Pratik Shah Participates in American Constitution Society Discussion on Recent Supreme Court Term

Akin Gump Supreme Court and appellate practice head Pratik Shah was a panelist on the American Constitution Society’s recent annual Supreme Court Review looking back at the Supreme Court term that just ended. The conversation touched on the Court’s noteworthy decisions from the past year and analyzed some emerging trends.

Shah spoke about particular two cases. The first was California v. Texas, a case challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, which he noted began when Congress zeroed out the tax payment for not complying with the law’s so-called individual mandate to acquire health insurance. The Court, in a 7-2 decision, dismissed the case for lack of standing.

The second case, Nestle v. Doe, involved the Alien Tort Statute, a 1789 law providing federal court jurisdiction for claims by non-citizens of international law violations. Shah explained that although the Court did not categorically exclude U.S. corporations from the statute’s reach, the Court, by an 8-1 margin, blocked this suit against U.S. companies alleging aiding-and-abetting liability for primarily extraterritorial conduct.

Shah noted that, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett has moved the Court “incrementally to the right,” there also appeared to be a desire this Term to create, “if not consensus, at least less extreme rulings.” Shah described that outcome as “completely understandable” and, contrary to other commentary, “not a surprise” given the nature of recent confirmation hearings and the interest of certain Justices in preserving the Court’s institutional legitimacy. Still, Shah said, it may be too soon to make any predictions, as there will be “a robust majority of six [conservatives] for years to come.”

To watch the discussion in its entirety, please click here.