(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



SCOTUS Today [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2023-11-11

This week, the court found itself entangled in a tapestry of cases that, in their complexity and diversity, paint a vivid picture of the legal and moral quandaries that define our times.

At the heart of the court’s docket was a case involving Zackey Rahimi, a figure whose life’s narrative intersected with a federal law barring individuals with domestic-violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The law's constitutionality, challenged by Rahimi, had previously been struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. However, the Supreme Court's inclination to uphold the law became apparent during the oral arguments, spotlighting the delicate balance between individual rights and public safety.

The case's roots can be traced back to a February 2020 incident, where Rahimi's violent actions against his then-girlfriend and a witness led to a protective order prohibiting him from approaching his ex-partner and from possessing firearms. This order's breach, discovered during a 2021 police search linking Rahimi to other shootings, landed him in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).

Rahimi's legal team argued that the law infringed on constitutional rights, a stance seemingly bolstered by the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. This ruling posited that gun restrictions should only be upheld if they aligned with historical precedents. The government, represented by U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, countered by emphasizing the destabilizing implications of the appellate court’s ruling and the precedent it set for striking down other gun restrictions.

The justices' probing during the arguments highlighted the nebulous boundaries of "responsibility" and "law-abiding" status in the context of gun ownership. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson brought to light the nuances of judging what constitutes danger in the eyes of the law, especially in cases of domestic violence—a societal scourge often hidden in plain sight.

Jackson's critique of the "history and tradition" test for constitutional interpretation brought an additional layer of complexity, questioning the selective nature of historical narratives that shape legal precedents.

In parallel, the court's docket included other high-stakes cases, such as the debate over whether bump stocks qualify as "machineguns," and the First Amendment implications of state officials pressuring businesses to sever ties with the National Rifle Association. Another notable case, Diaz v. United States, spotlighted the nuances of expert testimony in criminal trials, particularly in drug trafficking scenarios.

Moreover, the court's consideration of U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz delved into whether the federal government is subject to the same accountability standards as other entities under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. This discussion veered into the philosophical, with Justice Neil Gorsuch questioning the applicability of the clear-statement rule in sovereign immunity contexts.

Amid these legal battles, a separate environmental lawsuit from Cameron Parish in Louisiana, seeking compensation for coastal land loss attributed to oil companies, underscored the intersecting lines of environmental justice, corporate responsibility, and legal fairness. The Supreme Court's decision to allow the trial to proceed, despite the oil companies' concerns over biased jurors, punctuated this narrative with a nod to the integrity of local legal processes.

Each of these cases, though distinct in their specifics, collectively encapsulate the ongoing struggle to define the contours of justice in a complex and ever-evolving society. They reflect a judicial system grappling with the weight of history, the variegation of present-day societal norms, and the uncertain trajectory of future legal landscapes. In this intricate mosaic, each decision, argument, and legal principle contributes to the broader pursuit of a more just and equitable society, even as the definitions of these ideals remain fluid and subject to the tides of time.

By Ontoepep on the Supreme Court

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/11/11/2205258/-SCOTUS-Today?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=latest_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/