SCOTUS mostly hears cases where there is disagreement among the appeals courts, or where they feel the appeals courts are getting it wrong consistently.
They don't usually go after every decision they disagree with.
And for those that think the current SCOTUS is somehow anti-fourth-amendment, you should really read the Carpenter decision and opinions.
OP didn't specify why this was posted, but I was glad to find out about the issue discussed.
SCOTUS is also selective about taking cases beyond what you listed. It's one court for the whole of the US. Not taking a case is absolutely not a symbol of unimportance of an issue, or taking a side.
Their current purpose is mostly to clarify / set case law. Many cases just aren't a good fit for doing that. For example:
- The case might be messy, have auxiliary issues, or otherwise introduce unnecessary complexity
- They might not be ready to decide. For example, they might be waiting to hear more from lower courts, social consensus to come together, etc.
- They might not have time, or there might be more important issues
... and so on.
I don't think that was the implied conclusion. For a lot of us, it's still interesting to follow issues like this one.
With Supreme Court, I assume good faith. I haven't seen anything to the contrary; differences in values and opinions -- even ones I strongly disagree with -- aren't the same as a lack of good faith.
As for lack of political agenda, the Supreme Court may be more polarized than it has ever been (at least in my lifetime), but it's worth looking in context: it's one of three branches.
As has always been the case in US history, it still has much less of a political agenda than either of the other two branches.
- If you're on the left, who seems most reasonable: Donald Trump, Kevin McCarthy, or the most anti-left member of the Supreme Court?
- If you're on the right, you can do the same exercise with Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and the most anti-right member of the Supreme Court.
I have read many Supreme Court rulings I strongly disagreed with and which didn't reflect my values, but I've never read any which felt stupid, corrupt, or done in bad faith. That contrasts with legislative and executive completely.
> With Supreme Court, I assume good faith. I haven't seen anything to the contrary
Really? You haven't seen anything to the contrary? You haven't seen a supreme court justice being literally bribed for decades? You didn't see three recent supreme court appointees lie to congress?
> SCOTUS mostly hears cases where there is disagreement among the appeals courts, or where they feel the appeals courts are getting it wrong consistently.
I would say where there is a circuit split or an issue of particular importance to resolve (including, sometimes, a novel and significant challenge to existing Supreme Court precedent.) While there are a few cases that have probably been taken based on, or at least with, a prejudged outcome, I don’t think such is a norm such as to be listed as one of the major reasons the Court takes a case.
"They don't usually go after every decision they disagree with."
There's also a possibility that they don't disagree with this. My understanding is the current test is if there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. In this case, a neighbor could film your house from across the street, so there is no expectation of privacy since anyone can do what the ATF did here.
So they would only take this case if they are interested in changing the standard test. Maybe they will in a future case, or maybe they are fine with the current test.
Technology changes expectation of privacy. Any neighbor can:
* Mount a laser pointed at your window and do complex algorithms with diffraction to listen to you
* Run Tempest and read your computer monitor (pretend we still have CRTs)
* Use a telephoto camera to look through your windows
... and so on.
Those were impossible 100 years ago, were expensive a few decades ago (outside of the means of my neighbors), are within the means of many individuals today, and will probably be very cheap in a few more decades years. That makes a world of difference.
I don't think my neighbor should be allowed to do any of those. I'd like my privacy.
All of those would be considered an invasion of your privacy. The general rule of thumb is that you have no expectation of privacy for anything that is done on your yard but outside your house, but within the walls, you do have an expectation of privacy. Technology that allows people to peep on you from outside your house doesn't change that, anymore than the introduction of windows to a house didn't change the expectation of privacy.
"Mount a laser pointed at your window and do complex algorithms with diffraction to listen to you"
No, not legally. Most states have two-party recording laws, laws about recording on private property, etc.
"Use a telephoto camera to look through your windows"
No, not legally. That falls under what is generally termed peeping Tom laws. It varies slightly by state, but you cannot record people in a private setting without permission. You can view the outside of a home from a public space, and even the inside if just with the naked eye.
"Run Tempest and read your computer monitor (pretend we still have CRTs)"
This one is interesting. Side-channel attacks are difficult to find case law about since they tend to be relatively new and involve other steps that are already criminal.
> No, not legally. Most states have two-party recording laws, laws about recording on private property, etc.
In my state: Record? No. Listen? Yes.
> No, not legally. That falls under what is generally termed peeping Tom laws
In my state: Per statute, requires intent of voyeurism. There is some case law which suggests otherwise, based on a broad general right to privacy. It's very case-specific.
And I say peeping Tom laws, but some of the laws related there do not require it to be an intimate act. Some, like "prowling" laws make it a crime to be close to someone's house at night.
Surely declining to hear the appeal IS agreeing with the ruling, at least de-facto? Doing so because they are busy or don't want to interfere etc doesn't change that. At best they have retained the option to hear an identical case later, but SCOTUS always has that right anyway...
No, it's not an agreement. Handing down a SCOTUS opinion is the most powerful thing they can do, and all lower courts are bound by it. But maintaining silence permits lower courts to continue operating each on its own best judgment. SCOTUS defers to the specialized authority of lower/local bodies all the time, saying, "We trust you have a better and more intimate perspective and will come to a good decision." That's not agreeing with a judgment call, that's letting somebody else make a judgment call, and being ok with the fact that SCOTUS may or may not have ruled differently.
* If the lower courts agree and SCOTUS leaves them to it, they are defacto supporting what the lower courts agreed on no? "We agree because we agree" and "We agree because we don't know but accept whatever you decided" are the same thing...
* If the lower courts do NOT agree (like this case), then by declining the case SCOTUS is... agreeing that the same law means different things in different places with their jurisdiction. Which seems even bad for a whole other set of additional reasons.
Still, here we are I guess. There are plenty of other issues that other parts of government refuse to address (and I would argue that there accept the default state of) so why not SCOTUS too...
Let's map the question to a different domain. Does a police officer concede that laws don't need to be followed, or that he is not bound to enforce laws, if he declines to pursue a violation of the law that he witnesses? Does he approve of the violation of the law by declining to pursue the matter? No, not at all. He simply can't pursue everything. But that he allows a thing to happen should in no way be considered an approval or agreement with the thing. This is a size-of-fish-to-fry situation.
They don't usually go after every decision they disagree with.
And for those that think the current SCOTUS is somehow anti-fourth-amendment, you should really read the Carpenter decision and opinions.