Bill Overview
Title: Supreme Court Review Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Government Accountability Office to notify Congress of a covered Supreme Court decision and sets forth expedited procedures for the consideration of legislation related to the decision. A covered Supreme Court decision is a decision by the Supreme Court that interprets a federal statute for the first time, reinterprets a federal statute that it previously interpreted, or interprets or reinterprets the Constitution in a manner that diminishes an individual right or privilege that is or was previously protected by the Constitution.
Sponsors: Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]
Target Audience
Population: People whose rights are reinterpreted in a manner that could diminish them according to a Supreme Court decision
Estimated Size: 333000000
- The Supreme Court Review Act mandates congressional oversight on Supreme Court decisions that reinterpret or diminish individual rights under federal statutes or the Constitution.
- This affects anyone whose rights are reinterpreted in a manner that diminishes them according to a covered Supreme Court decision.
- Given the constitutional focus, all US residents are potentially impacted as their rights could be reinterpreted.
- Since this is a federal law concerning the Supreme Court, the primary direct impact will be on US residents and citizens, though influences could extend globally in symbolic nature of the US justice system.
Reasoning
- The Supreme Court Review Act aims to ensure that Congress actively addresses and reviews Supreme Court decisions that impact federally protected individual rights.
- This mechanism could have an extensive reach, potentially impacting all US residents depending on the specific decisions reviewed under this act.
- The policy's direct impact will be perceived differently based on whether an individual's rights are reinterpreted and how Congress responds.
- A budget limitation suggests a focus on more significant or controversial decisions due to resource allocations affecting the extent of Congressional review interventions.
- Impact on wellbeing will likely vary based on individuals' perceptions of governmental oversight on the judiciary and perceived protection or erosion of rights.
Simulated Interviews
Software engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel that the Supreme Court Review Act is necessary to ensure that our rights are protected from potentially regressive interpretations.
- It provides a safety net for marginalized communities who are often disproportionately affected by such decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Real estate agent (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the Supreme Court Review Act could lead to unnecessary political interference in judicial matters.
- The process should remain as apolitical as possible to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Retired teacher (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this act will strengthen the accountability of decisions that could otherwise erode civil rights protections.
- Congressional oversight can be a positive support in upholding democratic values.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Public policy analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the Supreme Court Review Act provides an essential check and balance within the US government.
- It concerns me that political agendas may influence how reviews are conducted, though.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
College student (Brooklyn, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the idea of Congressional review is promising, I worry about the potential for delayed legislative responses which may not meet urgent needs.
- Having this layer of review does provide more security for individual rights in theory.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Small business owner (Louisville, KY)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The danger of over-legislation could compromise the independence of the judiciary, which isn't ideal for a free country.
- I worry about government overreach with this legislation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Immigration lawyer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act offers hope for more balanced interpretations of the Constitution, especially for underrepresented communities.
- I trust that it will support efforts to safeguard vulnerable groups.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired judge (Boston, MA)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having observed the inner workings of the legal system, I support more comprehensive oversight to protect individual rights.
- There could be tension between the judiciary and legislative bodies, but balance is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tech startup employee (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act is vital in protecting the rights of minorities which are often at risk.
- However, it is important that the processes are transparent and fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
High school teacher (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Educating the next generation makes me appreciate the checks and balances this act introduces.
- Should be an opportunity to show students the importance of civic responsibilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 3: $2100000 (Low: $1600000, High: $2600000)
Year 5: $2150000 (Low: $1650000, High: $2650000)
Year 10: $2250000 (Low: $1750000, High: $2750000)
Year 100: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $3500000)
Key Considerations
- The need for technological updates within the GAO to track and notify about Supreme Court decisions efficiently.
- The requirement for training and employing additional staff to handle the increased workload.
- Potential legal challengers might arise related to the interpretation of constitutional rights and their impact on legislative procedures.