The U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence has often delineated the borders of American racial politics. In some way, the Supreme Court decisions reflected economic, political, cultural, and ideological values of the contemporary society. The decision of Plessey v. Ferguson was a symbolic establishment of the separate but equal doctrine. It was also significant from the perspective of American federalism. In the 1950s, several rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court influenced American racial politics and paved the way for changes in the context of the development of civil rights. The decision of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was victory of the civil rights movement. It was perceived as a model for the subsequent cases. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the right of interposition. It was assumed that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional applied not to the state but only to federal judiciary.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the American reform movements tried to match American ideals with the challenges of the times. Progressive attitudes highlighted the necessity of reforms. The Chinese issue, often risen in the public dialogue, was the subject of deliberation of the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the federal executive branch of government. Chae Chan Ping v. United States and subsequent cases established the doctrine of consular noneviewability referring to immigration law and delineating the scope of judicial review for decisions concerning the admission of immigrants to the United States. They also strengthened the plenary power doctrine. We may ask if the Supreme Court judgments were in conformity with the ideas of American Progressivism. Unfortunately, the Chinese Exclusion Cases were not compatible with the visions of progressive reformers and reflected anti-Chinese sentiment rather than an aspiration for reforms.

Commercial Marketplace or Marketplace of Ideas? Reflections on Protecting the Religious Freedom of Companies after the US Supreme Court Decision in the 303 Creative v. Elenis Case

Although the protection of religious freedom through freedom of speech is not a new concept in US jurisprudence, the recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Elenis case extended its application to commercial companies, holding that it is lawful to refuse to provide a service to third parties if doing so would compel the owners of the companies to make a speech that is inconsistent with their religious beliefs. Such a broadly defined protection of religious freedom raises concerns from the perspective of harm to third parties in terms of equal access to services in the marketplace (material harm) and harm to the dignity of third parties (dignity harm). The article offers a critical analysis of the Elenis judgment, in particular using the concept of complicity-based claims developed by D. NeJaime and R. Siegel.