RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Millhiser writes: "For more than a quarter century, Justice Clarence Thomas served as the Supreme Court's daft old uncle."

Donald Trump and Neil Gorsuch. (photo: Eric Thayer/Getty Images)
Donald Trump and Neil Gorsuch. (photo: Eric Thayer/Getty Images)


Neil Gorsuch Just Wrote an Opinion So Radical That Clarence Thomas Wouldn't Join It

By Ian Millhiser, ThinkProgress

12 June 18


Not even Justice Thomas would sign onto the paean to the Gilded Age that Gorsuch enshrined in his most recent dissent.

or more than a quarter century, Justice Clarence Thomas served as the Supreme Court’s daft old uncle. Under Thomas’ reading of the Constitution, federal laws ranging from child labor laws, to minimum wage laws, to the ban on whites-only lunch counters are all unconstitutional. Thomas once argued that the First Amendment does not apply to high school students because eighteenth century fathers behaved like petty tyrants.

But Thomas may have just been dethroned. Dissenting in Sveen v. Melin, Neil Gorsuch tells Thomas to hold his beer.

Sveen is the sort of routine clean-up case that the justices often hand down after a lower court goes too far out on a limb and needs to be reined in. It involves a Minnesota law that, among other things, governs how life insurance policies should handle divorces.

If one spouse lists the other as the beneficiary on their insurance policy, and then the couple divorces, Minnesota law automatically revokes that designation. The theory is that “the average Joe does not want his ex inheriting what he leaves behind,” but in practice,  many forget to fill out the paperwork to remove their spouse as a beneficiary. Minnesota law does not forbid someone from designating their ex-husband or ex-wife as an insurance beneficiary, but it does require them to refile the paperwork to do so after the divorce.

There is a robust policy debate among states about whether this sort of automatic revocation is a good idea, but, as Justice Elena Kagan explains on behalf of every member of the Court who doesn’t occupy a seat that was held open for a year until Donald Trump could fill it, Minnesota’s law is clearly constitutional.

There is a long line of precedents, stretching back to the English common law, providing that when someone’s marital status changes, the law should automatically update who benefits if that person dies. Writing only for himself, however, Gorsuch claims that Minnesota’s law violates the Constitution because life insurance agreements are a form of contract.

Obligations of contract

The original Constitution forbids states from enacting a “law impairing the obligation of contracts.” According to Gorsuch’s lone dissent, this means that any law that prevents an already-existing contract from being enforced is invalid. Gorsuch’s rule, moreover, is quite unforgiving — “any legislative deviation from a contract’s obligations, ‘however minute, or apparently immaterial,’ violates the Constitution.”

Were this rule to become the law, it would have staggering consequences across many areas of the law. Suppose that Joe agrees to pay Ali $10 an hour to work in Joe’s factory. Now suppose that the state legislature passes a law increasing the minimum wage to $12 dollars an hour. Under Gorsuch’s rule, Joe and Ali’s employment contract preceded the state minimum wage law, so the minimum wage law could not, in this instance, apply to Ali.

Or imagine that a power plant, which uses an extraordinary dirty method to produce power, contracts with a power company to provide a certain amount of energy to the power company’s customers. Then imagine that a state passes a law banning this very dirty form of energy production, effectively requiring power plants to adopt less polluting technology. Under Gorsuch’s rule, that state law would impair an existing contract, and thus would be unconstitutional as applied to this power plant.

Or imagine that a crop-duster contracts with a local farmer to spray a highly toxic pesticide on the farmer’s crops. After several scientific studies reveal that even trace amounts of this pesticide cause severe brain damage in children, the state bans the use of the pesticide. Under Gorsuch’s rule, this state law would impair the existing contract between the farmer and the crop duster, and thus the farmer could continue to poison nearby children.

Indeed, there are few instances in which changes to state law, or new such laws, wouldn’t impose some burdens on, at least, some existing contracts. A new speed limit might prevent truckers from delivering their loads on time, despite the fact that they contracted to do so. A law requiring doctors to have medical degrees could invalidate employment contracts between hospitals and quacks. Gorsuch’s hyper-rigid reading of the Contracts Clause could render governance nearly impossible.

Which is why, as far back as 1830, the Supreme Court recognized that such a hyper-rigid interpretation of the Constitution is not workable. As the Supreme Court explained in Jackson v. Lamphire, a law that imposes incidental burdens on a contract may still be valid if it were enacted for “reasons of sound policy” that are not “so unreasonable as to amount to a denial of a right.”

More recent cases fleshed out this doctrine considerably. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co, a state law does not violate the Contracts Clause if it does not operate “as a substantial impairment of a contractual relationship,” or if the state has a “significant and legitimate public purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem.”

Willful ignorance

Gorsuch’s Sveen dissent, moreover, suggests that the judge has an especially radical agenda when it is read alongside of Gorsuch’s recent majority opinion in Epic Systems v. Morris.

Epic Systems involved employment contracts that forced workers to sign away many of their rights to sue their employer, often under penalty of termination. Yet Gorsuch’s opinion rested on the fiction that these coerced agreements were voluntary contracts.

Indeed, Gorsuch’s willful blindness to the power differential between workers and their employers closely resembles the logic of one of the Supreme Court’s most infamous decisions, Lochner v. New York, which struck down a New York law prohibiting bakery owners from overworking their workers.

These workers often labored for 13 hours a day or more, in squalid conditions, for meager weekly pay. Nevertheless, the Court held in Lochner that the state could not intervene to give such workers a more humane workload because “there is no contention that” bakery workers were unable “to assert their rights and care for themselves without the protecting arm of the State.”

The fact that Gorsuch’s Epic Systems opinion was joined by four justices is a worrying sign that the Court’s present majority no longer recoils against Lochnerian ignorance of how the workplace functions. Gorsuch’s Sveen opinion is worrying for a different reason. It suggests that Gorsuch is eager to implement an anti-government agenda that would even make Justice Thomas cringe.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+27 # Dfnclblty 2018-06-12 18:45
this is only a beginning - wait until potus has it's parade for being best friends with Kim!

so many rights of the Citizens are being, and have been erased without Citizens knowledge that when the end arrives - soon - hell will be a luxury to be begged for.
 
 
+70 # WBoardman 2018-06-12 18:50
Gorsuch has no right to be a Justice.

Thanks, Republicans, especially Mitch McConnell.

And thanks Democrats & Obama for your weakness.

Was the turning point when Biden lacked the courage to
play it straight with Anita Hill and call G.W.H. Bush's bluff
on the "most qualified" to poison the well that
was almost made potable by Thurgood Marshall?

Is anyone capable of feeling shame any more?
 
 
+3 # thehodges1 2018-06-12 23:26
AT ONE TIME TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT WEAKNESS. BUT NOW THERE IS NO MORE LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION.
 
 
+6 # boredlion 2018-06-12 23:54
It could be, Mr. Boardman. Very good piece, by the way.
Or, it could be that our so-called sacrosanct Constitution has finally become as frangible as a Barbie Doll. Might as well indict all politicians, lawyers and judges for this spiral down into the abyss.
[i.e., Stop blaming the media !]
 
 
+7 # economagic 2018-06-13 05:02
Well said as usual, Mr. Boardman. My first thought upon reading your first sentence was "Neither does Uncle Thomas," but you had already covered that.

Tyrants never feel shame. Yale historian Timothy Snyder did his part last year to revive the use of that term and convince the rest of us that we should recognize it as the proper term for the situation in which humankind increasingly finds itself.
 
 
+14 # BetaTheta 2018-06-12 22:34
We now have a whole slew of justices who have never really been in the real world of work, beyond maybe a paper route in high school. Straight from there to the Ivy League and then corporate law.
 
 
+12 # Jaax88 2018-06-12 23:07
One way of characterizing Gorsuch is as an "educated dunce."
 
 
+9 # NAVYVET 2018-06-13 05:17
Those Dummocrats who want Biden to be nominated in 2020 need to read this comment. Thanks, WBoardman.
 
 
+4 # RLF 2018-06-13 05:38
Gorsuch trying to protect the much hated Arbitration clause?
 
 
+22 # Art947 2018-06-13 06:59
When you are the son of a bitch, you have no qualms about treating human beings disdainfully. It is a wonder how Gorsuch ever received a law degree. He certainly doesn't deserve the title, "honorable"!
 
 
+16 # barbell1941 2018-06-13 10:36
The willful ignorance of Trump rubs off on all who associate with him. In addition to Gorsuch, we have Hannity, Pence, Cohen and the long string of his ex- and soon to be ex-attorneys like Rudy. No one of reasonable intelligence or scruples will associate with the fool. Sooner or later the well is going to run dry and there will be no one who will work for him other than his family.
 
 
+12 # opinionaire 2018-06-14 05:59
Had Gorsuch had any honor (he does not), he would have declined the position until there had at least been a vote on the previous nominee.
 
 
+4 # RoughAcres 2018-06-15 00:43
Fraud in any contract automatically nullifies the contract.

#Nullify2016 on the basis of outright fraud, and that will nullify ALL of the fruit of this poisonous timeline... er, tree.

#RebootAmerica
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN