The United States Supreme Court and the Erosion of Remedies

The purpose of a judicial system is to provide an answer and solution for a violation of law. Access to justice or a fair outcome via a judicial remedy is a fundamental right, recognized in both domestic and international law. Without judicial remedy, those harmed by a violation of the law would have no reason to enter the judicial system because there would be no solution. In essence, judicial remedies are imperative to fulfil all other rights, as there is no effective protection for rights if one who claims harm has no path to a remedy. Despite this being a seemingly doubtless concept, the current majority of the United States Supreme Court term (2021-2022), has steadily reduced the ability for plaintiffs to seek judicial remedies in areas that were previously constitutionally and statutorily required. In the eight cases outlined in this article (Shinn v. Ramirez, Shoop v. Twyford Brown v. Davenport, Garland v. Gonzalez, Patel v. Garland, Vega v. Tekoh, Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., and Egbert v. Boule), the Court has blocked petitioners from federal jurisdiction, overturning both longstanding and recent precedent. For example, in Shinn v. Ramirez and Shoop v. Twyford, the Court denied habeas corpus relief to two death penalty defendants, leaving them with no venue to litigate ineffective assistance of counsel claims. In another death penalty case, Brown v. Davenport, another death penalty case, the Court further narrowed and denied habeas relief under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, overturning recent precedent and creating a rule in which to seek constitutional review, a defendant must meet near impossible standards. In Garland v. Gonzalez and Patel v. Garland, the Court removed statutory jurisdiction for class action suits and federal judicial review of administrative orders for immigrants, which will essentially bar appeals for those claiming violations of constitutional or statutory rights in immigration proceedings. In all of these instances and the other cases discussed, the Court has overturned precedent and/or logical reading of statutory jurisdiction to deny access to the Courts and it is anticipated in the upcoming cases that the majority will continue to block access to judicial relief. Contrasted with the recent decisions by the court that made bold changes which were internationally condemned to the rights of both individuals (Dobbs v. Jackson WHO, overturning the right to reproductive health), the federal government (West Virginia v. EPA, limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to curb emissions), and state sovereignty (NYSRPA v. Bruen, overturning a New York State gun safety law) the cases outlined in this article, are a more insidious and gradual reduction of procedural constitutional rights. These recent cases show a disregard for precedent, an illogical application of statutory interpretation that directly contradicts the foundational right to a judicial remedy and results in a reduction in constitutional rights. If federal legislation is not introduced to expand habeas corpus jurisdiction, immigration appeals, and constitutional civil remedies, the judiciary will be an illusion of justice rather than a path for equity.