Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Supreme Court Tag

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.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on October 25, 2015 26 Comments
Ted Cruz has hit third place (behind Carson and Trump) and double-digits in Iowa.  He's taken over Rubio's third place spot according to Bloomberg.
Texas Senator Ted Cruz, at 10 percent, is the only other candidate [besides Carson and Trump] in double digits. He's followed by Florida Senator Marco Rubio at 9 percent. The horse-race numbers for the top four mirror a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, with the main exception being that the earlier poll had Rubio in third place with 13 percent.
As he continues to campaign in Iowa, Cruz emphasizes the import of the 2016 presidential election.  He tweets:

Posted by Amy Miller on September 21, 2015 3 Comments
Last week I had the privilege of attending the Cato Institute's Constitution Day event covering the October 2014 and 2015 Supreme Court terms. It was a wonkishly good time, and afforded me the opportunity to both soak in some new insight on the Court, and kick off analysis and prediction posts for the upcoming Supreme Court term. Overall, the presenters and panelists don't expect the upcoming term to bring us as many "blockbuster" cases. Last term was defined by the shadow of Obergefell and the question of gay marriage; we knew it was coming all term, and its prominence in the hearts and minds of the American people shunted to the side even the important rulings concerning Obamacare and the Fair Housing Act. Still, this term still has the potential to inspire some scorching takes from both wings of the media on the Clean Water Act, wiretapping laws, religious freedom, and abortion laws. We still have a ways to go before we get to examine a full docket, so stay tuned. Cato did a great job of making their presentation accessible to both attorneys and non-attorneys, which (from my experience) is rare for events held by true think tanks. The presentations on Executive power, civil rights, and the state vs. the individual were all 100% relevant with regards to the legal philosophy discussed, and its application to the situations we see and experience every day.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on September 02, 2015 168 Comments
In Kentucky, a county clerk refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses despite the Supreme Court's recent ruling has made her way into national headlines. Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis claims her religious beliefs have created an issue of conscience which prohibits her from participating in or condoning gay marriage. Citing God's authority, Davis has stopped issuing all marriage licenses. The whole affair turned into one horrid media circus:
ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos
Accessibility by WAH