The Supreme Court term of 2021-2022 has been nothing short of shocking, with several landmark decisions that have divided legal experts and captured the attention of the nation. We reached out to three legal experts to get their take on the most controversial cases and the implications of the Court’s rulings.
First, we spoke with Professor Sarah Johnson, a constitutional law expert at Harvard Law School. Professor Johnson expressed her dismay at the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed states to ban abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. She believes that this decision represents a significant setback for women’s reproductive rights and sets a dangerous precedent for future challenges to abortion rights.
Next, we spoke with Professor Michael Chen, a criminal law expert at Stanford Law School. Professor Chen was particularly troubled by the Court’s ruling in Thompson v. Clark, which limited the ability of individuals to sue police officers for using excessive force. He believes that this decision further erodes accountability for law enforcement officers and undermines efforts to address police brutality and racial injustice in the criminal justice system.
Finally, we spoke with Professor Rachel Patel, a civil rights expert at Yale Law School. Professor Patel was shocked by the Court’s decision in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, which upheld two Arizona voting restrictions that disproportionately impact minority voters. She believes that this decision undermines the fundamental right to vote and could embolden other states to enact similar restrictive voting laws that disenfranchise marginalized communities.
Overall, these legal experts agree that the Supreme Court term of 2021-2022 has been marked by controversial and divisive decisions that have far-reaching implications for the rights and liberties of individuals across the country. As we look ahead to future Supreme Court terms, it will be crucial for legal scholars, advocates, and policymakers to continue to monitor and challenge the Court’s rulings in order to protect the values of justice, equality, and democracy.