Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

US Supreme Court Tag

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.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on March 07, 2016 8 Comments
A reader sent me a post from a Chabad publication which sheds light on an aspect of Justice Antonin Scalia's career I did not previously know. But it doesn't surprise me. I'm a big fan of Chabad, as I've previously mentioned:
Chabad, the Lubavitch Orthodox Jewish organization, has emissaries and houses on campuses and locations around the world. It is not a proselytizing group. It doesn’t seek to convert anyone, focusing instead on bringing Judaism to Jews.
“Everything in this world was created for a divine purpose. All forms of modern technology can and should be harnessed to make the world a better place and, in the case of Jews, to spread Judaism in the widest possible manner.” as quoted in The New York Times “No Jew should ever be lost to the Jewish people, no Jew must ever be lonely.” as quoted in The Jewish Week
The campus Chabads are particularly fantastic, in my experience. Non-judgmental, welcoming, and enthusiastic (that’s an understatement). Major shout out to the folks at Cornell Chabad and the recently opened Chabad of Clinton (NY), servicing my alma mater, Hamilton College.
The article sent to me by the reader is Antonin Scalia Remembered as an Advocate for Religious Freedom:

Posted by Sarah Rumpf on March 03, 2016 11 Comments
The Supreme Court of the United States has resumed hearing oral arguments since the death of conservative stalwart Justice Antonin Scalia. His seat remains empty, leaving the Court's already-tenuous balance even shakier as they address one of the most important abortion cases during recent years. Wednesday, the Court heard oral arguments in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the case challenging HB 2, the Texas abortion law made famous when then-State Senator Wendy Davis filibustered it in 2013 in pink sneakers. Davis' filibuster was a short-lived victory, as the law was passed days later in a special session, and her sneakers ended up at a garage sale. (Full transcript of the oral arguments posted here.) Wendy Davis rising victory sign via Facebook Page

Posted by Andrew Branca on February 29, 2016 45 Comments
(UPDATED: This post has been updated with the transcript of the oral arguments, at the bottom of this post. h/t Shall Not Be Questioned blog.) In a turn of events sure to shock those who follow the US Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas has broken with his 10-year-long record of declining to engage in oral argument, reports USA Today. Only once in the last 10 years has Justice Thomas made even the slightest remark during oral arguments, and that was merely a one-sentence aside made in jest to Antonin Scalia some three years ago.  Justice Scalia, a close friend of Thomas', passed away two weeks ago. The case which prompted Thomas to substantively engage in oral argument, Voisine v. US, centers on the Second Amendment.  Thomas choosing to break his habitual silence on this Second Amendment case may have been in homage to his friend Scalia, who greatly enjoyed displaying his wit in oral arguments. The recently deceased Scalia was instrumental on crafting pro-Second Amendment decisions by the Supreme Court in recent years, including the acknowledgement of a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the cases of Heller and McDonald.

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 25, 2016 5 Comments
Democrats are pushing hard for the senate to lay down and approve an Obama nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court even after Chuck Schumer was caught on video urging Dems to block Bush nominees to the court in 2007. Now a video of Joe Biden has surfaced in which the VP, then a senator, said that SCOTUS nominations shouldn't happen during an election season. A group called the Judicial Crisis Network has spliced together the Biden footage with Hillary and other Democrats talking about the issue recently.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 19, 2016 10 Comments
There were many moving images today as Justice Antonin Scalia's body was brought to and placed in repose in the Supreme Court. The Featured Image was one of the most moving. His former law clerks lined up outside the Supreme Court awaiting arrival of his body. (h/t @amandacarpenter) They continued to stand guard as the casket was carried up the steps: Scalia Law Clerks Casket Steps

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 18, 2016 28 Comments
Just four years ago, the Democrats were calling the GOP the party of old white people. Today, Democrats are running two old white people while the Republican candidates have been extremely diverse. Despite this new reality, Hillary Clinton is clinging to accusations of racism against Republicans, in this case because there is opposition to letting Obama choose Justice Scalia's successor. The Washington Post reports:
Clinton: ‘Racial language,’ ‘bigotry’ part of Republican Supreme Court delay Days after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in Texas, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has fused two of the most controversial issues of the 2016 campaign — the debate over who should choose Scalia’s successor, and race.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 17, 2016 4 Comments
I don't normally watch Stephen Colbert on the Late Show. Somehow, it turned up on my TV last night. I'm not even sure I could replicate the error. When I heard him turn to the topic of Antonin Scalia I thought, oh boy, here we go. But I was so pleasantly surprised. Colbert told of his one personal interaction with Scalia, and it was both funny and moving, as Salon.com reported:
“Whether or not you agreed with him–or made a lot of jokes about him, like I did–one thing you’ve got to admit is that he had a great sense of humor,” Colbert began. “People have actually broken down the transcripts of oral arguments, and he told more jokes and got more laughs than any of the other justices.” “I was lucky enough to have one conversation with Antonin Scalia that explained his appeal to me,” Colbert continued, describing his speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner. “Not many people laughed in the front row,” where the “important people” sit.

Posted by Jonathan Levin on February 16, 2016 28 Comments
Media discussion of Justice Scalia's death and its implications for the public unions case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association overstates the impact and misses the larger issue. Before Justice Scalia died, it was very likely the Court would hold that it is unconstitutional for state law to require, or even simply allow, "agency shop" agreements compelling non-union members to nevertheless contribute to the union's collective bargaining and related expenses.  Now, the Court will probably affirm the Ninth Circuit's decision upholding agency shop agreements, but without setting precedent. That is obviously a better outcome for the Union, but how long will it last?  The New York Times says "a major threat to public unions has evaporated."  Reuters writes more temperately that "a 4-4 split is a likely outcome, which would hand a win to the unions as that would leave the lower court's ruling in their favor in place."

Posted by Mike LaChance on February 16, 2016 25 Comments
Back in 2007, Chuck Schumer stated plainly that Democrats should block all U.S. Supreme Court judges nominated by then president George W. Bush. There is no other way to interpret his words: Having been confronted with this irrefutable evidence that Democrats played partisan politics on this very issue, Schumer has responded by claiming that was totally different. Sam Reisman of Mediaite:
Accessibility by WAH