Amy Coney Barrett has expressed concerns about a recent tax proposal put forth by her colleague.
Supreme Court
judge,
Clarence Thomas
.
Why It Matters
Conservatives are eager for a resurgence of the nondelegation doctrine, which forbids
Congress
by transferring its essential legislative functions to federal agencies or other unelected officials.
On March 27, Judge Coney Barrett, nominated by Trump, voiced significant reservations regarding the reinstatement of this doctrine. The doctrine has not been employed since the 1930s and might considerably diminish the authority of governmental bodies.
It also fits into a broader story regarding Amy Coney Barrett’s position on the court, as she does.
navigates a moderate stance on numerous social issues
away from the rigid conservativism of Thomas.
requested an emailed statement from the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday.
What To Know
On March 26, the Supreme Court examined the case of
Federal Communications Commission versus Consumers’ Research
In this case, they needed to evaluate the legitimacy of an FCC fund requiring communication firms to cover costs associated with setting up phone lines and internet cables in remote and economically underprivileged regions.
The telecommunications firms subsequently transfer a significant portion of those additional costs to the customers.
Tax Cap
In general, Justice Thomas proposed that the non-delegation doctrine might serve as a means to limit how extensively the FCC or similar governmental bodies could amass funds via taxation.
Barrett argued that imposing a cap wouldn’t work effectively. She stated, “$3 trillion or $5 trillion—it’s essentially tossing around figures arbitrarily.”
“Meaningless Exercise”
She posed several incisive questions to Trent McCotter, the attorney advocating for Consumers’ Research, a conservative organization aiming to reduce taxes and terminate “woke” politics, as stated on their website.
WhenMcCotter addressed the court stating, “Fundamentally, this case revolves around taxation withoutrepresentation,” Judge Coney Barrett responded, “It appears rather empty. It comes across as an inconsequential endeavor.”
Supreme Court Clashes
As
previously reported
, Coney Barrett and Thomas have clashed frequently in Supreme Court cases.
Coney Barrett showed her strong disapproval of Thomas’ analysis during oral arguments in
United States v. Rahimi,
a case that will decide whether people under a domestic violence civil restraining order have a right to own a gun.
Gun Control
In June 2024, during the oral arguments, Thomas questioned Rahimi’s attorney about why a criminal defendant would be subjected to a civil measure such as a restraining order.
Coney Barrett swiftly retrieved a copy of the restraining order.
prohibits Rahimi from approaching his former girlfriend or her daughter.
She proceeded to read out the allegations listed in the restraining order involving Rahimi’s purported offenses against his former girlfriend, which encompassed acts of threat and harassment.
In this way, Coney Barrett indicated her disagreement with Thomas’ strict interpretation of the Second Amendment. Thomas advocates for an approach where readers consider solely the literal text of the Constitution, implying that U.S. citizens have unrestricted rights to possess firearms.
What People Are Saying
In their appeal to the Supreme Court requesting consideration of the FCC case,
the former Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar,
When setting up the FCC in 1934, Congress aimed to ensure “the provision, to the greatest extent feasible, of swift, effective, nation-spanning, and global wired and wireless communications services equipped with sufficient resources at prices that are affordable for all Americans,” as stated in their objectives.
She wrote that the FCC fund to help disadvantaged communities is helping to achieve the goal of universal communications.
On March 26, Boyden Gray & Associates, the legal representation for Consumers’ Research, issued a statement claiming that the FCC’s fund has been marred by fraudulent activities—including misuse of millions on extravagant items such as luxury condominiums, private aircraft, and membership clubs. Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office discovered that there was no noticeable increase in phone and internet services, even though substantial funds were allocated toward this effort.
What Happens Next
The Supreme Court will take several months to deliberate over the case prior to publishing a written judgment. The ruling is expected to be released sometime around late 2024 or early 2025.
Related Articles
- What Amy Coney Barrett Has Stated About Same-Sex Marriage As Republicans Aim To Change The Rules
- Amy Coney Barrett’s Family Received Unusual Pizzas at Their Residences
- How Frequently Does Amy Coney Barrett Diverge From Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court?
- Donald Trump Supports Amy Coney Barrett Following MAGA Criticisms
Start your unlimited trial
