December’s criminal law arguments – SCOTUSblog

Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court December Docket and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

Introduction

The United States Supreme Court’s December argument session features four cases with significant implications for criminal law and civil rights. An examination of these cases reveals direct and indirect connections to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 5 (Gender Equality). The Court’s decisions will influence the strength of legal institutions, access to justice for vulnerable populations, and the protection of fundamental freedoms, all of which are central to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Case Analysis and SDG Alignment

1. Urias-Orellana v. Bondi: Immigration, Justice, and Institutional Accountability

   This case concerns the legal standard federal courts must apply when reviewing an immigration agency’s determination that an asylum seeker’s circumstances do not constitute a “well-founded fear of persecution.” The central issue is whether courts should defer to the agency or conduct an independent (de novo) review.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
     • The case directly addresses Target 16.3, which aims to “ensure equal access to justice for all.” The outcome will determine the level of judicial oversight available to asylum seekers, a vulnerable group seeking legal protection.
     • It tests the effectiveness and accountability of judicial and administrative institutions by clarifying the balance of power between them, a core tenet of building strong institutions.
   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
     • This case impacts Target 10.7, which calls for well-managed migration policies. A robust, independent review process for asylum claims is critical to ensuring fair and just application of immigration laws, thereby reducing inequalities faced by migrants and refugees.

2. First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin: Fundamental Freedoms and Regulatory Oversight

   This matter involves a First Amendment challenge to a state consumer protection agency’s subpoena issued to faith-based pregnancy centers. The key question is whether federal courts can intervene before the subpoena is enforced by a state court, raising issues of judicial ripeness and potential chilling effects on constitutional rights.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
     • The case is central to Target 16.10, which seeks to “ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms.” It weighs the state’s responsibility to prevent deceptive practices against the protection of freedoms of association and religion.
     • The ruling will define the accessibility of federal courts for pre-enforcement challenges, impacting how individuals and groups can seek protection for their rights, thus shaping the framework for access to justice.
   • SDG 5: Gender Equality
     • The context of the case relates to Target 5.6, concerning universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights. The state’s investigation into potentially deceptive conduct by pregnancy centers can be viewed as an effort to ensure women receive accurate information, a prerequisite for making informed health decisions.

3. Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi: Civil Rights and Access to Federal Courts

   At issue is whether an individual who was convicted and paid a fine under a local ordinance can later challenge that ordinance’s constitutionality in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case examines the scope of the Heck v. Humphrey precedent, which can bar such civil rights lawsuits if they imply the invalidity of a prior conviction.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
     • This case directly pertains to Target 16.3 on ensuring equal access to justice. The decision will clarify the procedural pathways available for individuals to assert their fundamental rights, such as religious freedom (Target 16.10), in federal court after interacting with the state criminal justice system.
     • It explores the principle of federalism and the role of federal courts in upholding constitutional norms against local and state laws, which is fundamental to building effective and accountable institutions.

4. Hamm v. Smith: Capital Punishment and Rights of Persons with Disabilities

   This capital punishment case asks the Court to determine the proper method for evaluating intellectual disability claims from prisoners facing execution. Specifically, it questions how courts should consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in determining whether a person is constitutionally ineligible for the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
     • The ruling will have a profound impact on access to justice (Target 16.3) for a highly vulnerable population. It addresses the need for fair and reliable procedures to protect the rights of individuals with intellectual disabilities within the criminal justice system.
     • By defining the standards for applying the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the Court reinforces the rule of law and the state’s human rights obligations.
   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
     • The case addresses systemic inequalities within the justice system. Ensuring that individuals with intellectual disabilities are protected from the death penalty is a critical step toward promoting inclusion and reducing disparities in the application of law, in line with the overarching goal of reducing inequality.
   • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
     • The case highlights the intersection of law and health by requiring the legal system to engage with clinical standards for assessing intellectual disability, promoting a more holistic and health-informed approach to justice.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. SDGs Addressed or Connected to the Issues

   The article discusses several legal cases that are directly connected to the principles of justice, human rights, and institutional integrity. The primary SDGs addressed are:

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     This goal is central to the entire article. All four cases discussed—Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, and Hamm v. Smith—revolve around the interpretation of law, access to justice, the protection of fundamental rights, and the functioning of judicial institutions. The article examines how the Supreme Court’s decisions will affect the rule of law and the ability of individuals and groups to seek legal recourse.

   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

     This goal is relevant in the context of ensuring justice and protection for vulnerable or marginalized groups. The case of Urias-Orellana v. Bondi deals with the rights of asylum seekers, a vulnerable group seeking protection from persecution. Similarly, Hamm v. Smith addresses the rights of individuals with intellectual disabilities within the criminal justice system, highlighting the need to prevent discriminatory outcomes based on disability.

2. Specific Targets Identified

   Based on the article’s content, several specific targets under the identified SDGs can be identified:

   Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

     This target is addressed by all four cases. The Urias-Orellana case questions the standard of judicial review for asylum claims, which directly impacts an immigrant’s access to a fair hearing. The Olivier case examines whether individuals can use federal civil rights lawsuits to challenge state laws after a conviction, a key issue of access to justice. The Hamm v. Smith case focuses on the legal standards for applying the constitutional ban on executing intellectually disabled individuals, ensuring the law is applied equally and justly.

   • Target 16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.

     This target is specifically highlighted in the cases of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin and Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi. The First Choice case centers on whether a state subpoena “chills their and their donors’ First Amendment rights to association and religious freedom.” The Olivier case involves a challenge to a city ordinance that infringes on religious freedom, with the plaintiff attempting to “evangelize” outside a designated area. Both cases deal directly with the protection of fundamental freedoms from government interference.

   • Target 16.B: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development.

     This target is relevant to the Hamm v. Smith case, which concerns the fair application of capital punishment laws to individuals with intellectual disabilities. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Atkins v. Virginia established that executing such individuals is unconstitutional. The Hamm case explores how to enforce this non-discriminatory principle by defining the methods for assessing intellectual disability, ensuring that a vulnerable group is protected under the law.

   Under SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices.

     This target is connected to the issues in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi and Hamm v. Smith. The asylum case addresses the procedural fairness afforded to non-citizens, whose access to justice can be unequal compared to citizens. The Hamm case directly confronts the potential for a discriminatory outcome—execution—for an individual with a disability, seeking to ensure that legal procedures do not create unequal outcomes for vulnerable persons.

   • Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.

     The case of Urias-Orellana v. Bondi is directly related to this target. It deals with a critical component of migration policy: the legal framework for asylum. The case examines the process by which asylum claims based on a “well-founded fear of persecution” are adjudicated, which is fundamental to a well-managed and just migration system that protects refugees.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied

   The article, being a legal analysis, does not mention official statistical indicators. However, it implies several qualitative and procedural indicators that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets:

   For SDG 16 Targets

   • Indicator for Target 16.3 (Access to Justice): The standard of judicial review applied by federal courts to decisions made by administrative agencies like the Board of Immigration Appeals. The article highlights this in Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, where the central question is whether courts should review persecution claims “de novo” (from the beginning) or with deference to the agency, a key determinant of the quality of justice available.
   • Indicator for Target 16.3 (Access to Justice): The existence and application of legal doctrines that limit access to federal courts for civil rights claims. The article discusses the Heck v. Humphrey rule in the context of the Olivier case, which acts as a barrier for individuals seeking to challenge the constitutionality of laws under which they were convicted.
   • Indicator for Target 16.10 (Fundamental Freedoms): The legal threshold for determining when a government investigation, such as a subpoena, constitutes an unconstitutional “chilling” of First Amendment rights. The First Choice case directly implies this as a measure of how well freedom of association and religion are protected from state action.
   • Indicator for Target 16.B (Non-discrimination): The legal and clinical standards used by courts to assess intellectual disability in capital cases. In Hamm v. Smith, the specific indicator is “Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores,” which serves as a measure for ensuring non-discriminatory application of the Eighth Amendment.

   For SDG 10 Targets

   • Indicator for Target 10.7 (Migration Policy): The legal interpretation of the statutory term “persecution” in asylum law. The Urias-Orellana case implies that the consistency and fairness of this interpretation across different immigration judges is a measure of a well-managed asylum system. The amici briefs mentioned in the article argue that “independent federal court review of those claims is important to assure uniformity.”

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators (Implied from the Article)
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.3: Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice for all.	The standard of judicial review (de novo vs. deferential) for administrative decisions in asylum cases (Urias-Orellana v. Bondi). Application of legal barriers, like the Heck v. Humphrey rule, that restrict access to federal courts for civil rights challenges (Olivier v. City of Brandon).
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.10: Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms.	The legal standard for when a state subpoena “chills” First Amendment rights of association and religious freedom (First Choice v. Platkin).
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.B: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies.	The methodology for assessing intellectual disability in capital punishment cases, specifically how courts consider multiple IQ scores (Hamm v. Smith).
   SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome.	Procedural fairness and access to justice for non-citizens in immigration proceedings (Urias-Orellana v. Bondi). Application of constitutional protections to prevent discriminatory outcomes for persons with disabilities in the justice system (Hamm v. Smith).
   SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people.	The uniformity and legal interpretation of the criteria for asylum, such as “well-founded fear of persecution” (Urias-Orellana v. Bondi).

Source: scotusblog.com