‘ Little guys’ win big at Supreme Court this year
Justices often show skepticism of actions taken by government
One of the toughest criticisms leveled against Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch during his confirmation hearings in March was that he frequently ruled against the “little guy.” Not so the Supreme Court. As Gorsuch was being grilled by Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee March 21, the court he soon would join ruled that Elijah Manuel can challenge on constitutional grounds his sevenweek detention by Joliet, Ill., police for drug charges that later were dropped.
The next day, as Gorsuch was defending his federal appeals court ruling against a student with autism, Chief Justice John Roberts announced the high court’s unanimous decision in favor of another such student — one that struck down the very standard Gorsuch had applied.
Such rulings were the rule at the Supreme Court this term — from an October decision striking down Shaun Bosse’s death sentence in Oklahoma over the improper use of victim impact statements to an April verdict in favor of two lesbian couples denied the same rights as heterosexual couples to be listed on their children’s birth certificates.
In between, the justices ruled in favor of criminal defendants, death- row inmates, immigrants facing deportation, children with disabilities and others in more than a dozen cases pitting individuals against government authorities. About half the time, their decisions were unanimous.
The rulings represent “a skepticism of the government, which I think probably unites both wings of the court,” said Christopher Landau, an appellate lawyer who won two such cases argued in April.
While the number of little- guy victories this term may have been unusual, they were not unique. For several years, the court has pushed back against what it sees as egregious overcriminalization — ranging from a jilted wife’s attempted assault prosecution under a chemical weapons treaty to a Florida fisherman’s conviction for tossing undersized grouper under a law targeting white- collar destruction of evidence.
What often binds these cases are great plaintiffs or a great set of facts.
So it was that 13- year- old Ehlena Fry won a unanimous decision against her school district in her quest to bring her service dog into class.
And while Lester Packingham, a convicted sex offender, might not engender sympathy, his conviction eight years later under a North Carolina law prohibiting him from using social- networking websites also produced a unanimous reversal.
Packingham had posted “Praise be to GOD” on Facebook to celebrate the dismissal of a traffic ticket.
The court ruled in favor of death- row inmates based on racist testimony, intellectual disability and trial procedures. It ruled for criminal defendants victimized by overzealous prosecutors, racist jurors and ineffective lawyers. It even ordered Colorado to return money paid by people whose convictions were later overturned.