Interactive guide to rights the Supreme Court has established -- and could take away.https://projects.propublica.org/supreme-risk/
Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion established 50 years ago in Roe v. Wade, raising concerns about the future of other rights rooted in Supreme Court rulings. Although most rights are secured by statutes and regulations, others are guarantees extrapolated by the court from the often abstract language of the Constitution. Some of these are recent rights, like the right to carry a handgun in public. But many are longstanding, like the right to be read a Miranda warning by police before being interrogated, and trace their origins to the liberal majorities that presided on the court from the 1950s through the 1970s, an era often called the rights revolution. Because these rights were established by the court, the court alone gets to decide whether to preserve, shrink or unmake them.
To get a better sense of which rights may be at risk in whole or in part ProPublica scoured judicial opinions, academic articles and public remarks by sitting justices. Some justices, like Clarence Thomas, have had decadeslong careers and lengthy paper trails. By contrast, Ketanji Brown Jackson, the newest justice, has almost no prior record. We found dozens of rights that at least one sitting justice has questioned. Below, you can explore these rights and the objections levied against them. We include federal legislation thats been introduced to protect a given right, as well as lawsuits active in lower courts that could become vehicles for the justices to revisit existing rights in the future.
per the ProPublica article:
Right to sue federal officials for violating your rights;
Right to have police advise you of your rights (Miranda decision);
Right to be free from warrantless police searches.
These are at highest risk because at least four justices have made comments indicating hostility toward current judicial precedents.
Good article, recommended.
It's a high-level issue right at the heart of the role and rights of women, and men, and thus at the heart of the attack on those freedoms, right up there with attacks on abortion and freedom of sexual identity, but far more widespread in its potential oppressive effects.
The current interpreted, not stated, constitutional basis for a right to use contraception, along with many other rights to personal autonomy, is probably considered effectively nonexistent by most the SCOTUS supermajority.
Almost every one of nearly 40 endangered rights listed (not including a couple like right to open carry) is scary and would fundamentally change this nation if repealed.
How about the right of prisoners to basic necessities?
Thanks for this, Nevilledog.