First decision was Norfolk Southern. A 5-4 decision where liberals and conservatives are on both sides, court sided with the railway but didn't grant them the extra protection they wanted. Essentially it was about an employee who lives in Virginia and works in Virginia, at a railroad headquartered in Virginia, suing them in a Pennsylvania court, because in order to operate their railroad in PA they had to submit to a clause saying PA courts had jurisdiction over them everywhere. Supreme court ruled the PA jurisdiction grabbing clause is unconstitutional for violating due process.
Next decision is the stalking one. The court ruled 7-2 that 'true threats' can be defined by a lower standard of proving reckless disregard- 'conscious disregard of substantial risk a post would be interpreted as a threat', instead of proving that a post was
intended as a threat. The issue was where to draw the distinction between protected speech and threats, the technical proof necessary to convict someone. So even if someone doesn't intend something as a threat, and the prosecutors can't prove it, if its still obviously easily interpreted as a threat and you'd have to consciously post it knowing that it will be interpreted as a threat, its a threat. Guy being prosecuted in the underlying case gets a new trial with the new standard, but its not the one he wanted. Coney Barrett + Thomas in dissent
Quote
Held: The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had
some subjective understanding of his statements’ threatening nature,
but the First Amendment requires no more demanding a showing than
recklessness.
Moore v Harper is out and fuck if I know or care about north carolina's technicalities
and only 3 today, 7 remaining, scotus doesn't go past this week, could be super wednesday instead. Its the race quotas + biden bucks tomorrow that anyone really cares about
This post was edited by Goomshill on Jun 27 2023 08:14am