Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Supreme Court Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 20, 2016 26 Comments
As discussed many times recently, Democrats have a yuge problem stopping Trump from naming just about anyone he wants to the Supreme Court, Will Republicans press SCOTUS Nuclear Option button? In 2013, Democrats pulled the Nuclear Option, eliminating filibusters on all judicial nominees short of the Supreme Court. That was an imaginary line in the sand Democrats thought they could rely on to defend themselves in the future as to Republican nominees to the Supreme Court. Though Republican's sometimes threatened to go nuclear, only Harry Reid and the Democrats did it. Republicans warned Democrats that they would come to regret it, maybe sooner than Democrats expected:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on November 18, 2016 31 Comments
The Nuclear Option was used for the first time by Harry Reid in 2013 to allow Obama to stuff the lower federal courts with Obama nominees despite Democrats not having a filibuster proof majority in the Senate at the time. It was a clear possibility at the time that Democrats were about to lose control of the Senate in the 2014 cycle, so the court-stuffing Nuclear Option was a desperate last-minute tactic. Democrats said that rule change would not apply to the Supreme Court. Holding back on using the Nuclear Option for the Supreme Court was a meaningless gesture at the time, because there were no Supreme Court vacancies.

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on October 30, 2016 38 Comments
The Supreme Court has made it official that next year, for the first time in its history, it will hear a case involving a transgender person's right to use a bathroom that corresponds with his "gender identity" while at school. To briefly summarize, Gavin Grimm (or GG as he is referred to in court documents) is a transgender male. This means that the sex  at birth was female, but he identifies as male. According to court documents, Grimm “lives all aspects of his life as a boy” but has not had sex reassignment surgery. Prior to the start of his sophomore year of high school, Grimm and his mother informed the Gloucester County School Board that he was a transgender boy. By all accounts the Board was exceedingly accommodating. For about seven weeks (and with his school’s permission), Grimm utilized the boys’ room without incident. Eventually, however, students took note of the fact that Grimm was a transgender boy, and some were less than comfortable with the arrangement.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on September 29, 2016 21 Comments
We followed the Washington Redskins name controversy rather closely, including legal action taken against them.  Now the Supreme Court is taking up a case that, while not directly related to the Redskins, may impact the team and its name. The Washington Post reports:
The Supreme Court will decide whether a federal law that bars the registration of disparaging trademarks violates free speech, a case with direct implications for the Washington Redskins in their fight to defend their famous team name. The justices on Thursday announced that they will consider whether part of the 1946 Lanham Trademark Act that prohibits registration of a trademark that “may disparage” persons violates the First Amendment, as an appeals court has ruled.
The Court didn't take the Redskin case, but instead took another with similar implications that was further along in the legal process.

Posted by Mary Chastain on September 09, 2016 12 Comments
The Supreme Court refused to consider Michigan's emergency appeal that would eliminate its 125 year-old straight-ticket voting option. The justices gave no reason:
“The application for stay presented to Justice (Elena) Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied. Justice (Clarence) Thomas and Justice (Samuel) Alito would grant the application.”
In 2015, the state leadership decided to remove the straight ticket option so, "that a voter would not overlook nonpartisan issues on the ballot and also make a 'more informed vote by examining the credentials and values of each candidate.'"

Posted by Mary Chastain on September 01, 2016 50 Comments
North Carolina wanted to reinstate its voter ID law in time for the elections, but a deadlocked Supreme Court denied them this opportunity. From The Wall Street Journal:
The high court, in a brief written order, declined to stay an appeals court ruling from July that struck down North Carolina’s Republican-backed voting rules. The appeals court found state lawmakers enacted the rules with the intent to discriminate against black voters.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on July 14, 2016 31 Comments
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, affectionately named by liberals "Notorious RBG" for her sharply worded judicial opinions lacerating conservative principles, is a liberal intellectual hero and giant. She is adored and worshipped as incorporating intellectual finesse and dignity in comparison to conservative Justices, Republicans, the Tea Party, and most of all, the person liberals regularly compare to Hitler, Mr. Donald J. Trump. So how to describe what liberals must be going through today, as Notorious RBG is forced by public opinion and editorial Boards at places such as The NY Times and USA Today to recant and retract her attacks on Mr. Donald J. Trump. The NY Times reports:

Posted by Mary Chastain on June 27, 2016 13 Comments
The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell's bribery conviction. They do not think the prosecutors proved "he took significant official actions in exchange for the $175,000 in gifts and loans he received from a wealthy businessman."

Posted by Sarah Rumpf on June 27, 2016 50 Comments
In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court has struck down two challenged provisions of Texas' abortion law, HB 2, the law that launched former Texas State Senator Wendy Davis to fame (or infamy, depending on your political leanings) for her pink-sneakered filibuster. Previous court decisions had upheld HB 2's ban on late term abortions. At issue here were two other provisions: 1) that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at a local hospital and 2) that abortion clinics have facilities comparable to outpatient surgical centers.

Posted by Sarah Rumpf on June 23, 2016 21 Comments
In a much-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court issued a tied decision Thursday in United States v. Texas, which dealt with the constitutionality of the executive orders President Barack Obama issued regarding parents who were illegal immigrants but whose children were citizens or legal residents (commonly known as DAPA).

Posted by Sarah Rumpf on June 23, 2016 10 Comments
Yet another exciting day for SCOTUS watchers. Thursday morning, the Court released its opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, holding in a 4-3 decision (Justice Elena Kagan did not participate) that the use of race in admissions at the Texas university was constitutional. Opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is here. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito dissented. On first glance, it's clear that Texas' "Ten Percent Plan," where the top 10% of the class from every Texas high school gains automatic admission was a big factor, as a race-neutral alternative that still increased diversity.

Posted by Sarah Rumpf on June 20, 2016 9 Comments
Happy SCOTUS Opinion Day, Legal Insurrection readers! We've got several opinions coming out today. Still waiting for some of the most controversial ones -- three Texas cases dealing with abortion, affirmative action, and immigration -- but this morning's opinions cover some serious constitutional rights. In day's first opinion, Taylor v. United States, the Court continued to follow a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause in ruling that it was proper for the federal government to prosecute a criminal defendant, David Taylor, who was part of a Virginia gang that robbed drug dealers. The crimes at issue were two home invasions that targeted marijuana dealers. Taylor and his fellow gang members demanded drugs and money from the occupants of the homes, but in both cases, walked away without any drugs and only a small amount of money, jewelry, cell phones, etc.

Posted by Sarah Rumpf on June 20, 2016 26 Comments
Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 5-3 ruling in Utah v. Streiff that's raising eyebrows for its implications for Fourth Amendment protections. In Streiff, the defendant was stopped and questioned by a police officer in a parking lot near a house that an anonymous tipster had claimed was being used to sell drugs. The officer asked the defendant for his identification and called in to a police dispatcher, who told the officer that Streiff had an outstanding warrant out for his arrest for a traffic violation. The officer arrested Streiff and searched him, finding methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The main legal enforcement method for the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on illegal searches and seizures is the "exclusionary rule," which stops prosecutors from using any evidence that's obtained from police activity that is found to violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court has long interpreted this as excluding not just "primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure," but also "evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality," as the Court wrote in Segura v. United States, a 1984 case.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on June 19, 2016 12 Comments
Last month, I wrote about Harry Reid's statement that he is "fairly certain" the Democrats will retake the Senate this year, and as I noted, it is a very real possibility given a number of factors.  The Democrats need win only five seats to retake the Senate (four if Hillary wins the WH), the Republicans are defending 24 seats to the Democrats' 10, and many of the states in play—Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, New Hampshire—went to Obama in both 2008 and 2012. As we consider and discuss the importance of the Supreme Court and who will be nominating the next Justice who will replace Justice Scalia—and potentially two (or more) others—during his or her term, it may be a good idea to think about the Senate races across the country and to do what we can to ensure that the Senate is not lost to Democrats. No matter who wins the general and nominates the next Justice/s, the Senate is still the body that confirms a presidential nomination to the Court.  A Democrat-controlled Senate, I think we can all agree, would be a disaster on many levels, but particularly so in light of the upcoming Supreme Court nominee/s.
Accessibility by WAH