Courts & Law

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Did you hear a low rumbling sound this morning around 7:16 a.m. (Arizona time)? That was the sound of the head of every anti-immigrant bigot exploding as the Court announced that most of SB 1070 is preempted by federal law, and the surviving part must be read narrowly and is subject to future constitutional challenges. This is a major victory for the Obama administration, it got almost everything it wanted from the Court.

Monday was the last day the Court was scheduled to release opinions, but it has scheduled Thursday for announcing its remaining opinions this term. The Affordable Care Act will be Thursday.

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. The remaining merits cases as of June 23: In Plain English:

Arizona v. United States

Argued 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.

The Ninth Circuit is reversed in part and affirmed in part. Justice Kagan did not participate. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. 5-3 decision. The opinion in Arizona v. US is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

The Court rules that Section 3, 5, and 6 are preempted by federal law. Most of the key provisions of SB1070 (3 of 4) are invalidated. Only one provision is held not to be proved preempted.

It was improper for the lower courts to enjoin Section 2(B), which requires police officers to check the legal status of anyone arrested for any crime before they can be released. There are ongoing proceedings on Section 2(B) and whether it involves racial profiling. That issue was NOT before the Court today.

The provision that the Court says is not yet preempted is the "papers please" provision that commands officers to check immigration status. The Court says that it is not clear whether application of this provision will interfere with immigration law.

The upshot of the SB1070 ruling is that, for now, Arizona can apply its "papers please" provision. The Court's opinion is a guide to the State on how to apply that provision without being invalidated.

The opinion also says that today's ruling does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law. The Court's decision on the "papers please" provision strongly suggests it will have to be read narrowly to survive.

Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto. As part of Scalia's statement in dissent, he commented on the president's announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children — something that was not part of the case. This is totally out of bounds on SCOTUS. Scalia is a rogue Justice.

I will have more on the opinion when I have had the chance to read it, and I would like to check commentary from other legal writers.

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

• 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.