‘Little guys’ big winners at Supreme Court
This term’s decisions show skepticism of government actions
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 seven-week 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.
Several factors likely drove the court to hear appeals from little
guys and rule in their favor:
Several cases raised claims under the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, or the First Amendment’s freedom of speech guarantee.
“This is a court that is solicitous of individual constitutional rights,” Landau said. “It’s pretty rare that they get a First Amendment claim that they don’t uphold.”
The 64 cases heard were selected by an eight-member court following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The justices were hunting for disputes that would not produce 4-4 deadlocks.
“They were most solicitous to cases that looked like they’d be easy ones where the lower court was quite probably wrong,” said Jeffrey Fisher, a Stanford law professor who argued four cases during the term.
And then there is the justices’ sense of responsibility as the ultimate backstop for those treated wrongly by the legal system.
Said Jeffrey Green, national co-chair of the Amicus Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers: “The Supreme Court does, to a certain extent, view itself as the last opportunity to achieve justice.”