The Byron White Center for the Study of American Constitutional Law kicked off the new school year with a SCOTUS Review packed with new professors and insightful updates on recent United States Supreme Court decisions. Students and faculty gathered together for lunch on Wednesday, September 18 to evaluate how new decisions will impact federal agencies, voting rights, medical funding for Native tribes, and more.听
Professor Daria Roithmayr began the Review with a case analysis of听Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.听听After challenges to South Carolina鈥檚 gerrymandering based on racial and political categories, the Supreme Court decided that political gerrymandering is permitted despite the use of race as a proxy for other characteristics. To defeat such a policy, plaintiffs must show evidence that race was the predominant reasoning for state decisions. From this decision, Roithmayr pointed out that this decision may open up the door for states to address racial disparities through other characteristics听听such as past experience with discrimination or political affiliations.听
Professor Laura Dolbow clarified how the听Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo听decision will affect federal agencies. Overall,听Loper Bright听only affects statutes with ambiguous language and gives judges the option to defer to their own interpretations. Federal agency rules are further protected after Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System decision requiring plaintiffs under the Administrative Procedure Act to show injury to challenge regulations.听
In a review of听Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe;听Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe,听Professor Vanessa Racehorse outlined the Indian Self-Determination Act and funding issues of the Indian Health Service. This decision requires the Indian Health Service to pay contract support costs to Tribes when they deliver services with funding from third-party payers. With an underfunded tribal health care system, this decision is of the greatest importance.听
Finally, the outcome of United States v. Rahimi was analyzed by Professor Jonathon Booth. The Supreme Court has based their decision on legislative history and traditions of gun regulation in the United States. After the Court鈥檚 decision in听New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc., Inc. v. Bruen, it was understood that history and tradition would be the determining factor when evaluating Second Amendment rights. A narrow interpretation of the Bruen test could render the Second Amendment nearly unlimited. In听Rahimi, the Court clarifies that this standard is more flexible. Courts can look to the purpose and application of historical laws when applying the Bruen test. This interpretation allows the Court to temporarily disarm individuals proven to be a danger to others.听
The Byron White Center is excited to welcome new professors to offer their expertise and experience to the Colorado Law community. Audience members appreciated the accessibility of these case reviews to those without a legal background. Stay tuned for future events highlighting the ever changing landscape of state and federal Constitutional Law.听