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
Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com
Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." 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.
Marylanders will not forget this vote.
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
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.
