Corporate Accountability

U.S. Supreme Court: A (big) business-friendly climate

By Joel Connelly

 

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its recent rulings, is increasingly a big business-friendly workplace,  according to a new study by the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank with progressive leanings.

 

Specifically, it found that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is seven-for-seven in decisions rendered by the Supremes in the session that is about to end with a ruling on the Affordable Care Act.

 

“(A) string of seven straight victories brings the Chamber’s overall win/loss rate before the Roberts court up to 68 percent (60 of 88 cases),” it found.  “That’s significantly better than the Chamber did under the past two chief justices, William Rehnquist (it had a 56 percent win rate) and Warren Burger (a 43 percent success rate).”

 

The high court has moved sharply to the right and become far more activist under Chief Justice John Roberts.

 

The Supremes threw out precedents dating back 103 years to Theodore Roosevelt in their 5-4 Citizens United ruling, which removed all limits on campaign spending and declared that corporations have the same rights as people.

 

The Chamber, which supported the ruling, has become a kind of political laundry through which big business channels campaign donations in order to avoid leaving footprints.

 

Later in the 2010 campaign, it put $997,000 into efforts to unseat Washington’s Democratic Sen. Patty Murray.  Where did the Chamber get the money to donate?  Nobody knows.

 

The Chamber is involved in two still-pending cases.  It is seeking to overturn the Affordable Care Act and roll back health care reform.  It is also involved in the case of First American Financial Corp. vs. Edwards.

 

The Chamber gives insight into its attitudes in a brief to the court:

 

“(V)iolations by banks and title companies of the anti-kickback provisions of the federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act should not, by themselves, be sufficient to give home-buyers ‘standing’ to sue violators in court.”

 

(Kudos to Joan McCarter of the dailykos.com web site for bringing the Constitutional Accountability Study to national attention.)

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Burgess v. Whang

In Burgess v. Whang, the Fifth Circuit is considering a challenge to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s authority to issue penalties and other supervisory orders. 
Corporate Accountability
October 23, 2024

The Constitution Doesn’t Entitle Drug Manufacturers to a Sweetheart Deal

Washington
Big Pharma is in federal appeals court making the absurd argument that Medicare shouldn’t be...
By: Nina Henry
Corporate Accountability
October 4, 2024

An Oil Giant Railroads Its SCOTUS Connection To Gut Environmental Law

The Lever
A fossil fuel giant with deep ties to Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, along with...
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2024

QUICK TAKE: Corporate Interests at the Supreme Court, 2023-2024 Term

Conservative supermajority discards precedent, shifts power to judges, and hobbles agency efforts to enforce the...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 24, 2024

The Supreme Court’s War on Working People Just Got a Little Worse

Balls and Strikes
The decision in Starbucks Corporation v. McKinney is part of a long tradition of the Supreme Court...
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Intuit, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

In Intuit Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the FTC’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders against false and misleading advertising is constitutional.