by Tarragon » Fri May 05, 2017 6:00 pm
It's been a while since I briefed any SCOTUS decision, but I seem to remember instances where the government's power was reduced, while still upholding a conviction or decision against someone. I might be mistaken or be summarizing too widely. It can be an issue of perception, that while technically losing the principle at issue, the larger precedent widens the general right or opens the door to future suits.
The way a case is decided is frequently based on what principles are being argued by the opposing sides. In Con Law class, we often debated whether they should have used a different principle. Sometimes the court chooses suits in a specific order over several years in order to establish a line of precedent in order to build up to a case. This is because they often have to resolve one principle before it allows them to resolve another principle, and that means hearing cases predicated on certain principles. If they espouse a principle before they've laid groundwork, then they are often accused of "legislating from the bench" (which they are frequently accused of anyway).
For example, some First Amendment cases, like obscenity cases, limited the rules about what test the government should use to consider text or images obscene (arguably relaxing laws against obscenity), yet in the same case upheld a conviction of the person who was producing or disseminating them (Miller vs. California). Religious freedom can be limited with regards to activities deemed illegal by state, federal or international standards, but the state can choose not to limit religious freedom (Employment Division v. Smith, Gonsalez vs. O Centro Espirita).
In Roe v. Wade, the court found that a woman has a right to an abortion, while also finding that the state has a compelling interest in regulating it. In Everson vs. Board of Education, SCOTUS both accepted there is a wall of separation between church and state, incorporated the fourteenth amendment, and found that tax moneys could not be taken to support religion, but found that spending tax money on busing students to private schools (96% of which were Catholic schools) was allowable.
