5. Sexual offenders and social media
States struggle to protect children from convicted sex offenders. North Carolina, for example, made it a felony for sex offenders (who had completed their sentences) to use social media sites that “permit minor children to become members or create and maintain personal web pages.”10
At stake. In Packingham v North Carolina, the Court was asked to decide whether this statute violates the First Amendment (free speech) rights of sex offenders.11
Final ruling. The Court held that the North Carolina limitation on sex offenders’ use of social media was too broad. It noted the wide range of political, employment, news, personal, commercial, and religious websites that are off limits to sex offenders under the statute—hardly narrowly tailored. It suggested, however, that it probably would be constitutional for a state to prohibit sex offenders “from engaging in conduct that often presages a sexual crime, like contacting a minor or using a website to gather information about a minor.”11
It was important in this case that the defendant had already served his entire sentence and was “no longer subject to the supervision of the criminal justice system.”11 If he had still been in prison, the state could limit or prohibit his Internet use. Even if he had been on probation or parole (under the supervision of the criminal justice system) the restrictions may well have been permitted. In addition, the state could impose new, narrowly tailored restrictions.
This case is also a reminder that ObGyns are very important in the efforts to eliminate child sexual abuse. All states have laws that require the reporting of known or suspected sexual abuse. In addition to complying with the law, such reports are often critical to discovering and ending the abuse.
6. Transgender rights
The Court had accepted a “transgender bathroom case” in Gloucester County School Board v G.G.12
At stake. This case essentially challenged the Obama Administration’s requirement that schools allow transgender students to use the restrooms in which they feel most comfortable. It was one of the most anticipated cases of the Term, but it essentially disappeared. Following the presidential election, the Department of Education rescinded the earlier guidance on which the case was based.
Final ruling. The Court returned the case to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration. This issue, however, may reappear before the Court in the form of a claim that the states must provide this accommodation as a matter of federal statutory right, or even Equal Protection.
Other interesting decisions of the 2016-2017 Supreme Court Term
- In an important First Amendment decision, the Court held that it is a violation of the Freedom of Religion to deny a church-related school access to generally available state grant funds solely because of its religious status (in this case the program funded playground surfacing grants).1
- In several cases, it was apparent that the Court is uncomfortable with the way death penalty cases are handled in some states.2
- Juries may be questioned about racial bias that was expressed during jury deliberations--a substantial change for many courts.3
- The failure of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to register the trademark for the band "The Slants" was a First Amendment violation. One reason that this case was watched was because of the effort of the PTO to deregister the trademark of the Washington Redskins.4
- The Court considered 9 cases involving revoking citizenship, deportation, and cross-border liability (an extraordinary number). Two cases that could change the nature and process of deportation were held over to the next Term for reargument.
- Individualized educational plans under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) must target more than trivial progress for the students.5
References
- Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v Comer, 582 US 15 577 (2017).
- McAllister S. Death-penalty symposium: A court increasingly uncomfortable with the death penalty. SCOTUSblog.com. http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/death-penalty-symposium-court-increasingly-uncomfortable-death-penalty/. Published June 29, 2017. Accessed November 2, 2017.
- Pena-Rodriguez v Colorado, 580 US 15 606 (2017).
- Matal v Tam, 582 US 15 1293 (2017).
- Endrew F v Douglas County School District, RE-1, 580 US 15 827 (2017).
Summary of the Term
The Term was notable for the level of agreement. With 69 decided cases, 41 (69%) were unanimous. In 59 cases (85%), there was a strong consensus, with no more than 2 justices dissenting. Only 7 decisions (10%) were 5 to 4. Justice Kennedy was, as usual, the deciding vote in most of the close cases. He voted in the majority in 97% of the decisions. Justice Gorsuch took the place of Justice Scalia (who passed away in February 2016), so arguably the Court is ideologically close to where it has been for a number of years. Despite rumors that Justice Kennedy would announce his resignation from the Court, neither he nor any other justice has left. The Supreme Court began its new Term on October 2, 2017, with a full complement of 9 justices.
What’s to come
The Court will add cases through much of its new Term, but it has already accepted cases dealing with arbitration agreements (again); public employees’ union dues; immigration (again); the privacy of information held by mobile phone companies; a constitutional challenge to political gerrymandering; bakeries and gay-marriage ceremonies; whistleblowers and Dodd-Frank regulations; sports gambling and the NCAA; and more.
Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.