Musk Made It Worse: Maryland is facing a new fiscal crisis driven by the Trump–Musk administration, whose trade wars, tariff policies, and deep federal cuts have hit us harder than most, costing the state over 30,000 jobs, shuttering offices, and erasing promised investments. A University of Maryland study estimates Trump’s tariffs alone could cost us $2 billion, and those federal cuts have already added $300 million to our budget deficit. Covid aid gave us a short-term boost and even created a fake surplus under Hogan, but that money is gone, while housing, healthcare, and college prices keep rising. The Trump–Musk White House is only making things worse by slashing funding, gutting services, and eliminating research that Marylanders rely on. How The State Budget Fixes These Issues: This year, Maryland faced a $3 billion budget gap, and the General Assembly fixed it with a smart mix of cuts and fair new revenue, while protecting working families, schools, and health care. The 2025 Budget cuts $1.9 billion ($400 million less than last year) without gutting services people rely on. The General Assembly raised $1.2 billion in fair new revenue, mostly from the wealthiest Marylanders. The Budget ended with a $350 million surplus, plus $2.4 billion saved in the Rainy Day Fund (more than 9% of general fund revenue), which came in $7 million above what the Spending Affordability Committee called for. The budget protects funding for our schools, health care, transit, and public workers. The budget delivers real wins: $800 million more annually for transit and infrastructure, plus $500 million for long-term transportation needs. It invests $9.7 billion in public schools and boosts local education aid by $572.5 million, a 7% increase. If current revenue trends hold, no new taxes will be needed next session. Even better, 94% of Marylanders will see a tax cut or no change, while only the wealthiest 5% will finally pay their fair share. The tax system is smarter now. We’re: Taxing IT and data services like Texas and D.C. do; Raising taxes on cannabis and sports betting, not groceries or medicine; and Letting counties adjust income taxes. The budget also restores critical funding: $122 million for teacher planning $15 million for cancer research $11 million for crime victims $7 million for local business zones, and Continued support for public TV, the arts, and BCCC The budget invests in People with disabilities, with $181 million in services Growing private-sector jobs with $139 million in funding, including $27.5 million for quantum tech, $16 million for the Sunny Day Fund, and $10 million for infrastructure loans. Health care is protected for 1.5 million Marylanders, with $15.6 billion for Medicaid and higher provider pay. Public safety is getting a boost too, with $60 million for victim services, $5.5 million for juvenile services, and $5 million for parole and probation staffing. This budget also tackles climate change with $100 million for clean energy and solar projects, and $200 million in potential ratepayer relief. Public workers get a well-deserved raise, with $200 million in salary increases, including a 1% COLA and ~2.5% raises for union workers. The ultra-wealthy will finally chip in to pay for it: People earning over $750,000 will pay more, Millionaires will pay 6.5%, and Capital gains over $350,000 get a 2% surcharge. Deductions are capped for high earners, but working families can still deduct student loans, medical debt, and donations. This budget is bold, fair, and built to last. That’s why Shore Progress proudly supports it. Click on the arrows below for details in each section.
