The Supreme Court’s Era of Meaningless Rights
The Supreme Court has made several decisions that limit the ability of individuals to enforce their rights in court. The court has ruled that plaintiffs lack the legal authorization to sue to vindicate their federal rights in certain cases. This has significant implications for the enforcement of rights, particularly in cases involving human rights abuses and religious freedom.
- ▪The Supreme Court has limited the ability of individuals to sue for violations of their rights under the Alien Tort Statute and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
- ▪The court has ruled that Congress must authorize causes of action for newly recognized features of the law of nations, even if Congress has already created a cause of action for violations of the law of nations.
- ▪The decisions will bar suits by victims of human rights abuses and undermine protections in public benefits programs such as Medicaid and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
IdeasThe Supreme Court’s Era of Meaningless RightsThe Supreme Court is not saying people don’t have certain rights, just that no courts can help them when those rights are violated.By Leah LitmanIllustration by Matteo Giuseppe Pani / The Atlantic. Sources: Getty.June 26, 2026, 1:52 PM ET ShareSave The six Republican appointees on the Supreme Court have made one thing clear: People may have rights, but in many cases they have no way to enforce them. Four decisions released this week have that paradox at their core.Two of them, both issued Tuesday, held that the plaintiffs lacked “causes of action”—the legal authorization to sue to vindicate their federal rights. In Cisco v.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Atlantic.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Atlantic
