Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Supreme Court Tag

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 18, 2016 28 Comments
Just four years ago, the Democrats were calling the GOP the party of old white people. Today, Democrats are running two old white people while the Republican candidates have been extremely diverse. Despite this new reality, Hillary Clinton is clinging to accusations of racism against Republicans, in this case because there is opposition to letting Obama choose Justice Scalia's successor. The Washington Post reports:
Clinton: ‘Racial language,’ ‘bigotry’ part of Republican Supreme Court delay Days after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in Texas, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has fused two of the most controversial issues of the 2016 campaign — the debate over who should choose Scalia’s successor, and race.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 17, 2016 4 Comments
I don't normally watch Stephen Colbert on the Late Show. Somehow, it turned up on my TV last night. I'm not even sure I could replicate the error. When I heard him turn to the topic of Antonin Scalia I thought, oh boy, here we go. But I was so pleasantly surprised. Colbert told of his one personal interaction with Scalia, and it was both funny and moving, as Salon.com reported:
“Whether or not you agreed with him–or made a lot of jokes about him, like I did–one thing you’ve got to admit is that he had a great sense of humor,” Colbert began. “People have actually broken down the transcripts of oral arguments, and he told more jokes and got more laughs than any of the other justices.” “I was lucky enough to have one conversation with Antonin Scalia that explained his appeal to me,” Colbert continued, describing his speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner. “Not many people laughed in the front row,” where the “important people” sit.

Posted by Jonathan Levin on February 16, 2016 28 Comments
Media discussion of Justice Scalia's death and its implications for the public unions case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association overstates the impact and misses the larger issue. Before Justice Scalia died, it was very likely the Court would hold that it is unconstitutional for state law to require, or even simply allow, "agency shop" agreements compelling non-union members to nevertheless contribute to the union's collective bargaining and related expenses.  Now, the Court will probably affirm the Ninth Circuit's decision upholding agency shop agreements, but without setting precedent. That is obviously a better outcome for the Union, but how long will it last?  The New York Times says "a major threat to public unions has evaporated."  Reuters writes more temperately that "a 4-4 split is a likely outcome, which would hand a win to the unions as that would leave the lower court's ruling in their favor in place."

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 16, 2016 25 Comments
Back in 2007, Chuck Schumer stated plainly that Democrats should block all U.S. Supreme Court judges nominated by then president George W. Bush. There is no other way to interpret his words: Having been confronted with this irrefutable evidence that Democrats played partisan politics on this very issue, Schumer has responded by claiming that was totally different. Sam Reisman of Mediaite:

Posted by Leslie Eastman on February 16, 2016 23 Comments
There are moments I always recall with great clarity. Learning about the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will be one of those events. As I have been closely following this news, I have noticed that there is a lot of chatter about the circumstances of his death and the disposition of his body. For example, reading The Drudge Report headlines, I could almost believe this story might soon be featured on Forensic Files. While dialoging with fans of Legal Insurrection's cartoonist, Antonio F. Branco, I noticed many comments I had also read elsewhere. For example, suspicious were shared about the pillow found over his head. Many Americans are expressing worries about the lack of an autopsy that would have confirmed the ruling of "natural death". I wanted to share some perspectives, which I thought might be helpful, based on my own experiences.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on February 15, 2016 20 Comments
Justice Scalia's untimely passing has the entire political arena stressed. Senate Republicans refuse to confirm another justice until the next president is elected, but President Obama insists he will move forward with a nominee. NBC News has the breakdown:
While the president said Saturday was "a time to remember Justice Scalia's legacy," he did announce his intention to nominate a successor. The Republican Senate majority leader and chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee called for the decision to be delayed and left to the next president.

Posted by Jonathan Levin on February 15, 2016 4 Comments
Two Supreme Court cases with significant public policy implications previously discussed on Legal Insurrection face very different futures in the wake of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death on Saturday. Oral arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas and even more more so Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association suggested the Court would decide for the conservative position in both. Now those cases are thrown into turmoil.  The traditional response when a Justice dies after oral arguments but before a written decision has been to either affirm the lower court without setting precedent, or to order.  Either option is at least a temporary setback for conservatives.

Fisher revisited

I previewed the challenge to the University of Texas's affirmative action scheme in Fisher, here, and discussed the oral arguments, here.   In Fisher, the Court is reviewing UT's admission system that considers race as one factor among many for admitting applicants who did not otherwise qualify for admission for having graduated in the top-10 percent of their Texas high school class. As noted in the case preview:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 14, 2016 12 Comments
The unexpected news that Antonin Scalia died was a punch in the gut. It reminded me of when I first heard that Andrew Breitbart had died -- my wife saw it on Twitter and asked whether it was true. Her comment about Breitbart applies equally to Scalia, A personal note on the death of Andrew Breitbart:
Since my wife called this morning to let me know of Andrew’s death, it has been hard to focus on anything else.  In her words, we don’t have that many bright media lights, and to lose him hurts.
Scalia was more than just a Justice. He was the embodiment of resistance to liberal political correctness and social justice war perpetrated through the judiciary rather than the electorate. I never met Scalia, but I heard him speak once at the Justinian Society in Providence, Rhode Island. He was larger than life, had total command of the room packed with 150 or more lawyers, and was incredibly self-deprecating. And we all laughed so hard at times it's a miracle no one choked on lunch.

Posted by New Neo on February 13, 2016 29 Comments
Let's set the scene: it's nine months to the election, about eleven till the inauguration. The GOP controls the Senate, but there's a Democratic president (in case you hadn't noticed). The Supreme Court has been split between four liberal and four conservative justices and one swing justice. One of the conservative justices dies, Justice Scalia. President Obama has the right to nominate his successor, and that choice will entirely change the Court's makeup to predictably liberal. And yet he needs the Republican Senate's advise and consent to do it. In an ideal world, justices would be "neutral" and the august and objective law would be the only guide they followed. But in the real world, justices each have a judicial attitude and philosophy that is reflected in decisions that tend to consistently and predictably lean to one side or other in their political consequences. Therefore no judge Obama nominates will be "neutral"; that person will be liberal if not leftist. That is a given.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 13, 2016 54 Comments
Just Breaking:
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday on a luxury resort in West Texas, federal officials said. Scalia, 79, was a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch, a resort in the Big Bend region south of Marfa. According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body. Chief U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia, of the Western Judicial District of Texas, was notified about the death from the U.S. Marshals Service.
Justice Scalia leaves behind 28 grandchildren: https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/698629400900870145 A selection of our prior posts about Justice Scalia (apart from dozens of posts about Supreme Court rulings):

Scalia always was the Happy Jurist, and Warrior.

This CBS interview was excellent:

Posted by Sarah Rumpf on February 10, 2016 10 Comments
Yet another Obama administration initiative was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court this week. The Clean Power Plan (CPP) was a far-reaching effort by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants under the Clean Air Act (CAA). If implemented, the CPP would have closed hundreds of coal-fired plants across the country and increased the production of wind and solar power, which are significantly more expensive to produce. The CPP was challenged in  court by energy companies, industry groups, and a coalition of 29 states, led by West Virginia. The litigants filed multiple applications for a stay, which would block the CPP from being implemented while the case proceeded.

Hitting the "pause" button

A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously voted to deny the stay last month, and it was appealed to the Supreme Court, which, in a 5-4 ruling with the liberal Justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) voting against, agreed to grant the stay. A stay is best understood as hitting the "pause" button, and not the final step in the litigation, but it does prevent the CPP from being implemented while the case proceeds.

Posted by Jonathan Levin on February 03, 2016 13 Comments
The long-running battle between the Chicago Teachers' Union (the "Union") and the Chicago Public Schools ("CPS") has turned even uglier.  The Chicago Tribune reports that the Union rejected CPS's most recent contract offer Monday, and CPS responded by cutting budgets by a cool $100 million. Combative negotiations between CPS and the Union have become the norm.  In September, 2012, the Union went on strike, leaving students and parents alike in the lurch.  In addition to the typical issues in teachers contract disputes (evaluations, pay and benefits, class sizes), Time reported that the Union explicitly demanded mayoral indulgence:
RAHM EMANUEL’S SUPPORT OF UNIONS When Emanuel took the mayorship of Chicago last May, he vowed to overhaul Chicago’s notoriously underperforming schools, particularly on the impoverished south side of the city. But the mayor’s first major negotiation with a city labor union has resulted in this strike, making worse his already poor relationship with union leaders worse. Emanuel has often butted heads with often-hotheaded union president Karen Lewis, after he bypassed the union’s opinion last year and went straight to the schools with an offer of bonus pay if they lengthened the school day. At a news conference, he called Monday’s walkout a “strike of choice,” saying he believed that the two sides were close to an agreement.

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 27, 2016 34 Comments
At a town hall event in Iowa this week, Hillary Clinton was asked by a supporter if she would consider appointing Barack Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court if she becomes president. She thought it was a great idea. ABC News reports:
Hillary Clinton Would Consider Appointing President Obama to Supreme Court A second Clinton administration could mean a future Justice Barack Obama. At a campaign event in Deocorah, Iowa on Tuesday, Hillary Clinton lit up when a voter asked her if she would consider appointing the president to the Supreme Court should she win the White House. "Wow, what a great idea. No one has ever suggested that to me, I love that, wow," the Democratic presidential candidate responded. "He may have a few other things to do but I tell you that's a great idea."

Posted by Mike LaChance on January 20, 2016 19 Comments
We covered this a few days ago at College Insurrection but the story has gone national. This all springs from a report by the Council of Trustees and Alumni called A Crisis in Civic Education. Among many troubling findings, the report revealed:
There is a crisis in American civic education. Survey after survey shows that recent college graduates are alarmingly ignorant of America’s history and heritage. They cannot identify the term lengths of members of Congress, the substance of the First Amendment, or the origin of the separation of powers. They do not know the Father of the Constitution, and nearly 10% say that Judith Sheindlin—“Judge Judy”—is on the Supreme Court.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 19, 2016 15 Comments
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning granted a Petition by the U.S. government for review of lower court decisions putting a halt to Obama's executive immigration action. That action halted deportation for up to 5 million people in the country illegally. Our prior posts have the background: Interestingly, the Order granting Certiorari added a constitutional issue to the case. The lower courts had decided it based on Obama administration failure to follow proper administrative procedure: Texas Immigration Case Supreme Court Order granting Cert. ScotusBlog summarizes today's action and what is to follow:

Posted by Jonathan Levin on January 18, 2016 20 Comments
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Friedrichs v. California Teachers' Association last Monday, and the union had a tough day.  Legal Insurrection previewed the case, here.

Background

In brief, public school teachers in California seek to invalidate state law requiring that non-union members must nevertheless pay the public teachers union fees for collective bargaining and related expenses.  Those related expenses are fairly broad and include public relations campaigns on issues to be collectively bargained. Before this case, controlling law from Abood v. Detroit Board of Education allowed such compelled payments on the reasoning that collective bargaining is not political speech, so compelled contributions to collective bargaining expenses does not run afoul of the First Amendment's implied freedom of (and from) association.  However, Abood was internally inconsistent to the extent that it acknowledged that everything a public union does is political in the sense that it has an impact on the public and public policy.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on January 17, 2016 8 Comments
Former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell was indicted back in January of 2014 for accepting gifts in exchange for political influence, and now the Supreme Court will be reviewing his case. The Washington Post reports:
The McDonnells, who were convicted in 2014, were accused of intervening with state officials on Williams’s behalf in exchange for $177,000 in loans, vacations and luxury goods. The former governor was sentenced to two years in prison; Maureen McDonnell received a year and a day. . . . . The Supreme Court will decide whether former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell was rightly convicted of corruption for his efforts on behalf of a businessman who bestowed money and gifts on the governor and his family. The court announced Friday that it would intervene in the long-running saga of McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, and the case provides the justices a fresh opportunity to define what kind of political conduct crosses the line into criminal behavior.
McDonnell issued a statement in response to the Supreme Court's announcement.

Posted by Jonathan Levin on January 15, 2016 1 Comment
On Wednesday the Iranian Central Bank argued before the United States Supreme Court that Iranian-owned assets in U.S.-based accounts cannot be used to satisfy judgments against Iran.  The narrow legal question in Bank Markazi v. Peterson is whether and to what extent Congress can dictate the outcome of a pending suit by statute, but the practical question is whether victims of Iranian terror can obtain payment for their and their loved ones' suffering and deaths.

Background

Plaintiff Deborah Peterson sued the government of Iran for the wrongful death of her brother, Lance Corporal James C. Knipple, who was killed along with 240 other Americans in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon.  Numerous other Plaintiffs sued Iran either for their own or for loved ones' injuries and deaths in other Iranian terror attacks including the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. Airmen. Iran did not appear in court to defend these suits, and the various courts entered default judgments against it in 19 different cases in an aggregate amount of several billion dollars.
Accessibility by WAH