The first decision of the Supreme Court’s new term tends to confirm my view that the Court does not have, as the media claim, conservative majority. It also tends to confirm my conclusion that Republican-nominated justices are unlikely to alter much.

In Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, the Court applied a far-reaching federal statute to a tiny fire district. The district claimed it fit within the statute’s exemption for small employers. The Court ruled that the district was not exempt, and was subject to the same federal rules that applied to larger employers. The decision was written by Justice Ginsberg, and was unanimous: 8-0.

The precise question before the Court was not constitutional—it was how the statute was to be interpreted. In my view, the Court’s reading of the statute was probably correct. But on this point reasonable people could differ: four federal courts of appeal and the trial judge considering this case had read the measure the other way. Yet not a single Supreme Court justice supported the more “conservative” reading.

In addition, the context and wider setting of the case tells us a few things:

* Had a correct reading of the statute gone the other way, there is an excellent chance that the liberal activists on the court would nevertheless have tried to stretch it to cover the district (i.e., reach a liberal result)—particularly if they had support from the lower courts. But in this case, no justice tried to stretch it to exempt the district. That’s because there are no conservative activists on the Court. There have not been for many decades.

* The statute is based on an overly-expansive definition of congressional power under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. It may also over-read congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment. But no member of the court wrote a concurring opinion to point that out, including Justice Clarence Thomas.

* Apparently not even the fire district challenged the statute on constitutional grounds. Attorneys for the district knew that the justices the media mischaracterize as “conservative” in fact, faithfully apply the decisions of prior “progressive” courts. Because of the liberal jurisprudence built up during the 20th century, a Supreme Court justice committed to precedent necessarily reaches mostly liberal results.

Rob Natelson

The 10th Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”



Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles


Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog


State of the Nullification Movement

232 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report


Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty


Maharrey Minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens. maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues - history, and application today


Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!



The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose - the "Foundation of the Constitution."

10th Amendment



Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history - and today.