Practicing Democracy
A Special Issue on the US Election
Articles for category: USA
The Messiah and His Oligarchs
On Power, Personalities and Populism.
Der Messias und seine Oligarchen
Über Macht, Personenkult und Populismus.
The right lessons from Trump 1.0
The US withdrawal from international institutions is a broader trend, not solely tied to Trump-era policies. Consequently, European governments that aim to preserve the rules-based international order should be prepared to take the lead and fill the gap left by the US exit. To pursue this strategy effectively, certain imperatives must be addressed.
On a Knife’s Edge
Launching our Series on the 2024 US Elections
Auf Messers Schneide
Wir starten unsere Reihe zu den US Wahlen 2024
A Setback for Homeless Rights in the United States
On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (Grants Pass), its most significant case on homelessness in decades. The decision overturned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s 2018 decision in Martin v. Boise (Martin), which mandated that cities allow unhoused individuals to sleep in public spaces when shelter beds were not available. The decision fails to consider the root causes of homelessness in the United States and exacerbates the already fragmented regulatory landscape governing the vulnerable community of the unhoused.
Poverty as a Crime
In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Opinion City of Grants Pass v. Johnson held that the Constitution does not guarantee individual protection against the criminalisation of homelessness. Similarly, in May 2024, the European Court of Human Rights found the case concerning the criminalisation of begging, Dian v. Denmark, inadmissible. Both of these judicial decisions are disputed since the criminalisation of poverty cannot solve the problem of homelessness or begging. Rather, it violates the fundamental dignity of the individual.
Online Speech at the US Supreme Court in Moody v. Netchoice
The First Amendment of the US Constitution raises some of the most difficult legal hurdles for regulating the global digital public sphere today. In Moody v. Netchoice, the US Supreme Court heard appeals from two judgments, an appeal from a decision of the Fifth Circuit declaring that Texas’ social media law H.B. 20 did not violate the First Amendment, and an appeal from a decision of the Eleventh Circuit finding Florida’s social media law S.B. 7072, instead, unconstitutional. These laws are similar in that they both attempt to impose must-carry and non-discrimination obligations on social media platforms, which in practice amounts to requiring them not to discriminate against conservative users’ posts. The compatibility of these two laws with the First Amendment cuts across a plethora of crucial issues on the future of social media regulation which the court could, but didn’t fully, address.
The Supreme Court v. the Administrative State II
The outlook is not rosy for Democrats, neither politically nor in court. Democrats’ hopes that President Biden – who, according to some polls, is trailing Trump in all seven swing states – could turn the odds in his favor in an early debate have been dashed by his disastrous performance. To add insult to injury, in three 6-to-3 rulings along ideological lines, the Supreme Court further reigned in on administrative agencies, putting Biden’s regulatory agenda at risk. The most far-reaching of these decisions is, undoubtedly, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. This case marked a milestone for the conservative legal movement’s fight against the administrative state.
