The enforcement mechanism is the withholding of grant money to states that use cashless bail, and I could see SCOTUS saying that withholding grant money is a discretionary act of the executive that's not subject to review.
Replies
Of course, if SCOTUS wasn't playing Calvinball, that would be blatantly unconstitutional under NFIB v Sebelius.
aug 25, 2025, 3:43 pm • 9 2 • view
I normally don't particularly care about "strongly worded" dissents, but Justice Jackson's dissent specifically calling the Court's jurisprudence "Calvinball but Trump always wins" is something I'd imagine will be in future law school classes about this era.
aug 25, 2025, 3:46 pm • 31 4 • view
I generally feel the same way about dissents. But yeah, if SCOTUS continues to allow Trump to behave as though there is only one branch of govt, it will be important for dissenting justices to say "it was contemporaneously obvious that the Court's handling of Trump was wrong."
aug 25, 2025, 4:36 pm • 9 0 • view
Always a challenge to write posts these days because we sort of have to say "under the logic of prior cases, this should be struck down," as opposed to "this *will* be struck down."
aug 25, 2025, 3:46 pm • 4 0 • view
Sure. All I'm saying is that, even assuming this would normally be a circumstance in which the federal government can seek to influence state behavior without violating the 10th Amendment, the action might be subject to challenge on other grounds because the asserted policy aim is irrational.
aug 25, 2025, 3:41 pm • 7 1 • view