Tedder

Top Cases of 2017 To Date (Prior to Having Full Bench) Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer - The Supreme Court faced the issue of whether a state could exclude a religious institution from participating in a public benefit program solely based on its religious status. The controversy centered around a Missouri program that provided grants to nonprofit organizations to resurface playgrounds with recycled rubber tires. Trinity Lutheran Church applied for this grant to resurface its preschool playground but was denied because the state's constitution prohibited public funding for religious entities. The Church argued that this exclusion violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by denying the Church an otherwise available public benefit solely because of its religious nature. The state defended its decision, citing the need to uphold the separation of church and state and avoid government funding of religious entities. The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, ruled in favor of Trinity Lutheran Church. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, held that the exclusion of the Church from a public benefit for which it was otherwise qualified, solely because it was a religious institution, was odious to the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the government should not impose special disabilities on the basis of religious views or religious status, suggesting that the state's policy violated the principles of religious freedom protected under the First Amendment. This landmark decision underscored the tension between principles of non-discrimination and the traditional separation of church and state. Matal v. Tam - Addressed the constitutionality of the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, which prohibited the registration of trademarks that may "disparage... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols." The case involved Simon Tam, the leader of the Asian-American rock band The Slants, who attempted to trademark the band's name. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had denied the registration based on the disparagement clause, arguing that the name could be offensive to Asian-Americans. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that the disparagement clause violated the First Amendment's Free Speech clause. The justices held that the clause discriminated based on viewpoint and thus infringed upon the fundamental principle of free speech. The Court's decision emphasized that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message conveyed, thereby protecting even speech that some might find offensive. This ruling has significant implications for other trademark battles and free speech issues, underscoring the Court's robust protection of free expression, even in commercial contexts like trademark registration. The decision was a notable affirmation of the principle that the government cannot silence expressions merely because they are viewed as disparaging by some. With only eight participating justices, the decision was unanimous, indicating a strong consensus among the justices about the importance of upholding the First Amendment protections in this context. Packingham v. North Carolina - Addressed the intersection of law enforcement, social media, and First Amendment rights. The case revolved around Lester Gerard Packingham, who was convicted in 2002 of a felony for taking indecent liberties with a minor. In 2010, he posted on Facebook to celebrate a traffic court dismissal, violating a North Carolina law that prohibited registered sex offenders from accessing various websites, including social media platforms where children are allowed to be members. The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the law, arguing that it was tailored to serve the state's interest in protecting minors from sexual abuse. Packingham challenged the ruling, claiming it violated his First Amendment rights by broadly restricting his access to social media and thus impairing his ability to engage in legitimate and protected speech. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturned the lower court's decision, stating that the law imposed too severe a restriction on lawful speech. The Court emphasized the critical role of the internet and social media in modern communication, underscoring that granting governments broad powers to restrict access to these platforms was inconsistent with the First Amendment. This landmark decision highlighted the importance of protecting the right to free speech in the digital age, even for individuals with criminal convictions. Hernandez v. Mesa - Addressed a complex international and constitutional question regarding whether a Mexican national could sue a U.S. Border Patrol agent for a cross-border shooting. The case stemmed from an incident in 2010 where Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican citizen, was fatally shot by Jesus Mesa Jr., a U.S. Border Patrol agent. The shooting occurred when Hernández was on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border and Mesa was on the U.S. side. The primary legal issue at hand was whether Hernández's family could claim damages against Mesa under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth Amendment, which ensures due process. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that Hernández, as a Mexican citizen on Mexican soil, did not have U.S. constitutional protections. The family argued that the close proximity to the U.S. and the actions of a U.S. agent should extend these protections across the border. The Supreme Court did not issue a definitive ruling on these constitutional questions. Instead, it vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case back for further proceedings to consider whether the family could sue for a violation of Hernández's rights under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, a case that allows for a claim against federal officials violating constitutional rights. This remand indicated the complexity of the case, involving sensitive diplomatic and legal considerations without definitively resolving the broader implications for U.S. constitutional protections on foreign soil. Pavan v. Smith - Answered questions regarding the rights of same-sex couples in the context of birth certificates. The case emerged from Arkansas, where a state law stipulated that when a child is born to a married woman, her male spouse is automatically listed as the second parent on the child's birth certificate. However, this automatic parental recognition was not extended to same-sex couples, even though same-sex marriage had been legalized nationwide. The plaintiffs in the case were two same-sex couples whose legal marriages were recognized by the state, yet they faced challenges when the non-biological parent in each couple was not allowed to be listed on their children’s birth certificates, a right automatically afforded to different-sex couples. The Supreme Court summarily reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court’s ruling, which had upheld the state's practice. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Arkansas court’s decision violated the principles set forth in Obergefell v. Hodges, which held that same-sex couples must be afforded the same "constellation of benefits" linked to marriage as different-sex couples. The Court emphasized that denying the same treatment to married same-sex couples that married opposite-sex couples enjoy was an infringement of the fundamental liberties protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision underscored the application of Obergefell to various marital and parental rights, thereby setting a precedent that extended beyond just the right to marry. It clarified that states could not discriminate against same-sex couples in the myriad rights associated with marriage, including parental rights at the moment of a child’s birth. This case reaffirmed the Court's commitment to equality under the law for same-sex couples, ensuring that they receive the same legal recognitions and privileges as their different-sex counterparts in all aspects of married life. California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc. - Dealt with the question of whether the filing of a putative class action serves to satisfy the three-year time limitation in the Securities Act of 1933 for bringing a securities fraud claim. This case particularly revolved around the claims concerning securities offerings from Lehman Brothers, which collapsed during the financial crisis in 2008. The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), one of the largest pension funds in the U.S., opted out of a class-action lawsuit to file its own individual suit against ANZ Securities and other banks, but did so after the three-year statutory deadline had passed. The central legal issue was the interpretation of the statute of repose, which unlike a statute of limitations that can be tolled under certain circumstances, sets a hard deadline for filing claims. CalPERS argued that their filing was timely because it was covered under the class action filed within the limitation period. However, the banks contended that the statute of repose strictly barred any claims filed after three years from the date on which the securities were offered to the public. With the Court remaining an eight-member bench with one vacancy, the outcome was a 4-4 deadlock. Such a tie results in affirming the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals without setting a binding Supreme Court precedent, effectively leaving the lower court's ruling in place and siding against CalPERS. Davila v. Davis - The central question in the case was whether ineffective assistance of counsel during initial state habeas corpus proceedings could be argued as a cause to excuse the procedural default of ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the original trial. Erick Davila, who was sentenced to death for killing a woman and a child during a drive-by shooting, argued that his appellate lawyer failed to challenge the ineffectiveness of his trial lawyer. With the Court remaining an eight-member bench with one vacancy, the outcome was a 4-4 deadlock. Such a tie results in affirming the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals without setting a binding Supreme Court precedent, effectively leaving the lower court's ruling in place, leaving the legal principles governing such cases unchanged from prior standards. Davila is now likely to be put to death next year by the state of Texas.

Top Cases of 2016 Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt - One of the most significant U.S. Supreme Court cases of the year centered on Texas legislation known as HB 2, which imposed strict regulations on abortion providers. Under HB 2, abortion clinics were required to meet the same building specifications as ambulatory surgical centers, and doctors performing abortions were required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic. These provisions were challenged on the grounds that they placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions. The Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, ruled that these provisions were unconstitutional. The Court found that neither requirement offered medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposed. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority, emphasizing that the regulations significantly reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state, thereby making it more difficult for women to obtain access to abortion services. The decision stressed that laws that impose such obstacles must have more concrete health benefits to be considered constitutional. This ruling was considered a major victory for abortion rights advocates, as it reaffirmed and clarified the standards set by Planned Parenthood v. Casey regarding what constitutes an undue burden on abortion access. It was also pivotal for setting a precedent that state laws cannot impose restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create a substantial obstacle for women seeking abortions without showing substantial benefits from the regulations. The decision had immediate implications for similar laws in other states, prompting some to reconsider or abandon their own restrictive abortion laws. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - A pivotal Supreme Court case concerning affirmative action in university admissions. It revolved around Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) in 2008. Fisher challenged the university's use of race as one of the factors in its holistic admissions process, arguing that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. She contended that she was rejected while African-American and Hispanic students with similar or lower scores were admitted. UT Austin defended its admissions policy by stating that its approach was designed to achieve a diverse student body, which it considered crucial to its educational mission. The university’s policy included an automatic admission for Texas students in the top 10% of their high school classes, supplemented by a holistic review process that considered race among other factors for the remaining applicants. This policy was based on the precedent set by Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which upheld the use of race in admissions decisions to foster educational diversity. In their decision, the Supreme Court upheld UT Austin's admissions policy in a 4-3 decision, affirming that race could indeed be one of several factors in college admissions. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, emphasized that universities are afforded considerable deference in defining educational goals that include diversity. The decision marked a significant moment for affirmative action in the United States, reaffirming the principle that institutions of higher education can consider race as one of multiple admission criteria to create a diverse educational environment. United States v. Texas - Addressed a challenge to the Obama administration's executive actions on immigration, specifically the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program. Announced in November 2014, DAPA aimed to shield from deportation millions of undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. The program also sought to provide them with work permits, expanding the scope of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy enacted in 2012. The state of Texas, along with 25 other states, filed a lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that DAPA was an overreach of executive power and that the states would incur significant costs from the implementation of the program, such as issuing driver's licenses to DAPA beneficiaries. The case quickly moved through the courts, with a federal district judge and then the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling against the Obama administration, blocking the implementation of DAPA. The Supreme Court heard the case but was unable to reach a decisive verdict, resulting in a 4-4 deadlock. This stalemate left the Fifth Circuit's decision in place, effectively halting DAPA. The tie vote reflected the Court's division on significant constitutional and administrative law issues, notably the extent of executive power in immigration matters. The deadlock underscored the significant impact of Justice Antonin Scalia's death earlier in the year, as a full bench might have led to a different outcome. McDonnell v. United States - Centered on the definition of "official act" in federal corruption law. Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell and his wife were accused of accepting over $175,000 in loans, gifts, and other benefits from Jonnie Williams, a businessman promoting a dietary supplement, in exchange for official favors. The government argued that McDonnell facilitated meetings, hosted events, and contacted other government officials on Williams’ behalf. The case hinged on whether these actions constituted "official acts" under federal bribery statutes. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, concluded that McDonnell's actions did not rise to the level of "official acts." The Court's ruling clarified that an "official act" involves a formal exercise of governmental power on specific and focused matters, not merely setting up meetings or hosting events. This narrowed definition was aimed at providing clearer legal standards for prosecuting public officials under federal corruption laws. The decision is a critical one because it impacts how public corruption is prosecuted in the United States. By setting a higher bar for what constitutes an official act, the Supreme Court effectively limited the scope of actions that could lead to corruption charges. This case is often cited in discussions about legal standards for public integrity and the balance between combating corruption and allowing politicians to perform routine duties without the fear of unwarranted prosecution. Zubik v. Burwell - A significant case involving the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) contraceptive mandate, which requires health plans to provide no-cost contraceptive coverage. The plaintiffs in this case were religious non-profits, including universities and charities, who argued that the process to claim an exemption from the mandate—submitting a form or notifying the Department of Health and Human Services directly—violated their religious beliefs. They claimed that even the act of claiming the exemption made them complicit in providing contraceptives, thereby infringing on their Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rights. The case reached the Supreme Court after various federal appeals courts delivered mixed decisions on whether the accommodation process substantially burdened the plaintiffs’ religious exercise. The core issue was whether the government's accommodation for religious organizations, which allowed them to opt-out of providing contraceptive coverage directly, still infringed on their religious rights by triggering coverage through another means, such as a third-party insurer. The Supreme Court, operating with only eight justices due to the death of Justice Scalia, did not issue a definitive ruling on the merits of the case. Instead, it vacated the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the cases for further consideration, encouraging both sides to find a compromise that would allow women covered by the organizations’ plans to receive contraception without directly involving the religious employers. This resolution leaves open the larger questions about the balance between contraceptive coverage and religious freedom, indicating the complexity and contentiousness of reconciling religious rights with healthcare mandates under the ACA. (credit to various 2016 RL news articles)

Approved and added to the Game Roster.

Approved. Welcome back!

Approved.

Approved.

As someone who has been playing/adminning games like this for decades, I'd highly recommend going with a character that isn't trying to imitate a RL politician. You'll have the most fun by using your creativity right from the beginning. The game is literally an opportunity to play as anyone you want (who is electable of course lol), so have some fun with it! Of course, that's just a recommendation. At the very least, let's get a more creative name. I suggest using a name generator. Here is my favorite: American & English names (fantasynamegenerators.com)

As someone who has been playing/adminning games like this for decades, I'd highly recommend going with a character that isn't trying to imitate a RL politician. You'll have the most fun by using your creativity right from the beginning. The game is literally an opportunity to play as anyone you want (who is electable of course lol), so have some fun with it! Of course, that's just a recommendation. At the very least, let's get a more creative name. I suggest using a name generator. Here is my favorite: American & English names (fantasynamegenerators.com)

We can only permit players to play as fictional Senators, so if you create a fictional character you can still have this seat.

Approved. Congrats.

I had a couple free moments so I was able to review the points spent for the bio. I had to make a couple changes (denoted with an *), but the bio still came in well under the max points. Approved. Welcome!

Officially approving this. Apologies for the delay.

Officially approving this. Apologies for the delay. We gotta move you to the Class III SC seat though.

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Resigns Amid Shareholder Revolt In a dramatic culmination to a tumultuous period, Travis Kalanick has stepped down as CEO of Uber, the company he co-founded in 2009. This resignation follows a series of scandals and legal challenges that have embroiled the company for months. Kalanick’s decision came after a direct intervention by major investors, including the influential venture capital firm Benchmark. These shareholders, concerned about the direction of the company under his leadership, presented Kalanick with a letter demanding his resignation. The move highlights deep-rooted tensions within the company’s board and underscores the growing impatience with his leadership style. The former CEO had announced just last week his intention to take an indefinite leave of absence following the recent death of his mother in a boating accident. However, this step back from daily operations was evidently insufficient to quell the unrest among Uber’s investors. Uber, under Kalanick’s tenure, grew exponentially but not without controversy. The company has been criticized for aggressive expansion tactics and a company culture marred by allegations of systemic sexism and harassment. Notable incidents include the use of the "Greyball" software to evade law enforcement scrutiny and the "Hell" program to undermine competitors like Lyft. The final straw appeared to be a combination of poor financial performance and ethical missteps. Despite a valuation of $69 billion, Uber reported losses exceeding $2.2 billion in the first nine months of 2016 alone. Moreover, the public revelation of internal problems by former employee Susan Fowler, who detailed pervasive sexual harassment and gender bias, sparked a significant backlash and led to further investigations, including one by former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. The board has reportedly implemented all the recommendations from the Holder report, which included restructuring leadership and potentially reining in the CEO’s influence. For now, Uber’s management will be overseen by a committee of executives while the search for a new CEO begins. The company has confirmed Kalanick’s resignation but remains tight-lipped about the specifics of its future leadership plans. Meanwhile, Kalanick is expected to retain a position on Uber’s board of directors, where his influence, due to significant voting powers, will continue to be felt. This resignation marks a pivotal moment for Uber as it seeks to stabilize its operations and restore confidence among its employees, investors, and customers after what has been a decidedly rocky period.

Global Ransomware Attack Causes Chaos In an alarming turn of events, a global ransomware attack has wreaked havoc across multiple industries worldwide, with a disturbing message demanding payment in Bitcoin to unlock affected systems. Among the high-profile victims are the British advertising giant WPP, numerous Ukrainian firms including the state power company, and even Kiev's main airport, hinting at the widespread and indiscriminate nature of the attack. The ransomware, dubbed "NotPetya" by cybersecurity firm Kaspersky Lab due to its similarities to the Petya malware, has also compromised systems at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, forcing a manual check on radiation levels after the Windows-based sensors were disabled. The US National Security Council has confirmed that federal agencies are actively investigating the cyber-attacks. The council emphasized America’s commitment to identifying and holding the perpetrators accountable. Similarly, the US Department of Homeland Security has advised affected entities not to pay the demanded ransoms, as compliance does not guarantee the restoration of access to the encrypted files. Interpol has also entered the fray, announcing that it is "closely monitoring" the situation and coordinating with member countries to address the crisis effectively. According to Kaspersky Lab, the attack has impacted at least 2,000 targets, primarily in Ukraine, Russia, and Poland, but also extending to the United States, Germany, France, and Italy. The malware exploits vulnerabilities similar to those used by the WannaCry ransomware, which had a significant global impact just last month. The attack has not only affected IT systems but has also led to significant operational disruptions. Notably, operations at a port in Mumbai have been halted, and several major companies such as Rosneft, Maersk, and Mondelez International have reported severe disruptions. Even healthcare services have not been spared, with Pennsylvania’s Heritage Valley Health System reporting major delays due to compromised computer networks. Cybersecurity experts stress the importance of maintaining updated and patched systems to fend off such attacks. Chris Wysopal of Veracode highlighted that many organizations fail to apply timely software updates, often due to operational challenges in sectors where systems cannot afford downtime, such as in industrial and airport operations. The scale and sophistication of this attack serve as a stark reminder of the critical need for robust cybersecurity measures across all sectors. Companies are urged to review their security protocols and ensure that their systems are adequately protected against such devastating cyber threats.