Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Supreme Court Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on June 08, 2015 15 Comments
The Supreme Court decided the much-anticipated Zivotofsky case, involving a congressional law which permitted American citizens born in Jerusalem to choose to list "Israel" as their place of birth, rather than just "Jerusalem," as the State Department mandated.  (Full Opinion here.) Needless to say, the case had enormous political implications, even if the legal issue itself was not particularly political.  The Executive Branch refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, or even though Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital both when it was divided prior to 1967, and after it was reunited in 1967.  Worse still, for passport purposes it does not even recognize Jerusalem as part of Israel at all. The political gloss is that the Executive Branch claims the issue should be subject to negotiations, but the reality is that the State Department fears backlash from the Palestinians and Israel-hating nations (i.e., most of the United Nations) should it side with Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its capital. Congress, on the other hand, is in sync with American domestic public opinion, which is overwhelmingly pro-Israel, so in 2002 Congress passed a law to force the State Department's hand on the issue.

Posted by New Neo on June 04, 2015 21 Comments
Republicans are in a pickle, and have been since the moment Obamacare was passed. You might think they're in a good position, because the Supreme Court is considering overturning the state Obamacare exchanges and subsidies because of wording in the statute, and this would throw the entire Obamacare system into turmoil. The case in question is King v. Burwell, and it could be decided any day now. But there's one catch, and it's a biggee: if the ruling goes against Obamacare, the press and the left will rail at the Republicans for being the big bad meanies who took away a lot of people's subsidies. That was part of the beauty of Obamacare for the left, and one of the many many reasons they were so extraordinarily eager to pass it and pass it as quickly as possible: they wanted to create a dependence and an expectation, otherwise known as an entitlement, that would be tremendously hard to reverse. But what do the American people actually want if SCOTUS throws out the state exchanges and therefore the state subsidies? A substantial majority appear to want Congress to fix Obamacare rather than re-establish the state exchanges, according to this poll. But what would that actually look like?

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on June 02, 2015 24 Comments
Yesterday, fledgling retailer Abercrombie & Fitch lost their anti-hijab case in the Supreme Court. Amy provided background when SCOTUS heard oral arguments in February:
Back in 2008, Samantha Elauf, an observant Muslim, applied and was interviewed for a job at teen-friendly retailer Abercrombie & Fitch. She impressed the hiring manager, but when the time came to make a decision, the manager decided not to hire Samantha because she had concerns about whether or not Samantha would insist on wearing her headscarf to work. This would have been a violation of Abercrombie’s “Look Policy,” which dictates that employees conform to a strict set of style guidelines that specifically prohibit head coverings and black clothing.
Abercrombie's "Look Policy" was summarized as, "classic East Coast collegiate style."

Posted by Amy Miller on June 01, 2015 6 Comments
Remember Anthony Elonis? He was sentenced to four years in federal prison after he posted original rap lyrics and other content concerning his wife, co-workers, a kindergarten class, and even a federal agent. A lower court held that Elonis' posts constituted a "true threat" against those mentioned in his rants, and he served more than three years of his sentence before being released. At controversy in the ensuing lawsuit was the prosecutor's use of a low-hanging, "reasonable person" standard in his instructions to the jury. The Court had never specifically ruled on whether or not a prosecutor must show intent to carry out verbal or written threats in order to get a conviction; lower courts are split, with most requiring enough evidence to show that a reasonable person would see or hear the speech and believe that it is “a serious expression of an intention to inflict bodily injury or take the life of an individual.” In today's ruling, the Supreme Court held that requiring only negligence with respect to the communication of a threat, is not sufficient to support a conviction under the statute that governed Elonis' alleged crimes.

Posted by Amy Miller on May 26, 2015 14 Comments
It's time to define what the meaning of the word "population" is---and how it applies to the drawing of electoral districts. In 1964, the Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds v. Sims that, under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, state legislative districts have to be about equal in population. The Court also held that population must always be the "controlling consideration" in state redistricting. Seem straightforward? Not so fast, say two voters from Texas. A few years ago, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, together with the Austin-based Project on Fair Representation, sued the State of Texas over an implemented redistricting plan that redrew state senate districts based on total population, as opposed to voting population. They argue that such a standard dilutes the voting power of registered voters living in areas heavily populated with nonvoters and illegal immigrants, thus violating the principle of "one person, one vote." The Texas Tribune explains:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on May 18, 2015 10 Comments
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an Order this morning denying the Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Wisconsin John Doe case. For background, see our prior posts, including Will Supreme Court take blockbuster “John Doe” campaign case?:
The case is O’Keefe v. Chisholm.... The issue on which review was sought had little to do — on the surface — with the substance of the abuses in the John Doe case, but rather, focuses on a technical legal point as to whether and when federal courts can or should stop state investigations.... But, the nature of the case necessarily involves the underlying ability of states to regulate campaign coordination and how that ability interacts with First Amendment rights.
While the Court will not hear the case, the underlying investigation currently is on hold anyway because of a separate federal court order not involved in the Supreme Court petition, and a state court order putting the investigation on hold. Here is the Supreme Court Order: http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/051815zor_a86c.pdf

Posted by Amy Miller on April 28, 2015 79 Comments
No matter which way you come down on the issue of gay marriage, today was a big day at the Supreme Court. Those who wished to sit in the courtroom (and who weren't lucky enough to hold membership in the Supreme Court Bar, or the media) camped for several nights outside the courthouse, and today, protesters (both hopeful and defiant) gathered on the steps to make their voices heard. Obergefell v. Hodges is consolidated with three other cases, and the issues at hand are pretty simple compared to those contained in other cases we've covered:
1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
So, here we are. "Finally," some would say. Is gay marriage an idea whose time has come, or an idea that should be left untouched by the government? Both parties had their day in court today, and the ebb and flow of oral arguments revealed a divide in the Court that has left many SCOTUS watchers hesitant to make a prediction.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 27, 2015 12 Comments
The U.S. Supreme court has not yet decided whether to grant a petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the federal courts should not have issued an injunction halting the "John Doe" investigation targeting conservative groups in Wisconsin. The case was on the Supreme Court conference list for Friday, April 24, 2015, and a decision was expected to be part of Orders issued today, but there was no order. Andrew Grossman, one of the counsel for the petitioners, tweeted this morning: The case is O’Keefe v. Chisholm. You can find all the pleadings here. Since the vast majority of cases are not accepted by the Supreme Court, it's hard to know what, if anything, the delay means. The issue on which review was sought had little to do -- on the surface -- with the substance of the abuses in the John Doe case, but rather, focuses on a technical legal point as to whether and when federal courts can or should stop state investigations. Here's how ScotusBlog summarized the issues:

Posted by Amy Miller on April 22, 2015 14 Comments
In 2015 America, government overreach isn't exactly headline news anymore. From the IRS to the VA to the EPA, it seems like every agency in the country is managing to find new and exciting ways to rob from the middle class to feed the bureaucracy; not only is the "system" growing, it's getting harder and harder for the average citizen to fight The Man and come out standing. Not headline news, and nothing new; many of the programs giving Americans hell were developed decades back. One program targeting raisin farmers, however, is currently under fire from business owners looking to protect their property rights. In the wake of World War II, the US government developed a series of programs aimed at stabilizing the agricultural industry. They wanted to drive up market prices, and decided the best way to do so was to confiscate a portion of each farmer's raisin crop without compensation. (Yes, really.) In 2001, farmers Marvin and Laura Horne decided they had had enough with regulations, and developed their own packaging and distribution system.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on April 18, 2015 4 Comments
In 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that states have the right to refuse the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion without penalty to other, existing, federal Medicaid funding.  Following is the summary from SCOTUSblog:
The Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion is divided and complicated.  The bottom line is that: (1) Congress acted constitutionally in offering states funds to expand coverage to millions of new individuals; (2) So states can agree to expand coverage in exchange for those new funds; (3) If the state accepts the expansion funds, it must obey by the new rules and expand coverage; (4) but a state can refuse to participate in the expansion without losing all of its Medicaid funds; instead the state will have the option of continue the its current, unexpanded plan as is. [emphasis added]
It is quite surprising, then, that the Obama administration is trying to use federal low-income pool (LIP) funding to, according to Governor Scott, "coerce" Florida into accepting the short-term federal funding of the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion. There are a number of good reasons for refusing the Medicaid expansion: Not only are health outcomes under Medicaid substantially less than those under any other health care or health insurance program, but this federal funding effectively runs out in only three years, leaving states to foot the hugely-expanded Medicaid bill. Governor Scott has said that he is unwilling to pile such crushing debt on the backs of Florida taxpayers:

Posted by Amy Miller on March 09, 2015 3 Comments
Obama's big government health care takeover has taken another hit---albeit a small one---to its provisions mandating the coverage of contraception. Notre Dame v. Burwell seemed dead last year, when the Seventh Circuit threw out a lawsuit laying out the University of Notre Dame's religious objections to Obamacare's contraception mandate. Notre Dame brought their objection in the wake of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which allowed religious organizations to opt out of the mandate and pass responsibility for paying the costs of contraception to insurance companies. The institution argued that this still placed a burden on exempt religious institutions, because even when opting out, those institutions still have to authorize the coverage. The last time the Seventh Circuit considered this case, SCOTUS had not yet ruled in the landmark Hobby Lobby case, which authorized closely held corporations to seek religious exemptions from the contraception mandate. The Seventh Circuit ruled that Notre Dame failed to show a sufficient burden against the rights of religious institutions; but SCOTUS has now tossed out that ruling completely, and have ordered the appeals court to review the case in light of the Hobby Lobby ruling. Reuters has more background:

Posted by Amy Miller on March 06, 2015 34 Comments
Arguments in the case of King v. Burwell helped serve to shine light on just how big of a mess implementing, changing, scuttling, or rebuilding the ACA will be. From Bloomberg:
It wasn’t immediately clear where the court leaned, as Chief Justice John Roberts -- who voted in 2012 to uphold the law as constitutional -- asked few questions during the hearing Wednesday. A ruling is expected by late June. Alito’s suggestion that the court might set an end-of-the-year termination date for subsidies in healthcare.gov states was greeted somewhat favorably by solicitor general Donald Verilli, who represented the Obama administration. “That would reduce the disruption,” he told Alito. Still, he said it was “completely unrealistic” to expect that states that lack their own exchange could build one by the end of the year. Under current regulations, for example, states must win approval from the health department by May for an exchange that would open for business in October. Justice Antonin Scalia, another Republican appointee, said that Congress could act to solve the problem. Republicans in both the Senate and House have said that they would respond to a court ruling against the government with legislation to preserve insurance coverage, but they don’t agree on a solution. “Well, this Congress, your honor?” Verilli said, to laughter. “Theoretically, they could.”
One does not joke before the Supreme Court unless one is absolutely positive that the bench will join in the fun. Everyone laughed.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 25, 2015 26 Comments
Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that pits the concept of religious accommodation against company dress codes and hiring practices. Just writing it out makes it sound depressing, doesn't it? The facts don't make things much better. Back in 2008, Samantha Elauf, an observant Muslim, applied and was interviewed for a job at teen-friendly retailer Abercrombie & Fitch. She impressed the hiring manager, but when the time came to make a decision, the manager decided not to hire Samantha because she had concerns about whether or not Samantha would insist on wearing her headscarf to work. This would have been a violation of Abercrombie's "Look Policy," which dictates that employees conform to a strict set of style guidelines that specifically prohibit head coverings and black clothing. After Samantha failed to get the job, a friend of hers already employed with the retailer asked the hiring manager for her reasons, and the manager indicated that the headscarf played a part in her decision. Welcome to the Supreme Court, Abercrombie. Enjoy your stay. The EEOC sued on Elauf's behalf on grounds of religious discrimination, and down came a $20,000 award in favor of her case. The 10th circuit overturned the decision, saying that because Elauf never asked for an accommodation, the company wasn't liable for not offering one; the Court was uncomfortable holding employers to a standard that would require them to ask about a religious exemption they may not know an employee needs.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 17, 2015 36 Comments
One of the most interesting developments in the recent media spin cycle is the renewed fascination---on both the left and the right---with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ginsburg has been in the national spotlight since her appointment in 1993; her tenure on the Court has afforded her the opportunity to become one of the most influential figureheads in the fight for gender equality and expanded "reproductive rights." Influential, and polarizing. We can't stop talking about her, whether it be about her opinions, her tendency to snooze during the State of the Union, or---most importantly, in some circles---her eventual retirement. In a recent interview with MSNBC, Irin Camron wasted no time in coaxing Ginsburg into answering the one question liberals can't help but flogging every time they get near a member of the Court---how long does Ginsburg plan on sticking around? They're worried, of course, because timing is key when it comes to Supreme Court appointments. Right now the left's worst nightmare is that the next retirement will coincide with a Republican presidency. Ginsburg's history of health problems---colorectal cancer in 1999, and a tumor in her pancreas in 2009---has become a real hobgoblin for SCOTUS watchers, who understand the difference one seat can make when major issues such as gay marriage, abortion, or election law are on the line. Talking heads have picked up on the tension. Check out Maddow's heightened level of concern (via MRC):

Posted by Amy Miller on February 13, 2015 8 Comments
We've already talked about how Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stole the show at this year's State of the Union address---mostly because the entire internet was 90% sure they caught her during the action: As it turns out, she wasn't merely napping---she was fighting back the effects of a fine California vino. From TPM:
"The audience for the most part is awake because they're bobbing up and down all the time. And we sit there, stone faced, the sober judges," Ginsburg said. "But we're not, at least I was not, 100 percent sober." She explained that the justices have dinner together before the annual speech, which she said Scalia hadn't attended in several years, and that Justice Anthony Kennedy brought along a bottle of California wine that was just too good to resist. "I vowed this year -- just sparkling water, stay away from the wine -- but in the end the dinner was so delicious it needed wine to accompany it."
Watch:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 05, 2015 36 Comments
In the months leading up to the first Supreme Court Obamacare decision, there was a concerted media and Democratic effort to portray the legitimacy of the Court, and particularly the legacy of Chief Justice John Roberts, as dependent on the outcome. The argument went that holding Obamacare's mandate to be unconstitutional would be such a huge interference in the political process that the Court would lose its supposed role as neutral referee and become a political player. Because as we all know, that has never happened before (/sarc), see, Roe v. Wade, etc. This pressure reportedly caused Roberts to change his vote, and to join with the for liberal members of the Court in finding the mandate justified under Congress' taxing power. Now the media pressure is mounting on Obamacare II, the subsidy case the Court accepted this term. The issue is whether the statutory language of Obamacare permits subsidies (the only way Obamacare policies are affordable for most) on the federal exchange set up when most states refused. This issue of statutory interpretation is not exceptional legally, except that the political stakes are so high. If the statute is read not to permit the subsidies, Obamacare likely crumbles of its own weight. Enter Linda Greenhouse, Supreme Court and judicial reporter for The NY Times, with scare mongering about the legitimacy of the Court, The Supreme Court at Stake: Overturning Obamacare Would Change the Nature of the Supreme Court:

Posted by Bryan Jacoutot on January 26, 2015 30 Comments
The upcoming Supreme Court case of King v. Burwell holds much in the balance, including the very financial sustainability of President Obama’s signature law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). If the Supreme Court rules for the plaintiffs, the ability for the law to support itself would almost certainly collapse. At issue in King is the legality of an IRS rule allowing exchanges operated by the federal government to issue tax subsidies to qualified individuals purchasing health insurance through the exchange. This is an incredibly complex issue, and many courts, scholars, and commentators have spent thousands upon thousands (upon thousands) of pages of argument attempting to arrive at the proper conclusion. Ultimately, we must wait until the Supreme Court decides this case at the end of the term to learn the definitive conclusion. The complexity of the law notwithstanding, many commentators remain convinced that any ruling against the government would be one for politics over the law, leading to familiar questions of the “institutional legitimacy” of the Supreme Court should they rule against the government. This is nothing new, especially when it comes to the issue of PPACA. Indeed, in the wake of the 2012 PPACA challenge, a litany of law professors and legal scholars shared in the assessment that striking down PPACA would result in substantial costs “for the Court as institution and for its credibility carrying out its vital national role going forward.”
Accessibility by WAH