Notable and ignoble Supreme Court cases

[waltky]

Seattle business lose challenge to minimum wage law...

Supreme Court rejects challenge to Seattle minimum wage law
Mon May 2, 2016 - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge by business groups to Seattle's law raising its minimum wage to $15 an hour, a move echoed by other locales, in a case focusing on how the ordinance affected local franchises like McDonald's.

The Seattle law's supporters hailed the court's action, which left intact a lower court ruling backing the measure, as a defeat for "the big business lobby" that has taken aim at minimum wage hikes. The International Franchise Association and the businesses that challenged the measure did not target the actual wage hike. Instead, they argued that it was unfair for Seattle to exclude local franchises of big companies like McDonald's (MCD.N) and Burger King (QSR.TO) from the small companies that the law gives three extra years to pay employees at least $15 per hour.

Seattle was the first major U.S. city to commit to such a high basic wage amid pressure from unions and workers' rights groups. The move has since been followed to varying degrees by cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles as well as by state lawmakers in California and New York. Seattle's law, which took effect in April 2015, requires businesses with more than 500 employees nationwide to raise their minimum wage to $15 by 2018. Smaller companies have until 2021 to do so. The high court's move means that cities and states that pass similar wage laws must treat franchises as offshoots of brand parents rather than independent small businesses.

The franchise association said its 2014 lawsuit sought "to level the playing field" for the 600 franchise businesses that employ 19,000 people in Seattle, and it was disappointed with the court's action. "Seattle's ordinance is blatantly discriminatory and affirmatively harms hard-working franchise small business owners every day since it has gone into effect," said the group's president, Robert Cresanti. A federal judge in Seattle in March 2015 sided with the city, and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year agreed.

Working Washington, a coalition of labor and nonprofit groups that spearheaded the campaign to pass Seattle's wage law, called the Supreme Court's move not to hear the case a victory for workers. "The big business lobby has thrown everything they got at Seattle workers," the group said, "but they keep on losing, and the economy continues to boom."

Seattle officials and the Service Employees International Union, which backed the city in the case, said franchises are not typical small businesses because franchising offers inherent advantages such as access to loans, brand recognition and bulk purchasing. But the franchise association countered that those perks come at a cost, namely royalties, fees and rent.

Supreme Court rejects challenge to Seattle minimum wage law

 

[waltky]

No more stackin' the jury against black defendants...

Supreme Court upends all-white jury verdict, death sentence
May 23,`16 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court upended the conviction and death sentence of a black Georgia man Monday because prosecutors violated the Constitution by excluding African-Americans from the all-white jury that determined his fate.

The 7-1 ruling in favor of death row inmate Timothy Tyrone Foster came in a case in which defense lawyers obtained strikingly frank notes from prosecutors detailing efforts to keep African-Americans off of Foster's jury. The decision broke no new ground in efforts to fight racial discrimination in jury selection, but underscored the importance of a 30-year-old high court ruling that took aim at the exclusion of minorities from juries. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that "prosecutors were motivated in substantial part by race" when they struck African-Americans from the jury pool, focusing on the decision to exclude two black jurors. Two such jury strikes "on the basis of race are two more than the Constitution allows," Roberts wrote. The high court returned Foster's case to state court, but Stephen Bright, Foster's Atlanta-based lawyer, said "there is no doubt" that the decision Monday means Foster is entitled to a new trial, 29 years after he was sentenced to death for killing a white woman.

The decision did nothing, however, to limit peremptory strikes, lawyers' ability to reject potential jurors without offering any reason. The late Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American to serve on the Supreme Court, once said that racial discrimination would persist in jury selection unless peremptory strikes were curtailed. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying he would have respected the decisions of state judges who sided with prosecutors and rejected Foster's claims. Thomas, a Georgia native, recounted Foster's confession to having murdered a 79-year-old retired schoolteacher "after having sexually assaulted her with a bottle of salad dressing." When the case was argued in November, the justices did little to hide their distaste for the tactics employed by prosecutors in north Georgia. Justice Elena Kagan said the case seemed as clear a violation "as a court is ever going to see."

Still, Georgia courts had consistently rejected Foster's claims of discrimination, even after his lawyers obtained prosecutors' notes that revealed their focus on the black people in the jury pool. In one example, a handwritten note headed "Definite No's" listed six people, of whom five were the remaining black prospective jurors. The sixth person on the list was a white woman who made clear she would never impose the death penalty, according to Bright. And yet even that woman ranked behind the black jurors, he said. The court was not persuaded by the state's argument that the notes focused on black people in the jury pool because prosecutors were preparing to defend against discrimination claims.

The Supreme Court's ruling about race discrimination in jury selection was about a year old when Foster's case went to trial, the state said. The 1986 decision in Batson v. Kentucky set up a system by which trial judges could evaluate claims of discrimination and the explanations by prosecutors that their actions were not based on race. "This argument falls flat," Roberts wrote. He noted that the record shows "a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury." Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens declined to comment on the decision.

MORE

 

[waltky]

SCOTUS upholds reverse discrimination...

Supreme Court upholds affirmative action program
June 23, 2016 WASHINGTON — A deeply divided Supreme Court upheld the use of racial preferences in admissions at the University of Texas Thursday, giving an unexpected reprieve to the type of affirmative action policies it has condoned for nearly four decades.

The 4-3 ruling did not address all programs designed to attract a diverse student body at colleges and universities, which the court endorsed twice in 1978 and 2003. But Justice Anthony Kennedy and the court's more liberal justices said Texas' unique method of singling out some minority students for admission to its flagship campus in Austin was constitutional. The dramatic decision was made without Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Feb. 13, and Justice Elena Kagan, who recused herself because she worked on the case as U.S. solicitor general before joining the court. It was the second time the high court had considered it; in 2013, the justices sent the case back to a federal appeals court with instructions to more closely scrutinize the university's program, but that court again sided with the school.

Abigail Fisher and one of her attorneys, Edward Blum​

This time, it appeared during oral argument that a majority of justices were prepared to rule that the school's use of race violated the Constitution's equal protection clause by giving minority students a leg up. The university already uses a system where a set percentage of top-ranked students from all high schools that use such rankings are admitted, including those in heavily minority neighborhoods. The case had threatened the use of racial preferences not only at the University of Texas-Austin but across the nation, since the court's ruling could have cast doubt on most affirmative action policies. In that sense, the narrow decision targeting only the Texas policy amounted to a partial victory for proponents of affirmative action.

The court's conservative justices made clear, however, that they were impatient with the continued use of affirmative action, more than a decade after a ruling by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor upheld racial preferences in college admissions but said they should be unnecessary in 25 years. Justice Samuel Alito announced his dissent from the bench, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas agreeing. Scalia, whose sudden death and Senate Republicans' refusal to consider a successor until next year, has left the court in limbo. During oral argument in December, Scalia expressed the most controversial opinions. Citing briefs that suggest African Americans may fare better at "less advanced" or "slower-track" schools, he said, "I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible."

Students fill the sidewalks between classes in November at the University of Texas-Austin.​

The court's liberal justices stood firmly behind the continued use of racial preferences, something the high court upheld in California in 1978 and then in Michigan a quarter century later. They argued that the university at least should be able to prove its case at a fact-finding hearing in Texas before the court considers striking down its program. That left Kennedy, as usual, as the swing vote. He complained that, more than two years after his 7-1 opinion sent the case back to a federal appeals court for closer scrutiny, little had changed. "We're just arguing the same case," Kennedy groused. "It's as if nothing had happened." The case was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white woman denied entry to her state's flagship university. She ultimately graduated from Louisiana State University but had continued to press her case with the aid of the Project on Fair Representation, a conservative legal group.

The school's first method of integration — accepting the top students from every high school that uses class rankings — wasn't challenged, even though it "trades on the de facto segregation that still exists in Texas" to pull in minorities, the school's Supreme Court brief noted. What was contested is the second method — a topping-off of each freshman class by focusing on a variety of factors, from special talents and extracurricular activities to socioeconomics, race and ethnicity. Those last factors are used to produce what the school calls "diversity within diversity" — a representative mix of minority students, rather than just those from segregated communities with similar backgrounds and experiences.

Supreme Court upholds affirmative action program

See also:

Obama's immigration executive order gets slapped down...

Deadlocked Supreme Court deals big blow to Obama immigration plan
Thu June 23, 2016 In a crushing blow to the White House, the Supreme Court announced Thursday it was evenly divided in a case concerning President Barack Obama's controversial executive actions on immigration.

The one-sentence ruling, issued without comment or dissent, means that the programs will remain blocked from going into effect, and the issue will return to the lower court. It is exceedingly unlikely the programs will go into effect for the remainder of the Obama presidency. Obama, speaking at the White House, lamented the ruling."For more than two decades now our immigration system, everybody acknowledges, has been broken," Obama said. "And the fact that the Supreme Court wasn't able to issue a decision today doesn't just set the system back even further, it takes us further from the country that we aspire to be."

The ruling will impact the more than 4 million undocumented immigrants seeking to be able to come out of the shadows and apply for these programs to stay in the United States. Immediately after Obama announced them in late 2014, Texas and 25 other states challenged the plans and they were blocked nationwide by a federal district court the next year. Immigration has already been a prominent and highly charged topic of the 2016 election already this year, and this ruling guarantees it will only be more so.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton criticized the ruling, saying it is evidence not only of why the Supreme Court needs a ninth justice, but also that the delay of Obama's immigration programs adds importance to putting a Democrat in the White House to continue the fight to put them in place. "Today's deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election," Clinton said in a statement Thursday morning. She later tweeted, calling it "heartbreaking."

MORE

 

[waltky]

First they say usin' race is okay in college admissions, then they question it in re-districting...

Supreme Court to review NC's use of race in redistricting
June 27, 2016 — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether Republican lawmakers relied too heavily on race when they redrew North Carolina's congressional districts to give the GOP a powerful advantage in the swing state.

The justices added the case to their fall calendar — almost certainly too late to affect 2016's remaining races. But in the years ahead, it could impact partisan efforts to create electoral districts aimed at swaying the balance of power in Congress and in state legislatures. It could be heard in conjunction with a separate case challenging voting districts in Virginia, an election law expert said. North Carolina's GOP leaders deny factoring in race to an illegal extent, saying their 2011 map was designed primarily to give Republicans an edge and to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.

Opponents argue that they unfairly stacked minorities into fewer districts after the 2010 Census in ways that diluted their influence. A federal court ruled in February that race was the predominant factor in drawing two congressional districts, and ordered the state to quickly produce a new map for North Carolina's 13 members of Congress. That map was used in an unusual, separate, June 7 congressional primary. The Supreme Court denied the state GOP's emergency request to intervene ahead of that primary, but key issues remain unresolved.

A ruling by the high court also should influence the outcome of a separate federal case challenging the districts used to elect North Carolina's state legislators. North Carolina's status as a swing state belies the uneven split favoring Republicans in the state's legislature and congressional delegation. Narrowly contested presidential races in 2008 and 2012 show that voter preferences are split fairly evenly statewide. But the GOP used redistricting in 2011 to create veto-proof majorities of more than two-thirds of the seats in the state legislature, and the state's congressional delegation now has 3 Democrats to 10 Republicans. The case is McCrory v. Harris, 15-1262.

MORE

Supreme Court to review NC's use of race in redistricting
June 27, 2016 — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether Republican lawmakers relied too heavily on race when they redrew North Carolina's congressional districts to give the GOP a powerful advantage in the swing state.

The justices added the case to their fall calendar — almost certainly too late to affect 2016's remaining races. But in the years ahead, it could impact partisan efforts to create electoral districts aimed at swaying the balance of power in Congress and in state legislatures. It could be heard in conjunction with a separate case challenging voting districts in Virginia, an election law expert said. North Carolina's GOP leaders deny factoring in race to an illegal extent, saying their 2011 map was designed primarily to give Republicans an edge and to comply with the federal Voting Rights Act.

Opponents argue that they unfairly stacked minorities into fewer districts after the 2010 Census in ways that diluted their influence. A federal court ruled in February that race was the predominant factor in drawing two congressional districts, and ordered the state to quickly produce a new map for North Carolina's 13 members of Congress. That map was used in an unusual, separate, June 7 congressional primary. The Supreme Court denied the state GOP's emergency request to intervene ahead of that primary, but key issues remain unresolved.

A ruling by the high court also should influence the outcome of a separate federal case challenging the districts used to elect North Carolina's state legislators. North Carolina's status as a swing state belies the uneven split favoring Republicans in the state's legislature and congressional delegation. Narrowly contested presidential races in 2008 and 2012 show that voter preferences are split fairly evenly statewide. But the GOP used redistricting in 2011 to create veto-proof majorities of more than two-thirds of the seats in the state legislature, and the state's congressional delegation now has 3 Democrats to 10 Republicans. The case is McCrory v. Harris, 15-1262.

MORE

 

[waltky]

Pro-choicers win case against Texas...

Strict Texas abortion law struck down
27 June 2016 - The US Supreme Court has struck down a 2013 Texas abortion law that imposed restrictive regulations on the procedure. The law requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics to maintain hospital-like conditions.

Republicans contended the law protects women while advocates argued the measure restricts access to abortions. The key decision is the first major abortion ruling since 2007. Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the court's liberals in the 5-3 decision, which marked the first time the High Court has limited state abortion legislation in more than 15 years.

At the scene - By Ashley Gold

Nearly a thousand people gathered in front of the Supreme Court in the hot sun, holding signs and dancing to a Beyonce-heavy playlist. At times, the pro-choice crowd's loud music and shouting drowned out chants of "We are the pro-life generation" from the other side. But when the Court handed down its decision invalidating Texas's abortion laws, calling them unnecessarily restrictive, those who say they fight for life took to the microphones outside the court to say they would not give up. "Women were hurt today," one said. "There are two victims to abortion, and my heart is breaking."

Protesters celebrate after the US Supreme Court strikes down a restrictive 2012 Texas abortion law.​

Sierra Lambert, 17, said: "I think abortions should stop altogether, but it's a great step." She was holding a sign that said "Abortion kills! At least make it safe for one of its victims." Celeste Anderson, 19, said: "I think it's really sad there are fewer regulations on abortion than there are on veterinary clinics. Wouldn't you want a clinic that isn't being healthy to be shut down?" A few feet away, women holding "Keep Abortion Legal" and "The Burden is Undue" signs danced, screamed and sang.

Renal Vonwijk, 23, who grew up in El Paso, said if the Texas laws were upheld, the only two abortion clinics there would close. "There would be nowhere to get an abortion. You would have to travel to a city many miles away, or cross the border into Mexico." Marilyn Carlisle, 73, said she had had an illegal abortion in 1968 and never thought women fighting for abortion rights would get this far. "I can hardly believe we actually did it," she said. The ruling gives her hope for her granddaughters' futures, she said.

The last time the top court issued a ruling on a major abortion case was nine years ago in a 5-4 decision to uphold a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure. The Supreme Court legalised abortion nationwide in its landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling. The typically nine-justice court was one member short after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year. Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

Analysis - By Rajini Vaidyanathan in Washington

See also:

Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations
Tuesday 28th June, 2016 - The justices voted 5-3 on Monday in favour of Texas clinics that protested the regulations as a thinly veiled attempt to make it harder for women to get an abortion in the nation's second-most populous state.

Justice Stephen Breyer's majority opinion for the court held that the regulations are medically unnecessary and unconstitutionally limit a woman's right to an abortion.

Texas had argued that its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were needed to protect women's health. The rules required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.

Breyer wrote that "the surgical-centre requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so".

Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Breyer. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion clinic regulations

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - da fix is in...

High court overturns former Virginia governor's conviction
June 27, 2016 | WASHINGTON (AP) — A unanimous Supreme Court on Monday threw out the bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell in a ruling that could make it tougher to prosecute elected officials accused of corruption.

Chief Justice John Roberts said McDonnell's conduct in accepting more than $165,000 in gifts and loans from a wealthy businessman in exchange for promoting a dietary supplement may have been "distasteful" or even "tawdry," but didn't necessarily violate federal bribery laws. McDonnell, once a rising star in the Republican Party, was found guilty in 2014 and sentenced to two years in prison, but was allowed to remain free while the justices weighed his appeal. The case now returns to lower courts to decide whether prosecutors have enough evidence to try McDonnell again.

At issue was a law that bars public officials from taking gifts in exchange for "official action." McDonnell said he never took any official action to benefit Star Scientific Inc. CEO Jonnie Williams or pressured other state officials to do so. McDonnell claims he did nothing except set up meetings and make some calls for constituent who asked for help. Prosecutors insisted that McDonnell accepted personal benefits with the understanding that he would use the power of the governor's office to help Williams.

But Roberts agreed with McDonnell that the instructions to his trial jury about what constitutes "official acts" was so broad that it could include virtually any action a public official might take while in office. That could leave politicians across the country subject to the whims of prosecutors, he said. "Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so) — without more —does not fit that definition of official act," Roberts wrote. "There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that," he wrote. "But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns," a reference to some of the expensive gifts McDonnell received. "It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute."

In a statement, McDonnell thanked the justices and said he has not and would not "betray the sacred trust" of the Virginia people. He said he hoped the matter will soon be over so that he and his family can begin to rebuild their lives. McDonnell's attorney Noel Francisco called the decision a "home run" and said it was unlikely a new trial would go forward. The Justice Department declined to comment.

MORE

 

[waltky]

Should have been unanimous...

Gun Ban for Domestic Assault Convicts Upheld
June 27, 2016 - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law prohibiting people convicted of domestic violence assault from owning or possessing firearms, even if the conviction is for a misdemeanor.

The decision came in a case involving two Maine men who both pleaded guilty to domestic violence assault on their partners but were found in later, unrelated law enforcement investigations to be in possession of firearms. The men were contesting a provision of one of the key federal gun control statutes, which bars felons, fugitives and other narrowly defined groups from owning guns, including anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes.

The men appealed, and argued that because each of their convictions were for assaults against their partners that resulted from reckless, and not intentional conduct, they should retain the right to own a firearm.

In the 6-2 decision written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court made no such distinction between reckless and intentional conduct, choosing a plain reading of the federal law. "Reckless conduct, which requires the conscious disregard of a known risk, is not an accident: It involves a deliberate decision to endanger another," the court wrote. Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the majority.

Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban for Domestic Assault Convicts

 

[waltky]

Pharmacists lose their religious rights...

Supreme Court Rejects Pharmacists' Religious Rights Appeal
June 28, 2016 — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal from Washington state pharmacists who said they have religious objections to dispensing Plan B or other emergency contraceptives.

The justices' order leaves in place rules first adopted in 2007 following reports that some women had been denied access to emergency contraceptives that are effective when taken within a few days of unprotected sex. Pharmacies must fill lawful prescriptions, but individual pharmacists with moral objections can refer patients to another pharmacist, as long as it's at the same store. Stormans Inc., the owners of Ralph's Thriftway in Olympia, a grocery store that includes a pharmacy, sued, along with two pharmacists who said the rules required them to violate their religious beliefs.

Kristen Waggoner, the lead attorney for Stormans in the case, said Tuesday that since many pharmacists work alone, the inability to refer an emergency contraceptive prescription to another pharmacy — when other prescriptions can be referred — puts pharmacists in a position of violating their conscience. "The state needs to not make a value judgment that a religiously-motivated referral is not permissible when other referrals are," she said, saying that another lawsuit could ultimately occur if the state doesn't enforce the rules "in an even-handed manner."

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson lauded the high court's decision to not hear the case. "Patients should know that when they need medication, they won't be refused based on the personal views of a particular pharmacy owner," Ferguson added. "The appeals court ruling upheld today protects that principle." Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the appeal.

Calling the court's action an "ominous sign," Alito wrote a stinging 15-page dissent for the three dissenting justices. "If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern," he wrote. A trial judge twice ruled for the pharmacists in the long-running lawsuit, but was twice overturned by the federal appeals court in San Francisco. Sold as Plan B, emergency contraception is a high dose of the drug found in many regular birth-control pills. It can lower the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

Some critics consider the pill related to abortion, although it is different from the abortion pill RU-486 and has no effect on women who already are pregnant. In 2006, the federal Food and Drug Administration made the morning-after pill available without prescription to adults. The case is Stormans Inc. v. Wiesman, 15-862.

Supreme Court Rejects Pharmacists' Religious Rights Appeal

See also:

Conservative Legal Group on SCOTUS Pharmacy Case Ruling: ‘No One Should Be Forced to Participate in the Taking of Human Life’
June 28, 2016 – Conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom expressed disappointment in Tuesday’s Supreme Court decision not to take up Stormans v. Wiesman, a case that involves rules forcing Washington state pharmacy owners and pharmacists to sell the emergency contraceptives contrary despite their religious beliefs.

“As the trial court found, the government designed its law for the ‘primary—if not sole—purpose’ of targeting religious health care providers. We are disappointed that the high court didn’t take this case and uphold the trial court’s finding,” ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner said in a statement. ADF is a non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith. The high court ruling leaves in place rules enacted in 2007 to address reports that some women were denied access to emergency contraceptives effective when taken within a few days of unprotected sex, the Associated Press reported. According to the rules, if an individual pharmacist has moral objections to filling prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, they may refer patients to another pharmacist as long as it’s at the same store.

“All Americans should be free to peacefully live and work consistent with their faith without fear of unjust punishment, and no one should be forced to participate in the taking of human life. We had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would take this opportunity to reaffirm these long-held principles,” Waggoner said. “The state of Washington allows pharmacists to refer customers for just about any reason—except reasons of conscience. Singling out people of faith and denying them the same freedom to refer is a violation of federal law,” said Waggoner. “All 49 other states allow conscience-based referrals, which are fully supported by the American Pharmacists Association, the Washington Pharmacy Association, and more than 34 other pharmacy associations. Not one customer in Washington has been denied timely access to any drug due to a religious objection,” she added.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union applauded the court’s decision. “The court properly refused to take this case,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Louise Melling said in a statement. “When a woman walks into a pharmacy, she should not fear being turned away because of the religious beliefs of the owner or the person behind the counter. “Open for business means opens for all. Refusing someone service because of who they are — whether a woman seeking birth control, a gay couple visiting a wedding catering company, or an unwed mother entering a homeless shelter — amounts to discrimination, plain and simple,” Melling said. “Religious freedom is a core American value and one that we defend, but religious freedom does not mean a free pass to impose those beliefs on others," she added.

Conservative Legal Group on SCOTUS Pharmacy Case Ruling: ‘No One Should Be Forced to Participate in the Taking of Human Life’

 

[waltky]

Lower court's injunction against Obama executive order stays in place...

US Supreme Court Unlikely to Revisit Immigration Case
July 20, 2016 - Legal experts are casting doubt on the Obama administration’s ability to revive an executive order that would shield millions of undocumented foreign nationals from deportation. “It is a long shot,” said New York Law School professor Ari Waldman.

On Monday, while Republicans railed against illegal immigration at their party’s national convention, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to rehear arguments on whether the administration may defer deportation and grant work permits to roughly one-third of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The High Court, operating with eight justices since the death of Antonin Scalia in February, deadlocked four-to-four on the case last month. As a result, a lower court’s injunction blocking President Barack Obama’s unilateral attempt to address illegal immigration remains in effect.

In a petition, acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn requested a rehearing “before a full nine-Member Court.” The administration’s top lawyer acknowledged that High Court do-overs are “exceedingly rare,” but he argued they are not unprecedented when a vacancy on the bench yields a split decision. Obama nominated federal appellate judge Merrick Garland to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. The Republican-led Senate has refused to vote on any High Court nominee until after the November election.

Obama Executive Order

The president’s executive order would cover undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as minors, as well as the undocumented parents of U.S.-born children. Advocacy groups cheered and jeered the administration’s refusal to give up on the initiative. “Last month’s four-to-four tie in the Supreme Court was tremendous blow to millions of immigrant families,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-immigrant rights group America’s Voice. “Given the lives at stake, we join the Department of Justice in calling for a rehearing of the case before a fully staffed bench — this issue is just too important to leave to the tied decision of a hamstrung court.” “Rehearing this case is the right thing to do, so that millions of American families will finally know where they stand, and whether America stands with them,” said the American Immigration Lawyers Association in a statement. “The position we find ourselves in, with a Congress unable to lead on immigration reform, and a Supreme Court unable to reach a decision, is an unusual and untenable situation that warrants a rehearing.”

Immigration activists join hands after the US Supreme Court heard arguments in a challenge by 26 states over the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's executive action to defer deportation of certain immigrant children and parents who are in the country illegally, Washington​

Those favoring restrictive immigration policies argued that Obama overstepped his authority by seeking to grant de facto amnesty to millions of law breakers, and that the Supreme Curt acted properly by keeping the injunction in place. “If these kinds of executive orders were allowed to continue, then the president decides how many and who get to come into the country, not Congress,” said Roy Beck, director of NumbersUSA. “This is a constitutional crisis in that the Congress itself has not stood up for its own rights.”

Election Year Politics

Beck sees election year politics at work with a petition that, successful or not, resonates with core Democratic constituencies. “It’s a last-ditch attempt. It’s for show, to show their open-border supporters that they [the administration] tried to do everything they could,” Beck said. “It was the only way they could try to get these work permits out before the president leaves office.” Granting a rehearing would require the backing of five Supreme Court justices. On an eight-member court, it would mean that one of the four who voted against the administration on the injunction would have to side with the four who voted to allow the executive order to proceed, something court-watchers deem highly unlikely. “I assume the administration is hoping that the court will hold off on making a rehearing decision until a ninth justice is in place,” Waldman said. “All in all, I would file this one under ‘It doesn’t hurt to ask.’”

The White House says it remains confident in the legality of the president’s executive order. “The Supreme Court was unable to reach a decision about the administration’s executive actions,” said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. “The filing from the Department of Justice is merely an effort to pursue every available legal avenue, because we believe in the power of the legal argument in support of the president’s actions. We continue to have confidence in the power of our legal arguments, and we are going to make them in every available venue.”

US Supreme Court Unlikely to Revisit Immigration Case

 

[waltky]

Finally, some sanity returns to the Supreme Court...

US Supreme Court blocks transgender toilet ruling
Wed, 03 Aug 2016 - The US Supreme Court temporarily overturns a ruling that allowed a transgender high school student to use the bathroom of his choice.

It is the first time that the fraught discussion over transgender bathroom rights has reached the country's highest court. Judges voted 5-3 to halt a lower court's order that Gavin Grimm, 17, be allowed to use the boys' bathroom. They will consider the case again in the autumn. Mr Grimm who was born female, filed the lawsuit after his school board in Virginia adopted a policy that required students to use a private toilet or one that corresponds to the sex listed on their birth certificate.

An appeals court ruled earlier this year that the ban was discriminatory and violated Title IX, a federal law which prohibits gender discrimination at schools that receive federal funding. The issue has gone back and forth between several different courts which have made opposing decisions. As the Supreme Court is yet to rule definitively on the matter, it has set things back to the way they used to be, ahead of its eight justices beginning to hear the case in autumn 2016. Mr Grimm appealed to the court not to discuss the matter, local media report, but its actions are exactly what the school board asked for.

A divisive issue

A number of places in the US - most recently North Carolina - have passed laws requiring transgender people to use a public toilet that corresponds to the sex listed on their birth certificate. The North Carolina law in particular has been sharply criticised as discriminatory and several companies have stopped doing business in the state as a result. Some people have said that allowing transgender people to choose their restroom could lead to women and children being attacked. They said they feared that predatory men could pose as transgender people and use legal protections as a cover.

US Supreme Court blocks transgender toilet ruling - BBC News

 

[FA_Q2]

^surprising considering the current makeup of the court.

 

[waltky]

First Monday in October comin' up...

Legal Expert Predicts Evenly Divided Supreme Court Will Seek Consensus This Term
September 23, 2016 – Don’t expect a lot of surprises or hot-button cases divided 4-4 by a deadlocked Supreme Court during the upcoming fall term, which begins the first week of October, says Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network.

“A true surprise would be one of the liberal bloc of justices siding with the conservative side, but I just cannot see that happening short of a minor miracle,” she said in an interview with CNSNews.com. However, “the vast majority of the cases are pretty straightforward,” Severino pointed out. “Last term, we only saw four cases that ended up splitting 4-4. If anything, the court is trying to make that number even lower this year if possible. “So far, it’s accepted fewer than half of the number of cases they normally grant cert on this time of year, so a lot of people are thinking that means they’re trying to avoid taking cases they think aren’t going to come out cleanly. They want to reach consensus.

“This may be the term [when] the Supreme Court is the only branch of government that manages to reach across the aisle and achieve consensus. Which frankly is a good thing,” Severino continued. “They’ve spent several terms becoming increasingly involved with some of the most controversial issues in American life - particularly social issues that simply weren’t in the Constitution in the first place, from abortion to [same-sex] marriage, etc. “And I think it’ll probably be a good thing for the country if the court steps back from being the final arbiter of these controversial public issues so we can discuss them again in the public sphere and not have them be imported into the Constitution and decided by unelected judges,” she told CNSNews.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director at the Judicial Crisis Network.​

Severino said that one exception is Trinity Lutheran v. Pauley, a religious freedom case from Missouri that the high court has agreed to hear. “It has to do with the Blaine amendments, which are in a lot of state constitutions that were initially very targeted anti-Catholic amendments. What they say is that the state is not allowed to use state funds on sectarian things. “But in this case, it’s a Lutheran church that has a playground and there is a [state] program that would help resurface the playground with safer materials made from recycled tires. And they’re saying this church cannot benefit from the program because it is a Christian institution,” Severino explained. “So it very clearly signals out religious organizations for disfavor as opposed to any kind of secular school [which] could receive these funds. “It’s going to be interesting to see what the Supreme Court does with it,” she added. “This is a very easy case because there’s no sectarian nature to a playground. You can’t indoctrinate someone by letting them play on a safer surface.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has filed an amicus brief in the case, questioning “whether conditioning government benefits on religious status violates the First Amendment when the state has no valid Establishment Clause concern.”

MORE

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - Supreme Court stops Obama from muckin' things up even more...

SCOTUS Rejects Obama Admin. Petition to Rehear Illegal Immigrant Legalization Case
October 3, 2016 – The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the Obama administration’s petition to rehear United States v. Texas, a case that challenged Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson’s 2012 decision to defer enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws without congressional approval.

The “deferred action” was for “certain aliens who have lived in the United States for five years and either came here as children or already have children who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents” under DHS’ Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) programs. However, Texas and 25 other states challenged the DACA and DAPA programs, arguing that conferring “lawful presence” status and rights to certain federal benefits to as many as four million illegal aliens was itself unlawful and would adversely affect them.

On June 23 in a split 4-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals’ ruling last November striking down the administration’s executive action on deferred enforcement and upholding a lower court injunction against implementing it. “At its core, this case is about the Secretary’s decision to change the immigration classification of millions of illegal aliens on a class-wide basis. The states properly maintain that DAPA’s grant of lawful presence and accompanying eligibility for benefits… is substantively contrary to law,” the appeals court ruling stated. “Even with ‘special deference’ to the Secretary, the INA [Immigration and Naturalization Act] does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization,” it concluded.

On Monday the high court denied without comment the administration’s petition for a rehearing of the case when the court is back up to its full strength with nine justices. “The State of Texas’ position has been validated by the U.S. Supreme Court today as they denied the Obama administration’s petition to rehear the immigration case,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement. “Rewriting national immigration law requires the full and careful consideration of Congress. This is the latest setback to the president’s attempt to expand executive power and another victory for those who believe in the Constitution’s separation of powers and the rule of law,” he added.

SCOTUS Rejects Obama Admin. Petition to Rehear Illegal Immigrant Legalization Case

See also:

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Military Death Penalty
Oct 03, 2016 | WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court won't hear a challenge to the death penalty for members of the military.

The justices on Monday rejected an appeal from the former soldier who was sentenced to death for killing two fellow soldiers and injuring 14 others in an attack in Kuwait in 2003.

The appeal from Hasan Akbar focused on whether the way in which the armed forces impose a death sentence complies with recent Supreme Court rulings.

Akbar is being held at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He was convicted of killing Army Capt. Christopher S. Seifert and Air Force Maj. Gregory L. Stone in Kuwait during the early days of the Iraq war. The military hasn't carried out an execution since 1961.

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Military Death Penalty | Military.com

 

[waltky]

Texas death penalty case gets Court's review...

US Supreme Court Poised to Back Texas Death Row Inmate
October 05, 2016 - The U.S. Supreme Court is considering the case of a black inmate on death row in Texas who contends that racially biased testimony tainted his sentence.

On Wednesday, the nation’s highest court appeared to side with inmate Duane Buck. Most of the justices expressed concern that Buck’s own defense lawyer, not the prosecutors, introduced the racially charged testimony during his trial. “It would seem more prejudicial when the defendant’s own lawyer brings it up. The jury would probably think, then it must be true,” said Justice Elena Kagan.

During the sentencing phase of Buck’s trial in 1997, clinical psychologist Walter Quijano, testifying on the likelihood of Buck committing future offenses, said black and Hispanic people are more likely to be dangerous because they are overrepresented among violent offenders. In Texas death penalty trials, one of the special issues jurors must consider when deciding punishment is whether the defendant they’ve convicted would be a future danger.

Buck’s current lawyers said in court papers that the “alleged link between race and future dangerousness has been proven false.” Buck’s lawyers are not challenging his conviction, but they are seeking another chance to argue that he should not get the death penalty. The only issue in arguments at the high court appeared to be whether to throw out Buck’s sentence altogether and order a new sentencing hearing. The court also could instruct lower courts to decide whether the death sentence can stand.

Buck, now 53, does not dispute that he shot and killed another man and his ex-girlfriend, Debra Gardner, 32, about a week after breaking up with her in 1995. He also shot his stepsister, who survived. Since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, 1,437 people have been put to death nationwide, with Texas carrying out the most executions at 537. Historically, black inmates have held an outsized place on death row, even though nationally, whites greatly outnumber African Americans.

US Supreme Court Poised to Back Texas Death Row Inmate

 

[waltky]

What if Trump or Hillary sue over vote count an' SCOTUS can't decide?...

'Nightmare' - Supreme Court Tying 4-4 on Election Dispute
November 3, 2016 | WASHINGTON (AP) — What happens if America wakes up on Nov. 9 to another undecided, hotly disputed presidential election? What if the outcome turns on the razor-thin margin in one or two states, one candidate seeking a recount, the other going to court?

We know what happened in 2000, when the Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote effectively settled the election in favor of George W. Bush. As controversial as that decision was, it was made by a nine-justice court. This time around, there are only eight justices and the possibility of a tie vote. That would leave a lower federal or state court ruling in place, with no definitive judgment from the nation's highest court. "It would be Bush v. Gore, with a twist," said one election law expert, law professor Richard Hasen at the University of California at Irvine. "I call it the nightmare scenario," said University of Kentucky law professor Joshua Douglas.

Sixteen years ago, the court divided 5 to 4 about whether to get involved at all and then voted the same way to stop Florida's state court-ordered recount. The five more conservative justices sided with Republican nominee Bush, while the four more liberal justices would have ruled for Democrat Al Gore. "A no-brainer!" Justice Anthony Kennedy said in Jan Crawford's book "Supreme Conflict," recalling the decision to take on the case. "A state court deciding a federal constitutional issue about the presidential election? Of course you take the case." The odds of history repeating itself in Florida or elsewhere are long. But it's hard to discount any possibility, however remote, in a tight campaign that already has seen Democratic lawsuits charging voter suppression and Republican claims the election will be rigged.

The reason a tie Supreme Court vote is even possible stems from another aspect of this unusual election year, the Senate Republicans' refusal to act on President Barack Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. Any decision to seek a recount or otherwise contest the election results would depend on the margin in any one state and its potential for affecting the national outcome. In 2000, neither Bush nor Gore could muster an Electoral College majority of 270 votes without Florida. "For candidates who lose by a fraction of a percent, even up to 1.5 percent, they will at least explore their options for seeking a recount or challenging the results in a particular state," said Michael Morley, a law professor at Barry University in Orlando, Florida. Morley represented Republican Joe Miller in his postelection challenge to Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who won re-election as a write-in candidate after losing the GOP primary to Miller in 2010.

If an initial recount doesn't settle things, a lawsuit could follow, with appeals possible all the way to the Supreme Court. If a case should make it that far, it would reach a court made up of four justices appointed by Republican presidents and four by Democrats. Just four of the eight were on the court for Bush v. Gore, although Chief Justice John Roberts aided Bush's cause as a lawyer in private practice. At this point, it's impossible to know who might go to court and in which state, what the issue might be and who might benefit if justices were evenly divided. A tie is a win for the person who already has prevailed in the lower court. But for some who already are dismayed about the extended Supreme Court vacancy since Justice Scalia's death, a tie would have broad implications beyond the election. "I worry about a 4-4 tie because it would undermine the court's legitimacy," Douglas said.

MORE

 

[FA_Q2]

That is an interesting scenario walt though I doubt such would happen. I don't think the court would put itself in that position.

 

[waltky]

Texas capital punishment standard up for review...

High court to examine mental disability, death penalty issue
November 28, 2016 — The U.S. Supreme Court is set to examine whether the nation's busiest state for capital punishment is trying to put to death a convicted killer who's intellectually disabled, which would make him ineligible for execution under the court's current guidance.

Lawyers for prisoner Bobby James Moore, 57, contend that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state's highest criminal court, ignored current medical standards and required use of outdated standards when it decided Moore isn't mentally disabled. That ruling removed a legal hurdle to Moore's execution for the shotgun slaying of a Houston grocery store clerk in 1980. The Texas court is a "conspicuous outlier" among state courts and "defies both the Constitution and common sense," Clifford Sloan, Moore's lead lawyer, told the justices in written briefs submitted ahead of Tuesday's scheduled oral arguments. Such a "head-in-the-sand approach ... ignores advances in the medical community's understanding and assessment of intellectual disability over the past quarter century," he wrote.

Moore's lawyers want his death sentence set aside, contending his punishment would violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment and the Supreme Court's 2002 ruling in a North Carolina case that prohibited execution of the mentally disabled. The Texas attorney general's office says the state "fully complies" with Supreme Court precedents. The state points to its use of 1992 clinical definitions for intellectual disability as cited by the high court in its 2002 decision. And the office says it has consulted and considered more recent standards. The question before the high court "rests on a false premise," Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller said, arguing that Moore's claim of intellectual disability is refuted "under any relevant standard."

Two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Florida law that barred any other evidence of intellectual disability if an inmate's IQ was over 70. Texas uses a three-pronged test to define intellectual disability: IQ scores, with 70 generally considered a threshold; an inmate's ability to interact with others and care for him or herself; and whether evidence of deficiencies in either of those areas occurred before age 18. The state says Moore had a troubled childhood with little supervision and scored 57, 77 and 78 on IQ tests before dropping out of school in the ninth grade. He'd been convicted four times of felonies by age 17 but never was diagnosed with an intellectual disability as a youth, the state argues.

It describes him as living on the streets, playing pool for money and mowing lawns. During the fatal robbery of 72-year-old Houston supermarket clerk James McCarble, Moore wore a wig and fled to Louisiana afterward, and had represented himself in legal actions, showing the required intellectual capabilities, the state contends. Moore's lawyers argue the state "cherry-picked" specific higher IQ scores, and that at age 13 Moore had no basic understanding of the days of the week or seasons of the year, couldn't tell time and couldn't read or write or keep up in school. Since the Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume in 1976, Texas has carried out 537 executions, far more than any other state. Moore arrived on death row in July 1980, and only five of the state's some 250 condemned inmates have been there longer.

MORE

 

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - dey shouldn't get bond - dey oughta be deported...

Supreme Court weighs bond hearings for detained immigrants
November 30, 2016 | WASHINGTON (AP) — A seemingly divided Supreme Court tried to figure out Wednesday whether the government can detain immigrants indefinitely without providing hearings.

The justices heard argument in a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrants who've spent long periods in custody, including many who are legal residents of the United States or are seeking asylum. The issue for the court is whether people the government has detained while it is considering deporting them can make their case to a judge that they should be released. The case pits the Obama administration against immigration advocates, and the court hearing comes as President-elect Donald Trump has said he will step up deportations. Even as the current administration has pushed for comprehensive immigration reform and tried to help longtime U.S. residents who are in the country illegally, it has moved aggressively to deport more recent immigrants and those who have been convicted of crimes.

The number of people in detention awaiting deportation has ballooned to more than 40,000, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the immigrants in the Supreme Court. The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the immigrants, including Mexican immigrant Alejandro Rodriguez, who was detained for more than three years without a bond hearing. Rodriguez is a legal U.S. resident who was brought to the country as an infant. The Homeland Security Department detained him when it began deportation proceedings because Rodriguez had been convicted of possession of a controlled substance and driving a stolen vehicle, according to the appeals court. He spent no time in jail for those criminal convictions.

In another case, an Ethiopian asylum-seeker was kept in detention partly because a DHS officer wrongly labeled him a Somali, the ACLU said. The 9th Circuit ruled that immigrants generally should get bond hearings after six months in detention, and then every six months if they continue to be held. The government must show why they should remain locked up, the court said. Justice Stephen Breyer, voicing a sentiment that appeared to be shared by other liberal justices, said it seemed unfair that the law would, for example, allow an immigrant released after a four-year prison term to be held the same amount of time by U.S. immigration authorities. "How can they be punished for four more years?" he asked.

Acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn defended the law, saying Congress clearly gave the Homeland Security Department considerable power to hold people in custody while determining whether to deport them. People who are held for unusually long periods can file individual lawsuits, Gershengorn said. Justice Elena Kagan said that approach would result in haphazard rulings. "Well, wouldn't it be better to set some guideposts that everybody in the country would know to follow, rather than having one suit pop up here and one suit pop up here ... That does not seem like a good immigration system," Kagan said.

MORE

 

[FA_Q2]

^why?

You have a right to due process. I don't see how indefinite prison is remotely constitutional.

 

[waltky]

Not indefinite prison...

... immediate deportation.

Either they have their papers or they don't.