- Sputnik International
Get the latest news from around the world, live coverage, off-beat stories, features and analysis.

Is the US Supreme Court Responsible for Income Inequality? Will it Change?

© AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite, FileIn this Feb. 25, 2016, file photo, in honor of Justice Antonin Scalia, a flag in the Supreme Court building's front plaza flies at half-staff in Washington
In this Feb. 25, 2016, file photo, in honor of Justice Antonin Scalia, a flag in the Supreme Court building's front plaza flies at half-staff in Washington - Sputnik International
A recent report places the blame on America’s top jurists for creating a legal foundation that enables and exacerbates the country’s massive wealth gap.

New research by a University of Baltimore law professor, published in the Conversation, has revealed that growing US income inequality is the fault of the US Supreme Court, claiming the court’s decisions since the 1970s have created conditions that benefit corporations over individuals.

Paratroopers of the 173rd Airborne Brigade of the US Army in Europe - Sputnik International
Looking Past Obama: Pentagon to Boost Military Presence in Europe

Professor Michele Gilman states that, with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Obama administration has the perfect opportunity to tilt the scales on what was a 5 to 4 majority against the interests of the working class.

How SCOTUS created income inequality

Gilman observes a trend toward arbitration, citing five decisions authored by the late Justice Scalia that pushed both worker and consumer claims out of the courts. Prior to the change, an injured or disadvantaged worker or a slighted consumer could pursue litigation, which saw a trend toward companies offering settlements rather than risking a jury trial.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses the media following victory in the Florida state primary on March 15, 2016 in West Palm Beach, Florida. - Sputnik International
Trump Changes His Mind to Support Eventual Republican in Presidential Race

However, with decisions including the 2011 AT&T v. Concepcion case, litigants are now forced into arbitration, often in locations thousands of miles from where an injury or claim occurred. Further, arbitration programs are often funded by the same corporate interests whose cases they are hearing.

The AT&T case involved a class action lawsuit in which thousands of claimants alleged that they were charged over $30 for what was advertised as a free cell phone. Scalia not only said the case should go to arbitration, but that every individual who claimed that he or she had been defrauded must take their claim to an offshore arbitration hearing in the Bahamas, despite knowing that travel costs alone were greater than each individual claim.

A Muslim youth holds a poster during a protest against Donald Trump on December 20, 2015 in New York - Sputnik International
Trump Rhetoric on Muslims Spreads Beyond Fringe of US Politics

Similarly, in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, Scalia wrote an opinion stating that women workers could not bring a class action suit against the retailer for paying and promoting them less than their male counterparts, on the assertion that Wal-Mart was simply "too big to discriminate" and inferring that, for a claim to go forward, claimants had to show proof that the retailer intended to create harm.

Similarly, the US Supreme Court has ruled on a number of cases limiting the ability of labor unions to collect dues to pay for collective bargaining efforts on behalf of employees.

In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United v. FEC, holding that Congress could not limit the proliferation or funding of SuperPACs. In layman’s terms, an ordinary person has a $2,700 limit on how much they can donate to a political campaign, but, with lawyers and money, a person can set up an organization to donate billions.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz - Sputnik International
#CruzSexScandal: #TheThing May Have Legs

In effect, many US Supreme Court decisions of the past 30 years, in particular those decisions pushed forward by Scalia, ensured that workers would not have a day in court, could not unionize, and could not have their voice heard equally in a political arena against the  noise of billionaires.

To participate in the discussion
log in or register
Заголовок открываемого материала