Hello and thank you for reading and subscribing to The Global Snapshot’s newsletter - Monday Morning Snapshot. From July 11th, 2022 - we will be implementing a new format and content for our newsletter - only focusing on US politics in order to fully eliminate political bias inside our media. 

A new section which has been added for your convenience is the Journalist Opinion section. We also have a Weekly Panorama which you can read if you would like to read the summarized version! 

Weekly Panorama - your weekly summary!

The Supreme Court's Spring Term is Ending: Here are the Major Takeaways 

The Supreme Court has been at the centre of political discussion for weeks on end-- whether that be on social media, at the dinner table, or even during 4th of July gatherings. It's customary for the Court to release the majority of their decisions in the summer, which they continued this year. As political awareness has increased across the nation over the last few years, many have been waiting for the Court's decisions on the bounty of highly controversial cases that were set to be released this term. Much of the increased attention to the Supreme Court and its Justices can be attributed to the 6-3 conservative majority it now holds following former President Trump's three conservative appointees.

Up for discussion were cases affecting abortion rights, gun control, environmental regulation, separation of church and state, border control, and Native American legal grounds. Below is a summary of the major decisions released so far, and the full decisions for these cases and others can be found here.

Biden v Texas (Border control)

Facts: Biden sought to repeal Trump's "remain in Mexico" policy, which stated that certain individuals crossing the border illegally were to be sent directly to Mexico during their immigration proceedings. Missouri challenged Biden's repeal of the policy, claiming that the action would violate immigration law. The Court's decision concerned if Biden's repeal of the policy would go through and have legal effect, or if "remain in Mexico" had to stay implemented.

Ruling: 5-4 in favour of Biden. The Court determined that the federal law Missouri claimed was violated by the repeal of "remain in Mexico" was in fact not broken, therefore Biden's repeal of the policy would take legal effect. 

West Virginia v EPA (Environmental regulation)

Facts: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with interpreting the laws Congress passes regarding the environment and putting them into a practical sense that can be applied to the public. The North American Coal Corporation challenged the EPA's authority to broadly regulate greenhouse gas emissions from virtually any industry following measures taken by the agency to carry out the Clean Power Plan.

Ruling: 6-3 in favour of West Virginia. The Court found that the EPA exceeded its authority granted by Congress in the Clean Air Act when it set emissions caps to carry out the Clean Power Plan. Reasoning included that the regulations were of such "economic and political significance" that Congress did not implicitly grant the EPA the authority to carry out such regulations as the agency had argued. 

Oklahoma v Castro-Huerta (Native American legal grounds)

Facts: Non-native man Castro-Huerta was convicted of child neglect in an Oklahoma state court of his Native American daughter although the offending actions were committed on Cherokee Reservation land. Castro-Huerta argued that the conviction was invalid because, in a 2020 Supreme Court decision, it was decided that states need federal approval to prosecute crimes against Native Americans which in his case, Oklahoma did not seek. 

Ruling: 5-4 in favour of Oklahoma. The Court decided that the federal and state governments have the authority to prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes against Native Americans on Native Reservation land, reasoning in the majority opinion that Native land is not separate from state territory. 

Kennedy v Bremerton School District (Separation of church and state)

Facts: The Bremerton School district requested that football coach Kennedy stop engaging in prayer with a group of his players during and after school-sponsored games reason that it violates the Establishment Clause, which supports that government employees (including teachers) cannot encourage or discriminate against religious conduct while on duty. Kennedy refused to do so and was fired, but sued the district arguing that his First Amendment rights were violated.

Ruling: 6-3 in favour of Kennedy. The Court determined that two clauses in the First Amendment protected Kennedy's right to publicly pray during school-sponsored events although he was a government employee. The majority opinion argued that Kennedy was not acting in his duties as a coach, while the dissenting opinions argued that his conduct was coercion and in multiple instances violated the Establishment Clause.  

Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization (Abortion)

Facts: Mississippi passed a law banning virtually all abortions after 15 weeks of conception, and the law was quickly challenged by Jackson Women's Health Organization, the solely licensed abortion facility in the state. The facility argued that the law did not fulfil the requirement of proving that a fetus would be viable outside of the womb at 15 weeks, which had been required by the Supreme Court in a previous decision in order to restrict abortions. 

Ruling: 6-3 in favour of Mississippi. Overturning the landmark case Roe v Wade, the majority opinion of the Court argued that the right to an abortion isn't in the Constitution, nor is it necessary for liberty. 

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (Gun control)

Facts: A New York law requiring a citizen to prove a need for self-protection to receive a license to conceal-carry a firearm in public unrestricted was challenged by two men who were denied a conceal-carry permit, arguing that the state did not display "proper cause" for the restriction against conceal-carry permits.  

Ruling: 6-3 in favour of Bruen. The Court stated that New York's law violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and that there is not a tradition of regulations requiring a "special need" to be proven in order to conceal carry.

Many of the decisions released during this term are frightening to millions of Americans, as they strip away liberty and make the country a more dangerous place. The ruling in the most popular case in the media, Dobbs, is a sad moment for everyone in danger of getting pregnant in a state which has already restricted or is on its way to restricting access to reproductive care. This, of course, paves the way for other landmark cases based on the right to privacy to be overturned as well, which is something that should worry everyone-- including those perceived as having the most rights. The truth is, when the Supreme Court starts chipping away at certain cases which are based on similar concepts to other cases, those are in danger as well.

Although there are plenty of decisions to be concerned about, a few are a step in the right direction like the repeal of Trump's "remain in Mexico policy". As far as the other decisions, protests have rightfully erupted across the country and an unprecedented wave of advocacy donations and awareness posts on social media has come out. Although it may be tempting to quit and accept defeat, it's essential to our future and the liberty of future generations.

With the end of the spring term nearing the Supreme court has made many controversial opinions this year. The most significant was the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which through the justification of a right to privacy allowed for abortions in the United States. This decision did not ban abortions universally and many states are choosing to become safe havens for abortion seekers. Giving the right to decide this matter to the states will likely result in various degrees of lockdowns on abortion depending on the state. President Biden’s new executive order reflects the White House’s commitment to free choice and is aimed at helping provide health care across the country. The White House stated, “President Biden has made clear that the only way to secure a woman's right to choose is for Congress to restore the protections of Roe as federal law.” opening another avenue to secure the right(Sullivan).

In addition to Roe v. Wade, the Supreme court also affected gun laws. It ruled that it was unconstitutional to restrict people’s right to carry concealed weapons (guns) and removed a New York law that attempted to do so. This does the opposite of Roe v wade, which gave power back to the states, and instead, limits state power to legislate guns. Beyond that, it would take apples and oranges to compare the two rulings as they used different justifications for their legitimacy. These two rulings display a shift in the Supreme Court towards much more conservative values.

You would think that as frequently as conservative judges speak of the "founding father's intent" that they would follow their largest guidance of the Supreme Court: to remain impartial; but they couldn't have done worse at heeding their warnings. The branch meant to defend democracy may end up being its downfall as biased decisions are raining down like acid rain, causing concerned observers like myself to refresh the Court's website every morning at 10:00 AM just to see what freedoms and safeties we as Americans have left. 

The argument used in a lot of these cases of, "if it hasn't been present in US history, it isn't supported" is a really weak reason to deny decades of precedent, but more importantly, points to an absence of real constitutional or legal support. Not only that, but many things haven't been "present in US history," like gay marriage (which just to note, Clarence Thomas, said that he would like the Court to revisit). 

The Court has fumbled on a ridiculous amount of cases this term. Restricting the EPA's authority to do its job came out of nowhere just like ignoring half a century of enforcing the separation of church and state, but we had plenty of warning about one: abortion rights being stripped away. Roe v Wade was originally decided on the grounds that the right to privacy exists in the "penumbras" (shadows) of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. That right to privacy which the Court had previously found didn't just magically disappear-- the conservative Justices just chose to ignore it in order to further their own ideological interests. The decision to overturn Roe was infuriating, yes, but one case that hasn't received enough attention (if any) is Castro-Huerta, solely because of how absolutely bizarre-- and frankly, incorrect-- the reasoning is. For centuries, the US government has promised Native Americans that the state will not infringe on their authority on their own land (which I would argue is the entire country), that being dedicated to Reservations. Five Justices apparently through this completely out the window, and with it, stripped Native Americans of a crucial jurisdiction. The claim that Native land isn't separated from that of states is completely incorrect, as evident by multiple treaties and past cases. 

At this point, I'm sadly inclined to say that the sitting conservative Justices do not care about their duties to remain loyal to only the Constitution and legal precedent but instead have been corrupted by their own political agendas. As a progressive, I tend not to throw the founding fathers around but this is exactly what they were trying to prevent: Justices being driven by politics instead of the law. In the years ahead, we must watch the Court with a critical eye because this is likely the start of a dangerous era of biased, backwards-facing decisions.

- Written by Ashlyn Hill

The Supreme court has proved itself to be illegitimate and has overreached its powers. When each justice was interviewed in their congressional hearings, they all stated they would uphold Roe V. Wade yet now that they are in office, they seem to have changed their minds. Considering their political leanings prior to becoming Justices of the Supreme court one cannot help but think this was preplanned. This similar trend occurred with several other biased decisions this year involving Roe v. Wade as well as the separation of Church and State which was muddled with the new ruling that states must fund religious schools the same as secular schools. Justice Clarence Thomas even hinted those previous decisions concerning gay rights and contraception might need to be re-analyzed. This displays clearly that the biased justices presently sitting on the court have an agenda to fulfil rather than hearing new cases that could possibly further clarify the law.

The Supreme court needs to choose whether it wants to empower state rights or empower the federal government, but it cannot do both. Picking and choosing when states or individuals are allowed to make decisions shows the court to be biased and untrustworthy. This goes beyond being conservative or liberal and entirely centres on a court that thinks itself above reprisal. The government was set up as a system of checks and balances and it is time the President and Congress check the Supreme Court. If not, then this could lead to a destabilization within the country as the protests and picketing of the court have already occurred. The fact that their personal information has been leaked to the public shows that times are turning dangerous, and Americans are no longer willing to take their right’s being limited. Even conservative Americans have had enough of the clearly biased court that seems to use their personal beliefs to justify decisions that are supposed to be based on logic and reason.

- Written by Alexis Walker

The Global Snapshot in association with Stedu Association

Stedu Association is a 501c3 nonprofit organization based in South Korea - aiming to provide FREE STEM opportunities for middle and high school students. Stedu Association is hosting its first-ever Startup Summer Camp after a series of successful summer, fall, and winter courses with lecturers from the University of Pennsylvania, Oxford, Dartmouth, Columbia College, Mayo Clinic School of Medicine, Kings College London, and more…

Impacted over 300+ students only in 2021 in 14 different time zones around the world. If you are a parent of a student or a student, we definitely recommend Stedu Association Startup Summer Camp - a 100% free international summer camp hosted via zoom. Click here to register!

Want to contact The Global Snapshot?

Advertise → Link

Careers → Link

General Inquires → [email protected]