"This may seem like a minor niggling point. It's not.
The Court's recognition of a right to abortion has been rooted in the Due Process Clause. Thomas & Gorsuch's concurrences document their opposition to grounding substantive rights in that corner of the 14th am."
"Thomas and Gorsuch announce that they would incorporate Bill of Rights through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, not the Due Process Clause. This is a wonky distinction, but one with huge stakes for immigrants. Due Process Clause protects “persons.” P or I protects “citizens.” "
Wouldn't this completely screw over corporations? Or do we have some other mechanisms that will continue to protect them from these abuses them but not other types of "persons"?
Corporations in general have the constitutional protections that people acting in a group have. Corporate personhood is just a convenient legal fiction.
For example corporations don't have a right to free speech because they are "persons" but because we extend the rights of the individuals who make up the group to the group itself.
I'm pretty sure they can also remove you; what they can't do is remove you based on the content of your speech, but then again I doubt they can have a policy of only removing iPods playing political speeches with certain viewpoints.
The court did not address the Clause’s application to civil in rem forfeitures, nor did the State ask it to do so. Timbs thus sought this Court’s review only of the question whether the Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Do you read anything into this? Is there a reason a justice would prefer to highlight the excessive fines provision over the due process protections?