4 ms·
Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf
by zeroonetwothree 2y ago
Link to opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-656_ca7d.pdf
- hedora 2y ago[flagged]
- ellisv 2y agoDoesn't really seem relevant in this case.
- vessenes 2y agoI agree we have an activist court in the Roberts court. How is this making an ex-post facto law, though? The suit is over a bill passed with broad bipartisan support by Congress.
- rayiner 2y ago> I agree we have an activist court in the Roberts court. People who for decades subscribed to the notion that "emanations from penumbras" are a source of constitutional law don't have any room to talk about judicial activism.
- hedora 2y agoIt’s a bill of Attainder, i.e., a legislative act that declares a specific individual or group guilty of a crime and imposes punishment without the benefit of a judicial trial.
- vessenes 2y agoIs it, though? Not a lawyer, obviously. But here I seem to agree with both Bytedance’s lawyers, and the full SCOTUS. Bytedance challenged on free speech terms. There are no dissents as to the Consitutionality of the law. Prosaically, what individual or group is being declared guilty here? The law requires TikTok to have new ownership; it doesn’t seize it, or set a price for it, which might therefore harm shareholders. Calling this attainder seems like a pretty big stretch to me. And, it seems Bytedance legal counsel didn’t think this would fly as well.
- rayiner 2y agoDivestment could be a punishment in some circumstances. E.g. if Congress passed a law requiring Elon Musk to divest himself of X as punishment for purportedly violating the Securities Act. The difference here is that Tik Tok is not being accused of a crime and is not being punished for some crime. It's applying a restriction on foreign ownership not to punish Tik Tok for some past act, but because Congress is worried about the risks arising from that ownership in the future.
- otterley 2y agoNo it isn't.
- rayiner 2y agoFrom your own link: > However, the Court has emphasized that legislation does not violate the Bill of Attainder Clause simply because it places legal burdens on a specific individual or group.2 Rather, as discussed in more detail below, a bill of attainder must also inflict punishment. Divestment isn't a punishment for a crime. Nobody is accusing Tik Tok of having committed a crime. Congress simply doesn't want a foreign power hostile to the U.S. to control a business that's popular in the U.S.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dentemple 2y ago[flagged]
- vishnugupta 2y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotebookLM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NotebookLM
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- numbsafari 2y agoThe interesting bits from the text[1], relative to the now flagged sibling ----- (3) FOREIGN ADVERSARY CONTROLLED APPLICATION.—The term “foreign adversary controlled application” means a website, desktop application, mobile application, or augmented or immersive technology application that is operated, directly or indirectly (including through a parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate), by— (A) any of— (i) ByteDance, Ltd.; (ii) TikTok; (iii) a subsidiary of or a successor to an entity identified in clause (i) or (ii) that is controlled by a foreign adversary; or (iv) an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by an entity identified in clause (i), (ii), or (iii); or (B) a covered company that— (i) is controlled by a foreign adversary; and (ii) that is determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States following the issuance of— (I) a public notice proposing such determination; and (II) a public report to Congress, submitted not less than 30 days before such determination, describing the specific national security concern involved and containing a classified annex and a description of what assets would need to be divested to execute a qualified divestiture. ----- The way I read this is that Congress is bootstrapping the law with its own finding that ByteDance, Ltd/TikTok are Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications, but then, in (3)(B), the President is responsible for determining any other entities this law should cover given previously stated parameters (what they mean by "covered entity" here), using the procedure it then provides. I believe that addresses the concern about this being a "Bill of Attainder". Edit: Obviously IANAL, but it also doesn't appear that this issue of this being a Bill of Attainder was raised by TikTok, nor was it considered in this opinion. Perhaps they will do so in a separate action, or already have and it just hasn't made its way to the court(?), but if it were such a slam dunk defense, you think their expensive lawyers would have raised it. [1]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521/text https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/7521...
- hedora 2y agoThis analysis seems reasonable, but I think the simpler explanation blatant corruption, since the legislation is moving judicial responsibility from from the judicial branch to the legislature and president, and a great deal of money is involved.
- raverbashing 2y agoAnd it was an unanimous decision. When was the last time we had those for such an impactful decision I wonder?
- kyrra 2y agoRegularly, you just don't read about them as they don't make news headlines.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago"impactful decision" is key here.
- kyrra 2y agoMany/most scotus rulings are impactful. They are just not all controversial.
- mynameishere 2y ago[dead]
- dataflow 2y ago"Impactful" might be counting your chickens a little too early. Let's see if it has any impact. The next POTUS might just ignore it, or some other shenanigans might be used to work around whatever the imagined impact was.
- ivraatiems 2y agoThe majority of Supreme Court decisions are unanimous, including on major issues. The recent trend of divided opinions is relatively new.
- rsanek 2y agodo you have a source for this? Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, Citizens United are all split.
- lizhang 2y agoOOC: i thought trump installed several justices in his past term, so they are theoretically already voting along his lines? Is it expected for trump to act completely against this supreme court that his party has a lot of influence over?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- SALCKIN 2y agoReply