President Joe Biden's new op-ed in The Washington Post makes the bold argument that, following a constitutional amendment to reverse a recent Supreme Court decision, Congress should pass both Supreme Court term limits and an ethics code to "restore the public's faith in the judicial system." According to Biden, the Court's "extreme" decisions and ethical crisis require immediate action.

Looking at the last Supreme Court term, none of this is true. The Court's opinions were nuanced and largely unanimous, and there are no credible allegations of vote-buying. If Biden wants to restore faith in the Court, he'd do better to highlight these nuances rather than using the Court as a political talking point.

At the outset, it's worth taking a bird's eye view of the Court. This term, the Court ruled unanimously in almost half (46 percent) of cases, which was similar to the year before (48 percent) and a significant uptick from the term before that (29 percent). Among the Court's unanimous or near-unanimous opinions were hot-button cases involving former President Donald Trump's eligibility for the presidency, access to the abortion drug mifepristone, the government's ability to dissuade companies from doing business with the National Rifle Association, regulation of social media companies, and the scope of the Second Amendment. Such consensus among the justices undercuts Biden's characterization of a rogue or extremist Court.

It's true that the Court is sometimes divided along partisan lines—and in many of those cases, the justices disagree vigorously. As Biden points out, Trump v. United States (regarding presidential immunity) and Dobbs v. Jackson (regarding abortion) represent two such cases. But just because these opinions were divisive doesn't make them radical.

For example, Biden chided the Court for imposing "virtually no limits on what a president can do" in the immunity case, but the Court maintained an ample sphere of liability for presidential acts. All nine justices agreed that presidents have absolutely no immunity for unofficial acts. While the majority ruled that absolute immunity applies to core, official acts, it emphasized that noncore duties are only presumptively immune.

Reasonable people can disagree about whether the Court made it too hard to rebut that presumption. But to make that call, we'll have to see how the standard plays out in practice. Trump's case, for example, will now go back down to the district court, which will determine which acts are official or unofficial, core or noncore, and whether the special prosecutor can surmount any presumption of immunity that applies. It makes little sense to say at this premature stage, as Biden does, that the only limits left on the president are "self-imposed."

Biden also criticizes the Court for "overturn[ing] settled legal precedents" like Roe v. Wade. But this is a critique with no substance. Precedent isn't an end in and of itself; prior cases should stand when they're correct and well-reasoned and fall when they're not. Some of the most important Supreme Court decisions in history "overturned settled precedent," including Brown v. Board of Education (overturning the separate but equal doctrine) and Gideon v. Wainwright (extending the right to counsel to felony defendants in state courts). Overturning precedent is part of a Supreme Court justice's job description. Without context, saying a judge overruled an earlier case is meaningless.

Biden's ethics accusations similarly lack substance. Though many have wrung their hands over Justice Clarence Thomas' friendship with businessman Harlan Crow, not one person—including Biden—has pointed to any specific instance where the justice supposedly traded his vote for a gift from his wealthy friend (and they ignore that Thomas voted against Crow's personal convictions in the abortion case). That's not surprising. Thomas is widely regarded as one of the most consistent justices on the Court who regularly writes separate opinions to explain his idiosyncratic views. Given that his views are so consistent, transparent, and well-known, it would be especially difficult for him to abandon them in exchange for a flight on a private jet. If anything, bribes are much more likely in the context of opaque decision making—as happens behind closed doors in the legislative and executive branches.

In at least some ways, the Court is showing more restraint than in prior years. It's taking fewer cases than ever (just 59 this year, compared to 82 a decade ago), it's finding reasons to sidestep thorny issues, and it's increasingly using judge-made legal doctrines to rule that the plaintiffs have no right to sue or that the case needs more time before the Court can step in. It also continues to produce interesting alignments between justices considered to be on opposite ideological spectrums. In a case involving the January 6 defendants, for example, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voted with "conservative" justices to throw out the convictions while Justice Amy Coney Barrett voted with the "liberals" to affirm them.

In sum, the Supreme Court is not exactly a radical conservative monolith. This term, Court watchers actually observed strong disagreements among Republican-appointed justices. If Biden cares about bolstering the public's faith in the judiciary, he'd be wise to emphasize this nuance.

The post Biden's Supreme Court Reforms Are Unnecessary and Wrong appeared first on Reason.com.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice. The cases are about a pair of laws, enacted by Texas and Florida, that attempt to force large social media platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, and X to host large amounts of speech against their will. (Think neo-Nazi rants, anti-vax conspiracies, and depictions of self-harm.) The states’ effort to co-opt social media companies’ editorial policies blatantly violates the First Amendment.

Since the laws are constitutional trainwrecks, it’s no surprise that Texas’s and Florida’s legal theories are weak. They rely heavily on the notion that what social media companies do is not really editing — and thus is not expressive. Editors, Texas says in a brief, are “reputationally responsible” for the content they reproduce. And yet, the state continues, “no reasonable observer associates” social media companies with the speech they disseminate.

This claim is absurd on its face. Everyone holds social media companies “reputationally responsible” for their content moderation. Users do, because most of them don’t like using a product full of hate speech and harassment. Advertisers do, out of a concern for their “brand safety.” Journalists do. Civil rights groups do. Even the Republican politicians who enacted this pair of bad laws do — that’s why they yell about how “Big Tech oligarchs” engage in so-called censorship.

That the Texas and Florida GOP are openly contemptuous of the First Amendment, and incompetent to boot, isn’t exactly news. So let’s turn instead to some delicious ironies. 

Consider that the right’s favorite social media addict, robber baron, and troll Elon Musk has single-handedly destroyed Texas’s and Florida’s case.

After the two states’ laws were enacted, Elon Musk conducted something of a natural experiment in content moderation—one that has wrecked those laws’ underlying premise. Musk purchased Twitter, transformed it into X, and greatly reduced content moderation on the service. As tech reporter Alex Kantrowitz remarks, the new approach “privileges” extreme content from “edgelords.”

This, in turn, forces users to work harder to find quality content, and to tolerate being exposed to noxious content. But users don’t have to put up with this — and they haven’t. “Since Musk bought Twitter in October 2022,” Kantrowitz finds, “it’s lost approximately 13 percent of its app’s daily active users.” Clearly, users “associate” social-media companies with the speech they host!

It gets better. Last November, Media Matters announced that, searching X, it had found several iconic brands’ advertisements displayed next to neo-Nazi posts. Did Musk say, “Whatever, dudes, racist content being placed next to advertisements on our site doesn’t affect X’s reputation”? No. He had X sue Media Matters.

In its complaint, X asserts that it “invests heavily” in efforts to keep “fringe content” away from advertisers’ posts. The company also alleges that Media Matters gave the world a “false impression” about what content tends to get “pair[ed]” on the platform. These statements make sense only if people care — and X cares that people care — about how X arranges content on X.

X even states that Media Matters has tried to “tarnish X’s reputation by associating [X] with racist content.” It would be hard to admit more explicitly that social-media companies are “reputationally responsible” for, because they are “associated” with, the content they disseminate.

Consider also that Texas ran to Musk’s defense. Oblivious to how Musk’s vendetta hurts Texas’s case at the Supreme Court, Ken Paxton, the state’s attorney general, opened a fraud investigation against Media Matters (the basic truth of whose report Musk’s lawsuit does not dispute).

Consider finally how Texas’s last-ditch defense gets mowed down by the right’s favorite Supreme Court justice. According to Texas, social-media companies can scrub the reputational harm from spreading abhorrent content simply by “disavowing” that content. But none other than Justice Clarence Thomas has blown this argument apart. If, Thomas writes, a state could force speech on an entity merely by letting that entity “disassociate” from the speech with a “disclaimer,” that “would justify any law compelling speech.”

Only the government can “censor” speech. Texas and Florida are the true censors here, as they seek to restrict the expressive editorial judgment of social-media companies. That conduct is expressive. Just ask Elon Musk. And that expressiveness is fatal to Texas’s and Florida’s laws. Just ask Clarence Thomas. Texas’s and Florida’s social-media speech codes aren’t just unconstitutional, they can’t even be defended coherently.

Corbin Barthold is internet policy counsel at TechFreedom.

Hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court might strike down rent control this term were dashed today when the Court declined to take up the two remaining rent control cases on its docket. But a short statement from Justice Clarence Thomas otherwise agreeing not to take up the cases does provide rent control critics some optimism that the Court might reconsider the issue at a future date.

The cases, 74 Pinehurst LLC v. New York and 335-7 LLC v. City of New York, both involved New York City rental property owners' challenges to their state's stabilization regime and related New York City regulations implementing that regime.

The petitioners argued that the 2019 amendments to New York's rent stabilization law amounted to a physical taking because they prevented property owners from choosing their tenants or withdrawing their property from the rental market. They also argued that New York's post-2019 rent stabilization law amounted to a regulatory taking by tanking the value of their properties and removing avenues to "deregulate" (charge market rents on) their units.

Lower courts rejected these arguments. So, last spring, the landlord plaintiffs in both cases petitioned the Supreme Court to take up their case.

The fact that the two cases stayed on the Supreme Court's docket even after it had declined to take up another, higher profile, and more sweeping challenge to New York's rent stabilization law in October raised hopes that the justices might still take up these cases.

At a minimum, rent control critics offered some hopeful speculation that one or more of the justices might write a lengthy dissent to any court decision to not take up the cases that would outline how another rent control challenge could make its way back to the Supreme Court.

Neither of those things happened today. But today's order wasn't a total loss for rent control opponents.

Justice Clarence Thomas did issue a short statement saying that the "constitutionality of regimes like New York City's is an important and pressing question."

Ultimately, Thomas agreed with the Court's denial of cert, saying that petitioners' claims in their lawsuits "primarily contained generalized allegation." In order to evaluate their "as-applied" challenges, the Court would need to see more specific arguments about the circumstances of individual landlords.

For that reason, Thomas wrote, the 74 Pinehurst and 335-7 pleadings would "complicate" the Court's review.

"Any time you get something more than just a denial, I would say that gives you reason for optimism," says Mark Miller, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, which has supported constitutional challenges to rent control. "Oftentimes justices give statements like this to give you a roadmap for how to better tee up the issue."

In the meantime, however, New York City property owners are offered no relief from the state's rent stabilization regime.

Rent-stabilized owners argue the state's limits on rent increases are so punishingly strict that they can't finance basic repairs or turn over vacant units. The ongoing struggles of New York Community Bancorp, which lent heavily to rent-stabilized buildings, are only compounding this problem.

Without greater flexibility to raise rents or obtain private capital, "the future of rent-stabilized buildings is in the hands of the state government," said the Community Housing Improvement Program (CHIP) and the Rent Stabilization Association (RSA) in an emailed statement reacting to the Supreme Court's decision today. "Thousands of buildings housing hundreds of thousands of tenants are in financial distress. Without action, the homes of many hard-working New Yorkers will deteriorate.

CHIP and RSA had been plaintiffs in another challenge to New York's rent stabilization regime that the Supreme Court also declined to take up last year. Thomas' statement seems to have done little to raise their optimism about future rent control cases.

"We do expect there will be many more challenges to this law, which remains irrationally punitive," they said.

The post After Supreme Court Denies Cases, Clarence Thomas Offers Hope to Rent Control Critics appeared first on Reason.com.