Supreme Court Breakfast Table

The Court May No Longer Be the Head Cheerleader for the War on Drugs
An email conversation about the news of the day.
June 25 2014 4:27 PM

Supreme Court Breakfast Table

VIEW ALL ENTRIES

The court may no longer be the head cheerleader for the war on drugs.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist
Former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's stealth remedial revolution is paying off.

Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images

There are three truly striking things about the cellphone decision this morning.

First, it is a dramatic example of how the application of constitutional rules has to change with social change. The prior constitutional law permitting—without a warrant—searches incident to arrest of the items arrestees had on their person was broad and clear. But every justice saw that cellphones were fundamentally different from all the “stuff” police could shake out of suspects’ pockets and inspect. Conceptions of what constitutes a reasonable search, like conceptions of what constitutes equality, do change.

Secondly, the court has moved to more robust substantive protections of Fourth Amendment privacy rights just as it has cut back on the remedies available for violations of those constitutional norms. Georgetown Law professor Marty Lederman pointed this out to me this morning as the positive side of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist’s successful campaign to limit the exclusionary rule and damage suits against law enforcement officers. The court now may feel freer to announce substantive protections when criminal convictions are not so clearly at risk and officers are protected from suit. (Officers, for example, are no longer liable for conduct undertaken before the court has opined on a point.) This stealth Rehnquist remedial revolution—as both Marty and his Georgetown colleague Irv Gornstein have discussed informally for years—may have actually allowed the court to be more aggressive about issuing substantive pronouncements that will check the government.

Advertisement

Thirdly, the court may no longer be the head cheerleader for the war on drugs. The Supreme Court decisions from the 1970s that gave the green light to oppressive police investigative practices were to a large degree driven by the perceived need to suppress the supply of drugs.  Consider for example United States v. Robinson (1973), which allowed law enforcement officers to search without a warrant a crumpled cigarette package (that turned out to have drugs). Decided at the height of the national drug frenzy, cases like Robinson were the handmaiden of mass arrests. Because it would have been too costly and complicated to obtain warrants every time the police did of a sweep of low level street dealers, intrusive searches without warrants were a key part of drug control efforts that rely on mass arrests.  

In today’s Riley decision, the court notes, almost as an aside: “We cannot deny that our decision today will have an impact on the ability of law enforcement to combat crime”—a fact that does not seem all that troubling to the justices, at least not as troubling as it would have been in prior decades.

To my mind, the mass incarceration that resulted from the misguided war on drugs has been the great unappreciated civil rights issue of our time. The court, like much of the country, may finally be war-weary and may have come to the realization that the cost in human suffering,  civil liberties, and community disruption has been far too great to justify any positive results.

Walter Dellinger is a professor of law (on leave) at Duke University and a partner in the appellate practice at O’Melveny & Myers in Washington, D.C.

TODAY IN SLATE

Politics

Don’t Worry, Obama Isn’t Sending U.S. Troops to Fight ISIS

But the next president might. 

The Extraordinary Amicus Brief That Attempts to Explain the Wu-Tang Clan to the Supreme Court Justices

Amazon Is Officially a Gadget Company. Here Are Its Six New Devices.

The Human Need to Find Connections in Everything

It’s the source of creativity and delusions. It can harm us more than it helps us.

How Much Should You Loathe NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell?

Here are the facts.

Altered State

The Plight of the Pre-Legalization Marijuana Offender

What should happen to weed users and dealers busted before the stuff was legal?

Surprise! The Women Hired to Fix the NFL Think the NFL Is Just Great.

You Shouldn’t Spank Anyone but Your Consensual Sex Partner

Moneybox
Sept. 17 2014 5:10 PM The Most Awkward Scenario in Which a Man Can Hold a Door for a Woman
  News & Politics
Altered State
Sept. 17 2014 11:51 PM The Plight of the Pre-Legalization Marijuana Offender What should happen to weed users and dealers busted before the stuff was legal?
  Business
Business Insider
Sept. 17 2014 1:36 PM Nate Silver Versus Princeton Professor: Who Has the Right Models?
  Life
Dear Prudence
Sept. 18 2014 6:00 AM All Shook Up My 11-year-old has been exploring herself with my “back massager.” Should I stop her?
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 17 2014 6:14 PM Today in Gender Gaps: Biking
  Slate Plus
Slate Fare
Sept. 17 2014 9:37 AM Is Slate Too Liberal?  A members-only open thread.
  Arts
Brow Beat
Sept. 17 2014 8:25 PM A New Song and Music Video From Angel Olsen, Indie’s Next Big Thing
  Technology
Future Tense
Sept. 17 2014 9:00 PM Amazon Is Now a Gadget Company
  Health & Science
Bad Astronomy
Sept. 18 2014 7:30 AM Red and Green Ghosts Haunt the Stormy Night
  Sports
Sports Nut
Sept. 17 2014 3:51 PM NFL Jerk Watch: Roger Goodell How much should you loathe the pro football commissioner?