A Culmination of The Supreme Court in One Semester

I came into this semester wanting to study the U.S. Supreme Court for my public sphere for a plethora of reasons. Most pertinent was that I am a Public Policy and Law student with aspirations to attend law school.

Growing up, and up until this point, I had an idealized vision of the Supreme Court – the same one every student is taught. In immersing myself in current events and news about the Supreme Court, my view was altered throughout the course of the semester.

This was the first time I remained up to date about the happenings of the Supreme Court. It seemed to reveal more turmoil than I imagined. Of course I knew there were controversial opinions and beliefs, but the sheer amount of scandals and distress shocked me.

No wonder the American public is so critical of the judicial body that is the final arbiter of legal issues. Such a little portion of the public that watches the same news I do and sees the same controversies has any faith remaining in the court.

Choosing this as my public sphere acted as a revelation and only bolstered what I want to do in the future. It made me want to be the change in the legal system that people so desperately plead for. I know I can be that change, and I am excited for what is to come and remaining immersed and apprised of my public sphere.

Supreme Court Ethics in the Spotlight

Of course by now, we have all seen the headlines of Clarence Thomas’s gifts. More ‘scandals’ coming to light in the Supreme Court is causing a steady decline in the American people’s trust of the court and justices.

Only 25% of Americans currently have faith in the Supreme Court, according to this NY Times article. That is unsettlingly low for the highest court in the land that is supposed to be an unbiased final judge.

There is a lot of controversy over Justice Thomas’s acceptance of gifts from a wealthy Republican donor and failure to disclose them.

It will be fascinating to see if the Supreme Court can improve the public’s opinion of them, though they have no political or employment repercussions for acting in controversial manners.

Supreme Court Allows Religious Appeal of a US Postal Worker

A CNN article I read this morning detailed the appeal of a U.S. Postal worker on religious grounds. He was contracted to deliver Amazon packages on Sundays, but he cited that his religious beliefs prevented him from working on Sundays.

Gerald Groff, after leaving the USPS due do a lack of “accommodating employment atmosphere with the USPS that would honor his religious beliefs”, sued the entity for violating Title VII. Title VII is a federal law that makes it unlawful to discriminate against an employee based on his religion.

A District Judge ruled against Groff as well as the 3rd US Circuit of Appeals. Groff and his attorney have now appealed to the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the argument.

It is a very fine line on this ruling because the USPS has the right to have Groff work if they can prove that allowing him Sundays off will be detrimental to business.

It seems like the Supreme Court will side with Groff because the USPS has not produced evidence yet of the burden to them if they adjust for Groff’s religious convictions.

There are calls to amend the law to make it clearer and more explicit so there is no more gray area.

Israel Spearheads Judicial Changes

Although this is not in relation to the U.S. Supreme Court, I found this topic relevant and interesting with many parallels to the U.S. judicial system. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli government is pushing for changes to limit their Supreme Court’s power to rule against the legislature and executive branch. The changes would allocate to lawmakers decisive powers in appointing judges. This is not a wise move on behalf of the Israeli government, one which already has relatively weak checks and balances. The Supreme Court would lose much of their already limited authority and allow the legislative and executive branches to have near complete unchecked power. Once again arises the issue of courts being unbiased and not encroaching into the political sphere, which is what advocates of the reform are repeating. But how do we go about enforcing fair checks and balances while also ensuring each branch is operating in their truest form with good intentions? That question is still yet to be answered around the world.

Supreme Court Hears Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College & UNC

One of the most important cases presented before the Supreme Court in the 2022-2023 session was the Oct. 31st hearing in which the non-profit organization are accusing both prestigious Colleges benefit black applicants at the expense of Asian-American students in their race-conscious admissions programs. This has been an issue being flagged in colleges and universities across the country in the last few years. I believe catering to a specific race versus evaluating students on their own intellectual merits hinders the college application process and many students. It is a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin by any educational program that receives money from the federal government. Decisions made concerning admissions should be unbiased and return to the caliber of student let in. Due to quotas that many colleges have now, Asian-American students who deserve to get into certain colleges and universities are being unjustly rejected. It is an affront to the college application system, which at one point, used to be fair and unbiased.