SCOTUSblog

[DMH]

SCOTUSblog covers judicial news and SCOTUS updates in the United States.

[DMH]

Top Cases of 2015

 

Obergefell v. Hodges - In a long-sought victory for the gay rights movement, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote on Friday that the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. “No longer may this liberty be denied,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in the historic decision. “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were.” Marriage is a “keystone of our social order,” Justice Kennedy said, adding that the plaintiffs in the case were seeking “equal dignity in the eyes of the law.”

 

The decision, which was the culmination of decades of litigation and activism, set off jubilation and tearful embraces across the country, the first same-sex marriages in several states, and resistance — or at least stalling — in others. It came against the backdrop of fast-moving changes in public opinion, with polls indicating that most Americans now approve of the unions. The court’s four more liberal justices joined Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. Each member of the court’s conservative wing filed a separate dissent, in tones ranging from resigned dismay to bitter scorn.

 

In dissent, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the Constitution had nothing to say on the subject of same-sex marriage. “If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.” In a second dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia mocked the soaring language of Justice Kennedy, who has become the nation’s most important judicial champion of gay rights.

 

 

King v. Burwell - The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Obama’s health care law allows the federal government to provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance, a sweeping vindication that endorsed the larger purpose of Mr. Obama’s signature legislative achievement. The 6-to-3 ruling means that it is all but certain that the Affordable Care Act will survive after Mr. Obama leaves office in 2017. For the second time in three years, the law survived an encounter with the Supreme Court. But the court’s tone was different this time. The first decision, in 2012, was fractured and grudging, while Thursday’s ruling was more assertive.

 

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a united six-justice majority. In 2012’s closely divided decision, Chief Justice Roberts also wrote the controlling opinion, but that time no other justice joined it in full. In dissent on Thursday, Justice Antonin Scalia called the majority’s reasoning “quite absurd” and “interpretive jiggery-pokery.” He announced his dissent from the bench, a sign of bitter disagreement. His summary was laced with notes of incredulity and sarcasm, sometimes drawing amused murmurs in the courtroom as he described the “interpretive somersaults” he said the majority had performed to reach the decision.

 

In a hastily arranged appearance in the Rose Garden on Thursday morning, a triumphant Mr. Obama praised the ruling. “After multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay,” he said, adding: “What we’re not going to do is unravel what has now been woven into the fabric of America.” The ruling was a blow to Republicans, who have been trying to gut the law since it was enacted. But House Republicans vowed that the political fight against it would continue.

 

 

Elonis v. United States - The Supreme Court on Monday made it harderto prosecute people for threats made on Facebook and other social media, reversing the conviction of a Pennsylvania man who directed brutally violent language against his estranged wife. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, said prosecutors must do more than prove that reasonable people would view statements as threats. The defendant’s state of mind matters, the chief justice wrote, though he declined to say just where the legal line is drawn.

 

Chief Justice Roberts wrote for seven justices, grounding his opinion in criminal-law principles concerning intent rather than the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The majority opinion was modest, even cryptic. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. voted with the majority, though he said a defendant’s recklessness in making threatening statements should suffice to require a conviction. The majority opinion took no position on that possibility. “Attorneys and judges are left to guess,” Justice Alito wrote. 

 

Justice Clarence Thomas issued a similar criticism in his dissent. “Our job is to decide questions, not create them,” he wrote. “Given the majority’s ostensible concern for protecting innocent actors, one would have expected it to announce a clear rule — any clear rule. Its failure to do so reveals the fractured foundation upon which today’s decision rests.” Justice Thomas, who would have upheld Mr. Elonis’s conviction, said the majority’s approach was unsatisfactory. “This failure to decide,” he wrote, “throws everyone from appellate judges to everyday Facebook users into a state of uncertainty.”

 

 

Glossip v. Gross - The Supreme Court ruled against three death row inmates who had sought to bar the use of an execution drug they said risked causing excruciating pain. In the process, two dissenting members of the court — Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — came very close to announcing that they were ready to rule the death penalty unconstitutional. This gave rise to slashing debate with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas about the reliability and effectiveness of the punishment, a dispute that overshadowed the core issue in the case.

 

The 5-to-4 decision on the execution drug broke along familiar lines, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court’s more conservative members to allow its use. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said the inmates had failed to identify an available and preferable method of execution and failed to make the case that the challenged drug entailed a substantial risk of severe pain.

 

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the other three members of the court’s liberal wing, said, “The court’s available-alternative requirement leads to patently absurd consequences.” “Petitioners contend that Oklahoma’s current protocol is a barbarous method of punishment — the chemical equivalent of being burned alive,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “But under the court’s new rule, it would not matter whether the state intended to use midazolam, or instead to have petitioners drawn and quartered, slowly tortured to death or actually burned at the stake.” Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Elena Kagan joined Justice Sotomayor’s dissent.

 

 

Michigan v. EPA - The Supreme Court on Monday blocked one of the Obama administration’s most ambitious environmental initiatives, an Environmental Protection Agency regulation meant to limit emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants from coal-fired power plants. Industry groups and about 20 states had challenged the E.P.A.’s decision to regulate the emissions, saying the agency had failed to take into account the punishing costs its rule would impose. The Clean Air Act required the regulation to be “appropriate and necessary.” The challengers said the agency had run afoul of that law by deciding to regulate the emissions without first undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.

 

Writing for the majority, in the 5-to-4 decision, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. Statutory context supports this reading.” The E.P.A. had argued that it was not required to take costs into account when it made the initial determination to regulate. But the agency added that it had done so later in setting emissions standards and that, in any event, the benefits far outweighed the costs. The two sides had very different understandings of the costs and benefits involved. Industry groups said the government had imposed annual costs of $9.6 billion to achieve about $6 million in benefits. The agency said the costs yielded tens of billions of dollars in benefits.

 

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote: “The agency acted well within its authority in declining to consider costs at the opening bell of the regulatory process given that it would do so in every round thereafter — and given that the emissions limits finally issued would depend crucially on those accountings.” The decision, Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46, does not strike down the rule, but it means the E.P.A. will have to review and rewrite it, taking costs into consideration.

 

(credit to various 2015 RL news articles)

[Tedder]

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)

[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.

 

Quote

OOC NOTE: There was some potential for some interesting results different than RL as it took longer IC to fill the vacant seat on the Court, this term was fairly dull without any cases related to Trump. Gorsuch rarely made a significant difference. The only two cases I could create an argument of having been decided differently IC due to the vacant seat, and neither are very interesting: Davila v. Davis and California Public Employees' Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc. Despite the deadlocks, the outcomes in these cases aligned with those in real life because the Supreme Court's tie vote effectively affirmed the decisions of the lower courts.