Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Supreme Court Tag

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.

Posted by Taryn O'Neill on June 02, 2016 46 Comments
Last week, Louisiana passed a resolution calling for a Convention of States as described in Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The resolution passed on May 25 with a vote of 62-36, making Louisiana the eighth state to call for a meeting of the states for the purpose of proposing constitutional amendments addressing abuses by the U.S. Federal Government. Other states that have called a Convention of States for the same purposes are Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, and Oklahoma. Increased national interest in a Convention of States (COS) is due largely to the government's failure to operate as the Framers envisioned. Having accrued a national debt of over $19 trillion and a debt-to-GDP ratio of 105%, the government's size and scope has grown far beyond anything the Founders could have imagined. Meanwhile, the states, having created the Federal Government, find themselves acting at the mercy of Washington's limitless regulations and outstretched tentacles, lest they lose federal sacred funding.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on May 31, 2016 7 Comments
The death penalty will not get its day in court this year (at least not in the highest court in all of Americaland). Only two of the court's eight justices (Breyer and Ginsburg) showed interest in hearing the appeal of a Louisiana man convicted of killing his pregnant former girlfriend. According to Reuters:
The justices, who have sharply disagreed among themselves over capital punishment, declined to consider the appeal brought by Lamondre Tucker, who was sentenced to death for the 2008 murder of 18-year-old Tavia Sills in Shreveport. Sills, nearly five months pregnant, was shot three times and her body was dumped in a pond. Tucker, who is black, had argued in part that black males had an increased likelihood of being convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Louisiana's Caddo Parish due to endemic racism.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on May 18, 2016 25 Comments
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, released a short-list of potential SCOTUS nominees Wednesday. Senate Republicans have thus far, made good on their promise to block President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland. Should that hold, the task of replacing the late Justice Scalia will fall to the next Oval Office occupant. According to ABC News, Trump's SCOTUS list includes:

Posted by Mary Chastain on May 16, 2016 6 Comments
The Supreme Court unanimously pushed the Little Sisters of the Poor contraception case back to the lower courts, meaning they do not face fines if they do not provide contraception coverage. Ashley E. McGuire, Senior Fellow at The Catholic Association, released this statement in a press release:
"Today the Supreme Court made it clear that the government still has not done enough to accommodate the conscience rights of the Little Sisters, whose plan they have tried to hijack for things like abortion pills. For now, this is an interim win for the nuns, who just want to get back to their work caring for the poor without interference from government bureaucrats."

Posted by William A. Jacobson on April 20, 2016 3 Comments
I guess I knew this case was percolating through the system, but I didn't pay much attention to it. The Supreme Court upheld a law which paved the way for terror victims to recover damages from Iran. The Opinion is here. The legal issue was not terrorism, but whether Congress exceeded its authority. Here's the opening of Justice Ginsburg's majority opinion:
A provision of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, 22 U. S. C. §8772, makes available for postjudgment execution a set of assets held at a New York bank for Bank Markazi, the Central Bank of Iran. The assets would partially satisfy judgments gained in separate actions by over 1,000 victims of terrorist acts sponsored by Iran. The judgments remain unpaid. Section 8772 is an unusual statute: It designates a particular set of assets and renders them available to satisfy the liability and damages judgments underlying a onsolidated enforcement proceeding that the statute identifies by the District Court’s docket number. The question raised by petitioner Bank Markazi: Does §8772 violate the separation of powers by purporting to change the law for, and directing a particular result in, a single pending case? Section 8772, we hold, does not transgress constraints placed on Congress and the President by the Constitution....
The NY Times describes the background, Supreme Court Rules Iran Bank Must Pay for Terrorist Attacks:
Accessibility by WAH