The Shadow
June and the Supreme Court
The month of June is always a critical time of year for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The terms of the justices begin on the first Monday of October and last until the summer recess of the following year, which usually starts in late June or early July.
The Court typically hears oral arguments on various cases between October and April. The justices then issue opinions before they depart for summer recess.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court makes headlines with a number of rulings each year in the month of June.
For example, one ruling recently issued involves a 2023 Tennessee law on “gender affirming” medical care.
Tennessee passed a law that limits the administration of puberty blockers and hormone treatments to minors, essentially banning transgender programs for children.
In United States v. Skrmetti, the justices upheld the Tennessee law and said it did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Another recent decision by the Court relates to a Biden-era EPA rule.
The so-called “good neighbor” rule seeks to eliminate the spread of smog-forming emissions across state lines.
In an 8-0 decision, the Court ruled that the states’ challenges to the misguided EPA rule should be made in their respective regional circuits instead of having to file in the DC circuit.
Delivering the Court’s opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas says that “EPA’s disapprovals are locally or regionally applicable actions reviewable in a regional Circuit.”
We are still waiting on other opinions from the Court.
One major case comes out of Maryland.
The education board of Montgomery County, Maryland, approved LGBTQ-themed reading materials for students in the County. In these storybooks, it is common to see transgender and queer individuals.
A book approved for the pre-k curriculum, called “Pride Puppy!”, even depicts drag queens! At the end of the book, the reader is encouraged to identify, among other things, a drag queen!
Regrettably, however, the schools changed a policy, removing the ability of parents to opt their children out of the reading curriculum.
Even if a child’s parents object, this means that kids in the school district would be forced to read these materials!
As someone who supported the 2023 Parents Bill of Rights Act and believes that parents logically must have a say in the education of their kids, I am hopeful the Supreme Court will side with parents.
Should the Supreme Court rule that the move to deny parents an opt-out option was unconstitutional, it would be a huge win for parents’ rights in Maryland and across the country.
The Supreme Court is expected to weigh in on a separate case related to a Trump Executive Order on birthright citizenship.
Trump signed the Order on Day One of his second term, arguing that the United States does not universally extend citizenship to everyone born in the United States.
Those who agree with the President’s argument cite the Fourteenth Amendment. The Amendment says those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States are citizens.
It does not just say those who are born in the United States are automatically granted U.S. citizenship status.
Because the parents of illegal aliens are unlawfully present in the United States, the argument goes that they and their children are thus not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, but rather are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their country of origin.
Complicating matters on birthright citizenship is an 1898 landmark decision.
Wong Kim Ark, the son of Chinese immigrants who had “permanent domicile and residence” in the United States, was born in the United States. Ark then left the country.
Later, officials denied Ark re-entry into the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act, despite Ark’s claim he was a legal U.S. citizen.
The Supreme Court determined that Ark was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.
I am sure many will note the distinction that Ark’s parents, while not citizens, were legally domiciled in the United States, and I would argue therefore “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States government.
But the case is interesting, and the Court could go either way.
The Supreme Court’s decision on birthright citizenship will affect future illegal immigration, immigrants and the United States government’s response to illegal aliens.
The Supreme Court has and always will play an influential role in American policy.
And whether I agree or disagree with their decisions, I will respect the Court’s issued opinions.
If you have questions, concerns, or comments, feel free to contact my office. You can call my Abingdon office at 276-525-1405 or my Christiansburg office at 540-381-5671. To reach my office via email, please visit my website at www.morgangriffith.house.gov.
NOTE: My Washington, D.C., office has openings for interns this fall. Potential interested applicants can look at details available on my website.
