Supreme Court Issues Three Rulings; Senate Panel Backs Bill to Televise Court Proceedings

Why it matters locally: The Supreme Court's ruling on Second Amendment rights for marijuana users could influence ongoing legal discussions and enforcement practices for medical and recreational cannabis in Kentucky, particularly as the state prepares for legalized medical cannabis.

The Supreme Court released three decisions Thursday, addressing Second Amendment rights, appellate waivers, and the scope of federal court authority over state judgments. In United States v. Hemani, the court ruled 9-0 that the federal government cannot prosecute Ali Hemani for possessing a firearm while using marijuana. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the law, as applied to Hemani, who used marijuana approximately every other day, violates the Second Amendment. Gorsuch noted that early American laws the government cited "targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways." Several justices filed concurring opinions but none dissented from the outcome. The court voted 8-1 in Hunter v. United States that defendants may appeal convictions or sentences despite having signed agreements not to pursue appeals, provided the appeal would prevent "a miscarriage of justice." Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, establishing that an egregious error compelling enough to bring the judicial system into disrepute can override an appellate waiver. The court sent the case of Munson Hunter back to the lower court to apply this standard. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented alone. In a 5-4 decision in T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp., Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which restricts federal district courts' power to review state-court judgments, applies regardless of whether a judgment remains subject to further review in state appellate proceedings. Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. The justices held a private conference Thursday to vote on petitions for review. Orders from that conference are expected Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT. The court scheduled additional opinion releases for Tuesday at 10 a.m. and next Thursday. **Legislative Push for Cameras** The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced legislation Thursday with bipartisan support to mandate televised Supreme Court proceedings. The bill would require the justices to accept cameras in the courtroom unless a majority determine video coverage would interfere with the due process rights of a party to a case. The justices have resisted televising oral arguments and decisions for years. The committee's approval marks progress for open government advocates pushing for public access, though the legislation faces an uncertain path. Similar bills passed the committee four times in previous Congresses but never reached a Senate floor vote. **Other Developments** Richard Hershey, a Louisiana man stopped by police while distributing Christian Vegetarian Association leaflets outside a concert venue six years ago, has petitioned the Supreme Court to allow him to sue the officers for violating his First Amendment rights. A federal appeals court ruled the officers were protected by qualified immunity, which shields government officials from civil rights lawsuits unless they violated "clearly established" law. Hershey's legal team, which includes former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, argues that "the right to evangelize in public, free of viewpoint-based government suppression, is as clearly established as any right in the firmament." Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook disclosed that she spent nearly $1.2 million on legal services as her case challenging President Donald Trump's attempt to remove her from office proceeded to the Supreme Court. The State Democracy Defenders Fund paid $696,346 toward her legal costs, while Contina Impact contributed $477,951 for legal work and $143,908 for security services. Three personal friends also made additional security contributions. The justices are expected to rule on Cook's case by the end of June. Legal experts view the case as significant to whether the Federal Reserve can conduct monetary policy independently of political pressure.