3 ms·
> With the current supreme court, who knows? In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh said it was likely unconstitutional (but apparently not obviously eno
by cobbzilla 1y ago
> With the current supreme court, who knows?
In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh said it was likely unconstitutional (but apparently not obviously enough to enjoin it) [1]. So it's going into effect, then the lawsuit follows.
Similar laws in California, Arkansas and Ohio were all found unconstitutional, so I am hopeful. That said, these were all district court decisions, and all of them are being appealed. When they lose on appeal, they go to the Supreme Court for (hopefully) the final smack-down.
Interestingly, reading the summary MS HB1126 [2], this law is doing two things. It regulates companies and defines crimes.
States are allowed to set their own criminal codes. If Mississippi drops the mandate part and passes a new law that simply defines certain things as crimes with corresponding penalties, that law would probably be constitutional.
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a97_5h25.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/25a97_5h25.pdf
[2] https://legiscan.com/MS/bill/HB1126/2024 https://legiscan.com/MS/bill/HB1126/2024
- userbinator 1y agothen the lawsuit follows. ...and then the lawyers profit.
- toast0 1y ago> States are allowed to set their own criminal codes. If Mississippi drops the mandate part and passes a new law that simply defines certain things as crimes with corresponding penalties, that law would probably be constitutional. States have limits to what things they define as crimes. Defining certain type of trade to be criminal is regulating trade. And regulating interstate trade is reserved for Congress. Yet, many state laws criminalize some commerce, and case law has expanded interstate commerce to often include sales where the buyer, seller, and manufacturer are all in the same state... consistency is not a strength of our system.
- cobbzilla 1y agoI hope you are right!