Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Supreme Court Tag

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:

Posted by Leslie Eastman on April 19, 2016 28 Comments
If one Supreme Court Justice gets her way, there will be a religious test for the next SCOTUS nominee....as well as the standard abortion litmus test! Not happy with the proposed nominee offered by President Obama, Sonia Sotomayor offered her faith-based suggestions:
Justice Sonia Sotomayor says the Supreme Court needs more diversity, amid the politically charged debate about filling a vacancy on the high court. "I … think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school," Sotomayor, the court's first Latina justice, said Friday at Brooklyn Law School. However, she did not mention by name Judge Merrick Garland, a white male with a Harvard Law School degree whom President Obama recently nominated to fill the vacancy of Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative voice on the court. Scalia died unexpectedly in January.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on April 15, 2016 13 Comments
"Confirmation," an original film by HBO airs Saturday night. Supposedly, the movie chronicles Justice Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court Confirmation hearings. Many of the writers, producers, and actors in "Confirmation" are Democratic Party donors and loyalists, so the bias isn't entirely shocking, but it is worth noting. A site called Confirmation Biased is out to set the record straight. One of the film's most egregious offenses is the omission of the numerous woman who testified on behalf of Justice Thomas' character following the accusations made by Anita Hill.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on April 07, 2016 48 Comments
While the Merrick Garland nomination is stalled in the Senate, conservative think tanks are busy at work on a 2017 SCOTUS nominee contingency plan. Their man? Senator Mike Lee. While campaigning in Utah last month, Senator Cruz floated the idea of Lee for SCOTUS, saying, "he would look good there." No word yet on whether Trump would nominate Lee for SCOTUS though.

Posted by Sarah Rumpf on April 04, 2016 12 Comments
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous ruling in Evenwel v. Abbott, a voting rights case that dealt with how districts are drawn. The opinion was written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurring. With the unanimous ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia's death was not a direct factor in this decision, but since the Court left a major issue still open, the critical question of who will fill Scalia's seat still looms.

When drawing district lines, who should be counted?

The case originated when two Texas residents, Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger, challenged the state's legislative redistricting, which currently includes the total population of the area, as is commonly done across the country. The plaintiffs argued in favor of counting only those residents who were actual voters to draw the districts.

Posted by Sarah Rumpf on March 29, 2016 11 Comments
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States, stuck in a 4-4 deadlock, affirmed the lower court's decision in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a labor union dues case. The one sentence decision offered no explanation and simply stated, "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."

Should public employee unions be able to impose mandatory dues?

At issue in the case was a challenge to the power of public employee unions to impose mandatory dues, an issue that has been bitterly fought by both sides of the labor union debate. Tuesday's ruling allows the unions to continue to collect dues for collective bargaining costs, pursuant to a prior case from 1977 that allowed these mandatory dues, so long as the employees were not forced to pay for political or ideological activities.

Posted by Sarah Rumpf on March 21, 2016 25 Comments
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled today that Second Amendment does include stun guns, in a ruling issued on Monday. In the short per curiam ("by the Court") opinion in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court set aside a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, rejecting the arguments offered for allowing the state to ban possession or use of stun guns as in conflict with the Second Amendment. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion supporting the self-defense rights of Jamie Caetano, the Boston woman whose conviction was the basis for the case. The State of Massachusetts now has the choice of dropping the conviction against Caetano, or coming back to try new arguments to support their ban.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 16, 2016 40 Comments
Numerous news reports indicate that at 11 a.m. this morning Obama will hold a press appearance to introduce Merrick Garland, currently Chief Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, as his nominee to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia. We will add additional information regarding Garland soon. Not that it likely matters, since Republicans in the Senate have promised not to act on any nomination until the next president. Though, wondering if that will change if Trump is the Republican presidential nominee and it becomes obvious he will lose the presidency and Republicans might lose the Senate, in which case Garland may be less bad than whoever Hillary picks. I predict some wobbling. But first, the really important question: Do you really think he looks like me? https://twitter.com/alwaysonoffense/status/710107700558958592

Posted by Sarah Rumpf on March 11, 2016 9 Comments
On Thursday, Florida Governor Rick Scott signed a bill that would cut off state funding to abortion provider Planned Parenthood and increases the safety requirements for abortion clinics. The bill was cheered  by pro-life activists across the country and also brings added importance to a case pending before the United States Supreme Court. The bill, HB 1411, contains provisions similar to those in the Texas abortion law currently being challenged before the Supreme Court, requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers. The Florida law also mandates annual inspections for abortion clinics, including a review of at least 50 percent of their records, in order to have their licenses renewed.
Accessibility by WAH