Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Supreme Court Tag

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.

Posted by Jonathan Levin on January 11, 2016 29 Comments
The Supreme Court's 2016 schedule begins this morning with oral arguments in a dispute over public union dues.  In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association the Court is asked to strike down two rules that that artificially prop-up public sector unions. First, the Plaintiff challenges a California statute imposing “agency shop agreements” under which non-union members must nevertheless pay the union for its collective bargaining services. Second, Plaintiffs seek to reverse California law that requires all employees to pay the union for non-bargaining activities unless they opt out each year, asking that the burden be reversed to require annual opt-ins for those who wish to contribute. Both challenges are brought under the 1st Amendment’s implied freedom of association, as incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment.

Posted by Jonathan Levin on December 11, 2015 12 Comments
Notwithstanding a modest consensus that affirmative action is doomed after Wednesday's arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, there are hints the Court might delay a substantive decision, dissatisfying all parties. For background on the case, see Legal Insurrection's preview, here.  The full transcript of Wednesday's oral arguments is here. There were a number of tense and emotional moments both between the Justices and the parties' attorneys and among the Justices themselves.  From the tenor of the questioning, it is likely the University of Texas's ("UT") admissions system will be struck down despite its minimal reliance on race, if the case is decided on its merits.  If so, the result may explicitly or implicitly ban affirmative action on the basis of race in public university admissions. But the Court, including presumptive deciding vote Justice Kennedy, repeatedly returned to procedural issues.

Posted by Jonathan Levin on December 08, 2015 10 Comments
The United States Supreme Court will revisit affirmative action in public university admissions on Wednesday, when Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin returns to the high court for the second time. As the Supreme Court previously explained, the University of Texas ("UT") has a two-part admissions system.  First, under Texas’s statutory "Top Ten Percent Law," any student graduating from a Texas high school in the top 10% of their class is automatically admitted. Second, students not admitted pursuant to the Top Ten Percent Law are given numerical Personal Achievement scores by combining academic achievement and a “Personal Achievement Index” (“PAI”).  The PAI:
measures a student’s leadership and work experience, awards, extra-curricular activities, community service, and other special circumstances that give insight into a student’s back-ground. These included growing up in a single-parent home, speaking a language other than English at home, significant family responsibilities assumed by the applicant, and the general socioeconomic condition of the student’s family.
From 1997 to 2003, the PAI had no racial consideration.  UT admissions were entirely race neutral.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on November 13, 2015 6 Comments
The Supreme Court agreed to consider the constitutionality of a 2013 Texas law (HB 2) that resulted in the closure of half the state's abortion clinics, according to SCOTUS blog. The earliest Whole Women's Health vs. Cole would be heard is February. The issue:
Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a court errs by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in promoting health; and (2) whether the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest.
According to the pro-life advocacy group, Texas Right to Life, "until SCOTUS completes a review of the constitutionality of HB 2, the law’s safety standards are delayed from taking effect in Texas."

Posted by Leslie Eastman on October 27, 2015 34 Comments
We recently reported that Obamacare Co-Ops have been dropping like dead, rotting flies. Now, in the wake of the continued failures of program implementation, a new challenge has been filed with the Supreme Court:
Foes of President Obama's health care law are taking another crack at upending the legislation, filing a new challenge with the Supreme Court after a separate long-shot case was rejected earlier this year. The petition filed Monday by the Pacific Legal Foundation, like the prior challenge, focuses on an obscure aspect of the law. The case contends ObamaCare violates the provision of the Constitution that requires tax-raising bills to originate in the House of Representatives.
Accessibility by WAH