Posts

The Ten Supreme Court Decisions This Year That Will Change America

Photo Credit: Getty ImagesWith the Supreme Court on summer recess, it’s time to review the biggest cases of the October 2013 docket. SCOTUSblog’s “Stat Pack” notes that the Court this term had a high degree of unanimity and a relative lack of 5-4 decisions. But by margins both large and small, the court issued a number of important cases.

Reasonable people can, of course, disagree about the importance of any case. In compiling my own list, I generally ranked them with two criteria in mind. First, does the case affect constitutional doctrine, either by clarifying a murky area of law or by raising or lowering a legal bar? Second, will the case have practical consequences, either by shifting billions of dollars in legal rights, or by changing standard operating procedure for government agencies or law enforcement? If a case does either or both of these things, it appears higher on the list.

Here, in reverse order, are my top ten:

10. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA

This complicated set of cases dealt with the EPA’s attempt to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide as “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act. In a 9-0 decision (at least with respect to the result), the Court held that part of what the EPA was trying to do was not permissible under the Clean Air Act, and part of it was. The Court ruled that the EPA went too far in terms of asserting statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases and in attempting to “tailor” the statute to regulate only “major emitters” of greenhouse gases. However, the Court said that the EPA could impose carbon limits on facilities that already fall under permitting programs pursuant to other parts of the Clean Air Act. Even though the case didn’t deal with any constitutional rights, it is hugely important, because it involves billions of dollars of regulated activity and the fight over global warming (or global climate change, as it is now called). The decision ensures that industry and the EPA will continue to fight in federal court for years to come. At least the lawyers will be happy.

Read more from this story HERE.

Poll: Majority Support Hobby Lobby Decision

Photo Credit: TownHallAmericans largely support the Supreme Court’s ruling on Hobby Lobby and feel the outcome will not affect where they seek employment, a Rasmussen Reports poll found.

Forty-nine percent (49%) believe a business should be allowed to opt out of providing coverage for contraceptives if providing such health insurance coverage violates the religious beliefs of the business’ owner. Thirty-nine percent (39%) disagree, while 12% more are undecided.

The White House suggested that by refusing to offer contraceptive coverage to employees, business owners will be endangering women’s health; however, the poll suggests that this isn’t a major concern for most workers.

Just 38% of voters say it is at least somewhat important to their decision where to work whether a company pays for all contraceptive coverage. Fifty-eight percent (58%) say it’s not important.

Read more from this story HERE.

Religious Freedom in the Workplace: Statement on Amicus Brief Filed at US Supreme Court

Photo Credit: RZIMAs responsible citizens who love Jesus Christ and love our country, we want to express our deep conviction on matters of our faith and expression. No one ought to be compelled to so amputate their belief that it is meaningless except in private.

The faithful Christian cannot separate his life into sacred and secular, worship and work. A Christian does not cease to worship the Lord when he or she goes to work or opens a family business. Romans 11:36 says, “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen.” As Christians we are called to do all things to the glory of God, including – perhaps especially – our work. This amicus brief – which includes my signature – was filed at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Protestant theologians in support of the appeals by Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties, and demonstrates how the holistic nature of the Christian faith extends to a believer’s vocation.

Sadly, over the years, the Christian faith has been targeted by a rabid secularization and evicted from any or all public expression. The encroachment upon our civil liberties is frightening and we ought to take a stand. The cases of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga highlight the extreme dilemma that results when Christians are forced to choose between violating the government’s regulations and violating his or her sincerely held religious beliefs in the workplace. These beliefs are planted in our conscience.

Read more from this story HERE.

Supreme Court Declines Case Of Reporter Seeking to Protect Confidential Source (+video)

Photo Credit: Columbia University / APThe US Supreme Court declined Monday to take up the case of a New York Times reporter who is seeking to avoid being forced to reveal a confidential source in testimony in a criminal trial.

The reporter, James Risen, was subpoenaed to testify at the trial of a former Central Intelligence Agency officer accused of disclosing secret intelligence information without authorization to Mr. Risen.

Risen had sought to block his compelled testimony at the trial.

The high court turned down Risen’s petition without comment. The action lets stand a federal appeals court’s decision requiring Risen to testify at the trial. The appeals court rejected Risen’s argument that the courts should recognize a reporter’s privilege against being forced to reveal the identity of a confidential source.

Read more from this story HERE.

Final Word on U.S. Law Isn’t: Supreme Court Keeps Editing

Photo Credit: ALEX WONG / GETTY The Supreme Court has been quietly revising its decisions years after they were issued, altering the law of the land without public notice. The revisions include “truly substantive changes in factual statements and legal reasoning,” said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard and the author of a new study examining the phenomenon.

The court can act quickly, as when Justice Antonin Scalia last month corrected an embarrassing error in a dissent in a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency.

But most changes are neither prompt nor publicized, and the court’s secretive editing process has led judges and law professors astray, causing them to rely on passages that were later scrubbed from the official record. The widening public access to online versions of the court’s decisions, some of which do not reflect the final wording, has made the longstanding problem more pronounced.

Unannounced changes have not reversed decisions outright, but they have withdrawn conclusions on significant points of law. They have also retreated from descriptions of common ground with other justices, as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did in a major gay rights case.

The larger point, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a law professor at Stanford, is that Supreme Court decisions are parsed by judges and scholars with exceptional care. “In Supreme Court opinions, every word matters,” he said. “When they’re changing the wording of opinions, they’re basically rewriting the law.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Alaska Supreme Court says Tax Exemptions Cannot Be Denied to Gay Couples

Photo Credit: Mel Green / Creative Commons

Photo Credit: Mel Green / Creative Commons

Same-sex couples in Alaska must receive certain property tax exemptions given to married couples, despite a ban on gay marriage, the state Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

The decision in a lawsuit brought by three Anchorage same-sex couples represented a blow to the state, which had prevented gay and lesbian couples from taking advantage of a tax break for senior citizens and disabled veterans that, in some circumstances, takes into account marital status.

The ruling follows high-profile victories in recent months by gays and lesbians seeking the right to wed in several U.S. states.

Marriage rights have been extended to gay couples in 17 states and the District of Columbia in a trend that gained momentum when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last June that legally married same-sex couples nationwide are eligible for federal benefits.

In 1998, Alaska voters amended the state’s constitution to restrict marriage to between a man and a woman.

Read more from this story HERE.

Ala. Supreme Court: ‘Unborn Child Has Inalienable Right to Life From its Earliest Stages’

Photo Credit: CNS News

Photo Credit: CNS News

In a case about a pregnant woman who used cocaine and endangered her unborn child, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed (8-1) that the word “child” includes “an unborn child,” and that the law therefore “furthers the State’s interest in protecting the life of children from the earliest stages of their development.”

In his concurring opinion, Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore wrote that “an unborn child has an inalienable right to life from its earliest stages of development,” and added, “I write separately to emphasize that the inalienable right to life is a gift of God that civil government must secure for all persons – born and unborn.”

The court decision on April 18 was in reference to Sarah Janie Hicks v. State of Alabama. Hicks had been charged in 2009 with violating Alabama’s chemical-endangerment statute, which in part says that a “person commits the crime of chemical endangerment” by “knowingly, recklessly, or intentionally causes or permits a child to be exposed to, to ingest or inhale, or to have contact with a controlled substance, chemical substance, or drug paraphernalia,” a felony.

In Hicks’ case, she was charged with using cocaine while pregnant. Her child, “J.D.,” tested positive for cocaine “at the time of his birth,” reads the court document. (See Hicks v. Alabama.pdf)

In January 2010, Hicks pleaded guilty to the crime but also “reserved the right to appeal the issues” she and her attorneys had presented earlier in trying to get the charges dismissed. Hicks got a three year suspended prison sentence and was placed on probation.

Read more from this story HERE.

Supreme Court Limits Damages to Victims of Child Porn

Photo Credit: AP

Photo Credit: AP

The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the amount of damages that those who possess child pornography must pay victims, throwing out a $3.4 million award that went to a woman whose childhood rape has been widely seen on the Internet.

The court voted 5 to 4 that those convicted of possessing child pornography must pay restitution to victims. But it said the amount of damages paid must be proximate to the harm that a specific offender has caused.

The case before the court involves a a Texas man, Doyle Randall Paroline, who pleaded guilty to possessing 300 images of child pornography, including two of a girl identified in court documents as “Amy Unknown” when she was eight or nine years old. An appeals court had said Paroline was liable for all of the $3.4 million in damages that Amy, now an adult, was owed for psychological damage and lost income after she discovered the images.

All nine Supreme Court justices indicated that the law Congress passed requiring restitution to victims of child pornography was flawed and several called for a rewrite that would provide more precision and guidance.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, noted that his approach “is not without difficulties.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Former Supreme Court Justice: Amend 2nd Amendment

Photo Credit: AP / J. Scott Applewhite

Photo Credit: AP / J. Scott Applewhite

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in his new book, recommends six rewrites to the U.S. Constitution. He would restrict gun ownership to militia members; ban the death penalty; and allow government to set “reasonable limits” on campaign financing, among other things.

But Stevens says he’s no radical:

“I think every one of my proposals is a moderate proposal,” Stevens told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

One of Steven’s proposals would add five words to the Second Amendment, which would then read: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, when serving in the militia, shall not be infringed.”

Stevens agreed that adding those five words would allow legislatures and Congress, rather than the courts, to “do what they think is in the best public interest.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Limit on Campaign Giving (+video)

Photo Credit: REUTERS / JONATHAN ERNST

Photo Credit: REUTERS / JONATHAN ERNST

By Stephen Dinan.

The Supreme Court overturned aggregate campaign finance limits Wednesday, freeing wealthy Americans to give to as many federal candidates as they want — though the justices left in place the cap on how much can be given to any one person.

Still, the 5-4 decision further erodes the system of campaign finance restrictions written by Congress, but that already was teetering under the weight of its complexity and previous court decisions.

Democrats in Congress said the ruling is another step toward letting the rich hold sway over elections. They warned that wealthy conservatives will try to swamp elections by giving more freely and letting candidates siphon money among themselves.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who wrote the majority opinion, said campaign giving is a fundamental part of free speech that Congress cannot restrict lightly.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” the chief justice wrote. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Read more from this story HERE.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Photo Credit: Rod Lamkey, Getty Images

Photo Credit: Rod Lamkey, Getty Images

Supreme Court lifts ban on aggregate campaign donations

By Richard Wolf and Fredreka Schouten.

The Supreme Court took another step Wednesday toward giving wealthy donors more freedom to influence federal elections.

The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision leaves in place the base limits on what can be given to each individual campaign.

“The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combating corruption and its appearance,” Roberts wrote. “We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption — quid pro quo corruption — in order to ensure that the government’s efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them.”

The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, which came nearly six months after it was argued at the beginning of the court’s term in October, marks the latest round in the bitter national debate over the role of money in American politics.

More immediately, it alters the political landscape ahead of November’s midterm elections and could transform state contests as well. Legal experts said the ruling also erodes aggregate contribution limits imposed by the District of Columbia and 12 states, ranging from Connecticut to Wyoming.

Read more from this story HERE.