by Pamela Powers Hannley The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United and proclaimed that corporations are people, they have the right to free speech, and, by the way, money equals speech. That was January 2010, and the country has not been the same since. The 2010 elections were awash with secret, private … Read more
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Sorry folks, no health care, no SB 1070 decisions this week. The Court has 5 decisions left plus the health care cases next week. Some opinions will be announced on Monday, and a final round of announced decisions on a date yet to be noticed. Monday is also orders day, including American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, the Montana Supreme Court challenge to Citizens United v. FEC.
Here is a quick recap of the opinions announced today. Amy Howe from SCOTUSblog summarizes the cases, followed by a link to today's opinions. Remaining merits cases: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog:
Southern Union Company v. United States
Argued on March 19, 2012
Plain English Issue: Whether the Constitution requires that a jury, rather than a judge, must find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that leads to a higher fine for a criminal defendant.
6-3 decision. The First Circuit Court of Appeals decision is reversed. The rule of Apprendi v. NJ applies to the imposition of criminal fines. The opinion in Southern Union Company v. U.S. is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-94a1b2.pdf.
Knox v. Service Employees International Union
Argued on January 10, 2012
Plain English Issue: Whether a state can require its employees to pay a special union fee that will be spent for political purposes without first giving the employees information about the fee and a chance to object to it.
5-4 decision on ideological grounds, but 6-3 in the result (concurrence). The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision is reversed. The Court first ruled that the case is not moot. It then ruled on the merits: the union's treatment of nonmembers who had opted out when they got notice of the dues ran afoul of the First Amendment. A concurring opinion says that "[T]he majority thus decides, for the very first time, that the First Amendment does require an opt-in system in some circumstances [for union dues]: the levying of a special assessment or dues increase." The opinion in Knox v. Service Employees International Union is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1121c4d6.pdf.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The Justices are just toying with the media now. What everyone is waiting for will have to wait until this Thursday, or next week.
Here is a quick recap of the opinions announced today. Amy Howe from SCOTUSblog summarizes the cases, followed by a link to today's opinions. Remaining merits cases: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog:
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish v. Patchak
Argued on April 24, 2012
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether the Quiet Title Act, which provides that the United States may not be sued in disputes about the title to land held in trust for Indian Tribes, applies to all lawsuits involving land in which the United States “claims an interest,” or whether it instead applies only when the plaintiff claims title to the land; and (2) whether an individual’s right to sue under federal law can be based on either (i) his ability to “police” an agency’s compliance with the law or (ii) interests protected by a different federal statute than the one on which suit is based.
8-1 Decision affirming the Court of Appeals with Justice Sotomayor dissenting. The opinion in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish v. Patchak is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-246.pdf.
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter
Argued on April 18, 2012
Plain English Issue: When Congress has authorized Native American tribes to take over federal programs from the government and receive reimbursement, but it has also capped the amount of money that can be spent for costs to administer and support the contracts for those federal programs, must a tribe still be fully reimbursed for its costs, or should the federal government instead divide the available funds among the tribes, even if that means that the tribes will receive less than their full costs?
5-4 decision in favor of the Tribe being paid for the full amount of contract support. The opinion in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-551.pdf.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The last two weeks of June are always viewed with a combination of trepidation and excitement by attorneys. This is traditionally the time that the U.S. Supreme Court announces its most controversial decisions of the term before the federal government leaves town for the July 4th break.
There were 67 cases argued this term, a lesser number of cases than in previous terms, but with several highly controversial political cases. Of the cases argued, 53 cases have been decided. Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog has a list of the Remaining merits cases: In Plain English, which includes these controversial cases that will have political repurcussions in the fall election that we will be following:
The health care cases:
Argued March 26-28, 2012
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to require virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty; and (2) whether the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits taxpayers from filing a lawsuit to challenge a tax until the tax goes into effect and they are required to pay it, prohibits a challenge to the Act’s provision requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty until after the provision goes into effect in 2014.
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and (2) whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and (2) whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.
Also, the federal preemption question regarding SB 1070:
Argued on April 25, 2012
Plain English Issue: Whether an Arizona law that, among other things, requires police officers to check the immigration status of anyone whom they arrest, allows police to stop and arrest anyone whom they believe to be an illegal immigrant, makes it a crime for someone to be in the state without valid immigration papers, and makes it a crime to apply for or hold a job in Arizona without proper papers, is invalid because it is trumped by federal immigration laws.
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports that a Federal Panel of judges to hear Arizona redistricting case:
A three-judge panel will be appointed to hear the Arizona Legislature’s lawsuit challenging the state’s new congressional districts.
U.S. District Judge Paul Rosenblatt granted a motion requesting the appointment. The motion was filed by lawyers for Republican legislative leaders who acted on behalf of the Legislature.
Rosenblatt will serve on the panel and the chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will appoint the other two members.
The lawsuit contends Arizona’s use of an appointed commission to draw congressional districts violates a constitutional provision that says state legislatures are to decide election procedures.
The redistricting commission disputes that, saying that Arizona’s system is legal because it was created by voters who themselves have the power to make laws.
The citizens of Arizona are a "super legislature" and legislative acts enacted by the citizens of Arizona take precedence over the acts of their elected representatives in the state legislature. Not the other way around.