Courting Disaster

Blog – Courting Disaster

This session the Supreme Court has told us that racial diversity in college admissions is not a particularly important goal; that gay couples can’t expect their legal weddings to be serviced by people who don’t want to; and that in its version of the English language, the President’s power to “waive or modify” student loans doesn’t include the power to “forgive” them.  

What will come next? It may look something like this. While this is only informed speculation, the portions in italics are actual quotes from prior Supreme Court cases.

Washington, D.C. – April 22, 2025 – In a decision that dramatically changes the legal framework of the country, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no federal right to gay marriages and any legalization of that union must be entirely up to the states. The same six-person majority that has upset so many other established legal precedents was the same group that upset this one. The Chief Justice spoke for them when he reiterated much of what he had said in his dissent from the Obergefell decision that had first legalized gay marriage only seven years ago. “This Court is not a legislature,” he wrote. “Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. . . . [A]lthough the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not.” The Court made clear that States can make their own decisions on marriage rights just like they can for abortion rights. Justice Thomas joined in this ruling but wrote a separate concurrence in which he said, “My wife wanted me to make it clear that this ruling applies only to same-sex marriages and not to inter-racial ones. O.K, Ginni?”

Washington, D.C. – June 1, 2025 – The Supreme Court issued a second groundbreaking decision today. This time they went deep into what had previously been considered fundamentally established law. Justice Barrett led the five-member majority in reversing the landmark decision of Griswold v. Connecticut, the one that had established a constitutional right to privacy. The Court found against a man who challenged a local ordinance that prevented anyone from purchasing contraceptives unless they disclosed who they were going to use them with. The town claimed that this was necessary to prevent the spread of venereal disease. The Court said, like it had in banning gay marriage, that while this ordinance may not be the greatest public policy, there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented it. The Court rejected Griswold’s identification of a right of privacy in the “penumbras” of the Bill of Rights. Instead, it adopted the reasoning of the dissent in that case. Justice Barrett quoted this portion of that dissent: “With all deference, I can find no such right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.” Justice Barrett concluded “accordingly, we find that Griswold was wrongly decided, and we overrule it. No longer is there a constitutional right to privacy. Already, President Trump has ordered raids on the homes of everyone who voted against him.

Washington, D.C. June 30, 2025 – Today the Supreme Court held that states will again have the right to segregate their schools. In an opinion written by Justice Thomas and joined in by the five other conservative Justices, the Court expanded on its higher education affirmative action decision and said that education is not a right under the Constitution at all. “Even just the word, ‘education’ isn’t mentioned in the Constitution at all.” He then went on, “How could black students be deprived of any rights by being deprived of an education, something no one has any right to in the first place.” Then citing to his preferred originalist theory of interpretation, Justice Thomas said, “Hell, plenty of black folks didn’t go to school when the Constitution was written so how could they have a right to go to school now? Just because my stepson had his college paid for by one of my buddies doesn’t prove anything. Everyone has an equal right to find a buddy who will pay for their kid.” In a fiery dissent, Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Barrett and Sotomayor simply said, “WTF?”