Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Supreme Court Tag

Posted by Mary Chastain on June 25, 2018 8 Comments
Civil asset forfeiture is one thing that can bring together the left and right. I've documented the few times states have addressed this issue and it's made me happy that the Supreme Court will address this issue next term. Reason explained the case:
The case is Timbs v. Indiana. It arose in 2013 when a man named Tyson Timbs was arrested on drug charges and sentenced to one year on home detention and five years on probation. A few months after his arrest, the state of Indiana also moved to seize Timbs' brand new Land Rover LR2, a vehicle worth around $40,000. A state trial court rejected that civil asset forfeiture effort, however, on the grounds that it would be "grossly disproportionate to the gravity of [Timbs'] offense" and therefore in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which forbids the imposition of "excessive fines."

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 21, 2018 41 Comments
The Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling that did not split on traditional ideological lines, upheld South Dakota's ability to require that out-of-state internet sellers collect state sales tax on goods sold into South Dakota. The case involved the internet retailer Wayfair and South Dakota. The case is being misrepresented in many media reports as involving whether states can tax internet sales. They can, and that was not in issue. The issue was whether states can force internet retailers to collect the sales tax and turn those proceeds over to the state.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 18, 2018 8 Comments
I'm so old, I remember when two partisan gerrymandering cases in the Supreme Court -- one from Wisconsin and one from Maryland -- were on just about everyone's list of blockbuster cases this term, including Bloomberg, Politico, and CNN, among many others. The Wisconsin case involved a very pro-Republican legislative district map that would help Republicans retain control of the state legislature, and the Maryland case involved a single very pro-Democrat congressional district.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 14, 2018 10 Comments
The Supreme Court, in the case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, ruled that a Minnesota law that banned “political badge, political button, or other political insignia" at polling places on Election Day was unconstitutional. The case was brought by voters who, among other things, wanted to wear a Tea Party Patriots tee shirt (see featured image, via MVA Facebook):

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 08, 2018 11 Comments
In February 2011, the Obama/Holder DOJ abruptly announced it would refuse to continue defending the Defense of Marriage Act after years of arguing in Court that DOMA was constitutional. In defending DOMA for years, the DOJ was upholding an important principle, that DOJ should defend existing laws in court so long as there was any reasonable basis for doing so.

Posted by Mary Chastain on June 04, 2018 49 Comments
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. From USA Today:
The verdict criticized the state's treatment of Jack Phillips' religious objections to gay marriage, ruling that a civil rights commission was biased against him. As a result, the decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, such as florists and photographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 25, 2018 60 Comments
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument this morning on Trump's Travel Order No. 3, which restricts visa travel to the U.S. from seven countries, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea. The Travel Order is not a "travel ban," it's an order regulating who can come into the United States. It's no more a "travel ban" than the U.S. immigration laws. But "travel ban" is how the media and even many Trump supporters refer to it -- at one point Trump himself capitulated to this media characterization as to earlier versions of the travel order.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 10, 2018 8 Comments
Has it really been a year? Yes, on April 10, 2017, Neil Gorsuch was sworn in as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Remember, Gorsuch only was nominated for the Scalia seat because Merrick Garland, Obama's nominee, was not given a Senate hearing much less vote (it's highly unlikely he would have been confirmed by the Republican Senate even if given a vote). Mitch McConnell recently commented that stymying the Garland nomination was the "most consequential" decision of his career.

Posted by Andrew Branca on April 02, 2018 51 Comments
The Supreme Court just handed down a police use-of-force decision, Kisela v. Hughes (pdf.)(full embed at bottom of post), the most notable characteristic of which is the gutting of a typically nutty Ninth Circuit court of appeals ruling and a typically silly dissent by Sotomayor (joined, unsurprisingly, by Ginsburg). The legal issue in play is whether a woman who was shot by a police officer should be permitted to sue that officer personally.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 26, 2018 75 Comments
We previously reported that the Trump administration took the unusual step of trying to get the Supreme Court to hear the case of the San Francisco federal district court order preventing Trump from ending DACA without getting a ruling first from the 9th Circuit. What made the procedure confounding, is that the administration did not seek a stay from the 9th Circuit and then the Supreme Court, only expedited direct Supreme Court review on the merits. That direct review procedure is rarely granted.  At the same time, the administration filed an appeal in the 9th Circuit.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 21, 2018 19 Comments
On February 19, 2018, the majority Democrat members of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court imposed a new congressional district map that was very Democrat friendly, likely swinging 4-5 seats to Democrats. It could be the difference between Democrats taking control of the U.S. House or not in the 2018 midterms. The map became so Democrat-friendly after a series of decisions as to placement of boundaries that helped Democrats. Nate Cohn at The NY Times described it this way:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 20, 2018 59 Comments
Opponents of the 2nd Amendment are gearing up to exploit the Parkland School shooting by making it part of the Resistance movement against Trump, the NRA and Republicans. That was obvious from the start, and it's more so now that the March For Our Lives on March 24 picks up celebrity donations and endorsements. Rather than proposing solutions that might actually reduce school gun violence while also respecting the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens protected under the 2nd Amendment, it is turning into the equivalent of the Women's March that greeted Trump's Inauguration. Meanwhile, a week before that, the Women's March organization itself is organizing a national school walkout.
Accessibility by WAH