Our legal expert, candice kelly, is here with more on that and other cases. The high court is addressing good morning, candidates and let’s talk about this because it was controversial, put a lot of black men in jail, while a lot of other men walked. What did the court have to say about drug dealers who sold crack cocaine but got the same synthesis as those who sold 100 times as much powder? Cocaine, yeah, big disparity there mike well. As you said, it was a unanimous decision. The court said that low level crack cocaine offenders convicted more than 10 years ago cannot take advantage of the 2018 first step act. Now. This is a federal law mike and sharon that was created to help people get reduced time behind bars and the case actually centered around a plaintiff who had 3.9 grams of cocaine. But the justices said that the law wasn’t triggered because it addresses crack possession about five grams for one category and possession in about 50 grams for another category. So it’s, really a technicality we’ve got to look in the numbers. The devil is in there, so that’s. Why? This law wasn’t, triggered for about 200 people who made behind remain behind bars because the interesting thing about this is because a lot of the people who have who went to jail because of these crack cocaine sentences they’re out of jail now. But this one gentleman who did come to the supreme court, he does not get to take advantage of this law wow, so candace.
The the court also made an interesting move in that affirmative action case. That could be heard. Next term explained yes well they’re, trying to determine whether or not they will even hear the case, but before they do that. What they said was that they’re going to ask the doj to weigh in on it and quote get the views of the united states. So really they’re going to the biden, justice department and the justice department is probably going to urge the justices really to leave the case alone. Leave it to the lower court opinion standing um. So we have to see what the outcome is on that because, ultimately, at the end of the day, they’re just trying to decide do we take this case or do we not so big challenges ahead there uh quickly before we get to the next topic? How often does that happen where the supreme court goes back and asks the doj for help? Well, you know they will often go to the executive level and and ask them questions because really, at the end of the day, they’re looking for all different types of input as they make their decision as to whether or not to even hear this case. So it’s not unusual, and it really is a sign that triggers that it’s not a no, so it more than likely could be a yes. But as i said, the abiding administration is probably going to ask them to just look at the lower courts and let’s stay there all right, and so the the supreme court uh coming up.
They got four big decisions. Coming up, lgbtq voting cheerleading rant obamacare, basically saving the best for last candice yeah. They really are. They are going to uh, set the fate of obamacare determining whether or not they will remove parts or just get rid of obamacare in general they’re going to rule a case that could determine scores of the laws addressing election rules. So the voting rights act is going to be examined. Certainly that is on a lot of people’s minds and then there’s that cheerleading case that we talked about right. The courts are going to ask if students can be disciplined for what they say on social media. So certainly that’s a big one there and it’s. Also, we talked about a case before having to do with gay rights and adoption. So that’s going to be coming up too. Okay, we’ll see what they do in the cheerleading case, yeah yeah, it is all right hold on. We got we got time. We got ta like to explain more about the chilean case. What is that about because i’m, not familiar, we out of new jersey, i believe or pennsylvania who she ranted online about not making the cheerleading team f, the team f everybody at the school, and so she and her parents filed a case when the school removed her From the team for a year – and she said no – no – this is my first amendment right, i wasn’t in school.
I was you know somewhere at a restaurant. What does this have to do with what’s going on in school? Well, of course, the school said that the cheerleaders were offended. The school was offended so that’s why it is now here a big first amendment right case that the repercussions are going to be grand right because people say things at home, all the time and outside of school. And so do we monitor what people say when they’re sitting at home on a sunday morning or does that have anything to do with what goes on on campus, so big deal wow this this got all well because of the supreme court, yeah yeah. I was looking to see what yeah yeah yeah yeah it is. I was just trying to see uh who the plaintiff is. If first name is karen but um, okay, candace uh. Thank you for starting your day with us uh much more news straight ahead. We appreciate it, and these are things that we’re going to be looking for because, as you said, widespread um implications, so we’ll see what the court does. Thank you. Thank you appreciate it.