US Supreme Court Concurring Opinions with Significant Legal Implications

• Justice Clarence Thomas argued in Mullin v. Doe that the equal protection clause does not apply to the federal government, potentially overturning Bolling v. Sharpe (1954).
• Justice Elena Kagan's concurring opinion in Chiles v. Salazar highlights the complexities of applying strict scrutiny to content-based restrictions on speech.
• The concurring opinions from this term have significant implications for future cases and compliance with existing regulations, particularly for marginalized communities.

This raises questions about the scope of the equal protection clause and its application to federal laws.

The latest term of the US Supreme Court has seen several concurring opinions that have significant implications for the law. While some may view these opinions as mere additions to the court's decision, others take a different approach and urge major changes in the law. One such opinion is Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion in Mullin v. Doe, where he argued that the equal protection clause does not apply to the federal government and that Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) was wrongly decided.

This term has also seen other notable concurring opinions that could dramatically alter the law if followed. For instance, Justice Elena Kagan's concurring opinion in Chiles v. Salazar raises questions about the application of strict scrutiny to a Colorado law prohibiting conversion therapy for gay, lesbian, and transgender youth.

The legacy of Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) is at the center of Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in Mullin v. Doe. In Bolling, the court held that the equal protection clause applies to the federal government. However, Justice Thomas argues that this decision was wrongly decided and that the clause does not apply to the federal government. This raises questions about the scope of the equal protection clause and its application to federal laws.

The court's decision in Chiles v. Salazar also has implications for the application of strict scrutiny. In this case, the court held that a Colorado law prohibiting conversion therapy for gay, lesbian, and transgender youth was unconstitutional because it discriminated against a counselor based on her views. Justice Kagan's concurring opinion highlights the complexities of applying strict scrutiny to content-based restrictions on speech.

The concurring opinions from this term have significant implications for future cases and compliance with existing regulations. Lawyers should be aware of these developments and consider how they may impact their clients' cases. The potential changes in the law highlighted by these concurring opinions could lead to new challenges and opportunities for litigants.

In particular, the concurring opinions in Mullin v. Doe and Chiles v. Salazar raise questions about the scope of the equal protection clause and the application of strict scrutiny. These issues are likely to be relevant in future cases involving federal laws and regulations that impact marginalized communities.

Lawyers should watch for potential changes in the law following these significant concurring opinions, which could impact future cases and compliance with existing regulations.

Source: Original reporting via SCOTUSblog