Courts & Law

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

• Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida

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.

• Nat’l Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

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.

• Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services

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:

Arizona v. United States

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.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

While I am waiting for SCOTUSblog to report what happened today at the Thursday Conference of the Justices, here is a preview from Cormack Early at SCOTUSblog, Thursday round-up : SCOTUSblog:

Campaign finance is also back in the news, with the Court scheduled to consider American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, the challenge to the Montana Supreme Court ruling upholding a statute that bans corporate spending in state elections, at its Conference today. Coverage comes from David G. Savage and Melanie Mason of the Los Angeles Times and Ariane de Vogue of ABC News.  Marcia Coyle of Law.com profiles Anthony Johnstone, the University of Montana law professor leading the effort to save the Montana law. Sarah Wheaton of the Caucus blog of The New York Times reports that David Axelrod, communications director for President Obama’s reelection campaign, floated the idea of a constitutional amendment to permit stronger regulation of campaign finance; more detailed proposals in the same vein come from Geoffrey R. Stone, writing in the Huffington Post, and Laurence H. Tribe, writing in Slate.

A constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United v. FEC is gaining public support. I propose that all candidates for state or federal office should be asked this question: "Would you sponsor and support a constitutional amendment to the United States Constitution / Arizona Constitution to declare that corporations are not people and that money is not speech to reverse Citizens United v. FEC?" If the candidate responds no, he or she should not be elected to office.

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Tea-Publicans in the Arizona legislature on Wednesday voted to spend your taxpayer dollars to subsidize their purely partisan litigation to reverse the voter-enacted citizens initiative creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a double middle-finger to the voters of Arizona. GOP legislators vote to spend tax dollars on redistricting lawsuit – East Valley Tribune: 

Republican lawmakers voted Wednesday to spend tax dollars to go to court to challenge the maps drawn by the Independent Redistricting Commission.

The vote, on what is likely to be the next-to-the-last day of the legislative session, comes even though two other lawsuits already have been filed — and are being financed — by outside interests. But proponents said the Legislature itself needs to file its own lawsuit, or, at the very least, formally intervene in the others.

Democrats, who voted against the measure, chided the GOP majority for wasting money, especially coming just a day after they insisted there was not enough money in the budget for things like restoring a health care program for the children of the working poor.

Wet behind the ears recent law school graduate Rep. Ted Vogt, R-Tucson, said there is an even clearer legal issue.

He pointed out that the U.S. Constitution says that the times, places and manners of electing members of Congress “shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof.”

“What could be more intrinsic to the manner of holding elections than actually drawing up the maps in which those representatives will run?” Vogt said.

“The initiative took this power from the Legislature,” he continued. “I don’t think you can do that. This needs to be litigated.”

Perhaps his law degree should be revoked. Let's hear from someone who actually knows what he is talking about, Paul Bender, a constitutional law professor at Arizona State University. GOP lawmakers seek to overturn redistricting commission’s authority to create maps | Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required):