Supreme Court Process and Insights from Holt v Hobbs & Elonis

This article explores the Supreme Court's decision-making process in constitutional cases and delves into two significant cases: Holt v. Hobbs and Elonis v. United States.

The Supreme Court's Decision-Making Process

The Supreme Court operates on a system of discretionary review, meaning it is not obligated to hear every case presented to it. Each year, approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari (cert petitions) are filed, requesting the Court to review decisions made by lower appellate courts. However, the Supreme Court typically decides only about 75 to 80 cases on their merits annually.

The process for a case accepted by the Supreme Court generally follows these steps:

1. Granting Certiorari: The Court grants a writ of certiorari, agreeing to hear the case.
2. Briefs: Parties involved submit written briefs outlining their arguments. Justices and their clerks review these briefs.
3. Oral Arguments: The Court holds oral arguments where each side presents its case to the nine justices.
4. Conference and Vote: The justices adjourn for a conference to discuss the case and may take an initial vote.
5. Opinion Writing: Justices then write opinions.
   • Majority Opinion: If all nine justices agree, a single opinion for the Court is issued.
   • Concurring Opinion: If a justice agrees with the majority's outcome but for different reasons, or wishes to add further points, they may write a concurring opinion. There are two types:
     • One type agrees with the majority's result and reasoning but adds further points or alternative reasoning.
     • Another type agrees with the result but fundamentally disagrees with the majority's reasoning, reaching the same conclusion through an entirely different legal path.
   • Dissenting Opinion: Justices who disagree with the majority's decision may write a dissenting opinion. These dissents can sometimes become the basis for future majority opinions, as seen in Brown v. Board of Education which adopted the dissenting view from Plessy v. Ferguson.
6. Publication: All opinions are published in the U.S. Reports, contributing to constitutional law.

The Power of Appellate Courts

For the vast majority of cases, the appellate court's decision is the final stage. This underscores the significant power held by appellate judges, making their nominations highly scrutinized and important.

Plurality Opinions

Occasionally, the Supreme Court may not reach a clear majority on the reasoning behind a decision. This can happen when, for example, four justices agree on one line of reasoning, four on another, and one justice agrees with elements of both, leading to a result that satisfies only the swing justice. In such cases, a "plurality opinion" is issued. While the result is binding, the reasoning is not as strongly precedential as a majority opinion because it doesn't represent the agreement of a majority of justices. Future cases may find it more challenging to cite a plurality opinion as definitive precedent.

Case Study 1: Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs involved an Arkansas state prisoner challenging a prison policy that prohibited him from growing a beard, which he claimed was required by his religious beliefs. The policy allowed only a quarter-inch beard for specific skin conditions, while the prisoner sought to grow at least a half-inch beard.

The case hinges on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal statute that imposes a higher burden on laws infringing upon a prisoner's religious exercise. RLUIPA was enacted in response to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), which held that generally applicable laws, even if they incidentally burden religious practice, do not violate the First Amendment if they have a valid secular purpose and do not target a specific religious group.

RLUIPA, and its predecessor the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), established a three-part test for laws burdening religious practice:

1. Legitimate Religious Practice: Is there a sincere religious practice burdened by the law?
2. Compelling Interest: Does the state have a compelling interest in enforcing the law?
3. Least Restrictive Means: Is the law narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest, using the least restrictive means possible?

This case draws parallels to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), where the Supreme Court ruled that closely held corporations with sincere religious beliefs could be exempt from the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate.

Key Issues in Holt v. Hobbs:

• Limiting Principle: Justices expressed concern about where to draw the line if a prisoner is allowed a half-inch beard for religious reasons. What prevents requests for longer beards, and where does the principle stop?
• Deference to Government: To what extent should the Court defer to the judgment of prison officials regarding the compelling nature of their policies? Arkansas is one of only a few states with such a strict beard policy, raising questions about whether the Court should consider national practices or defer to individual state policies.
• Least Restrictive Means: Arkansas argued that a blanket ban on beards was necessary for security (e.g., hiding contraband, identifying escaped prisoners). The petitioner countered that less restrictive means, such as daily beard inspections or taking photos with and without beards, could achieve the same security goals.
• Establishment Clause Concerns: A broader, though not directly addressed in this case, argument is whether RLUIPA itself is unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. Critics argue that RLUIPA grants special legal entitlements based on religion, potentially favoring certain religious groups over others or over non-religious individuals.

Case Study 2: Elonis v. United States

Elonis v. United States concerns a federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 875(c)) that criminalizes transmitting "any communication containing any threat to injure the person of another" in interstate commerce.

Jurisdictional Hook: Interstate Commerce

The phrase "in interstate commerce" serves as a "jurisdictional hook," allowing Congress to regulate this activity under the Commerce Clause. This means the threat must cross state lines (e.g., via the internet) for the federal statute to apply. This concept highlights the distinction between "national problems" (widespread but solvable by states) and "federal problems" (crossing state lines, requiring federal intervention). A similar jurisdictional hook was added to a law prohibiting guns near schools to make it constitutional after an initial version was struck down.

The Core Issue: Intent in "True Threats"

The central question in Elonis is whether the statute requires the speaker to intend their words to be understood as a threat, or if it's sufficient for a "reasonable person" to objectively perceive the words as a threat, regardless of the speaker's subjective intent.

The case involved a man who posted threatening content on Facebook, including rap lyrics, directed at his ex-wife and others, often using disclaimers like "it would be very illegal for me to..."

Arguments for and Against an Intent Standard:

• Arguments for Speaker's Intent:

  • Difficulty of Proof: Proving a speaker's subjective intent can be challenging.
  • Chilling Effect: An objective standard could "chill speech," making people hesitant to express themselves for fear of misinterpretation, especially in artistic forms like rap lyrics where literal interpretation may not be intended.
  • Criminalizing Misunderstanding: Punishing someone for a perceived threat they didn't intend could criminalize misunderstanding, as tone and context are often lost in written communication, particularly online.
  • Punishing Thoughts: Punishing someone for an act that is only threatening due to their internal intent raises concerns about punishing thoughts rather than actions.

• Arguments for Objective "Reasonable Person" Standard:

  • Difficulty of Proving Intent: It's hard to prove what's "in someone's head," allowing many genuinely threatening statements to go unpunished.
  • Harm to Listener: The primary purpose of criminalizing threats is to prevent the fear and behavioral changes they induce in the listener, regardless of the speaker's intent. The harm is done once the threat is perceived.
  • Bright-Line Rules: An objective standard provides clearer guidance for conduct, making it easier for people to understand what is and isn't permissible.
  • Contextual Analysis: Proponents argue that a "reasonable person" standard would still consider the context of the statement (e.g., rap lyrics vs. direct threats in a contentious relationship) to determine if it constitutes a true threat.

The Court faces the challenge of balancing free speech protections with the need to protect individuals from genuine threats. The difficulty of proving subjective intent versus the potential for chilling speech and criminalizing misunderstanding makes this a complex case. The justices will likely consider the practical workability of any rule they establish.