NCSL Supreme Court Roundup Part II:
|
|
- Merryl Norris
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NCSL Supreme Court Roundup Part II: Schuette v. CDA (affirmative action / equal protection clause) McCullen v. Coakley (abortion buffer zone / 1 st Am.) McCutcheon v. FEC (campaign finance / 1 st Am. ) Lane v. Franks (gov t employee speech / 1 st Am. ) Harris v. Quinn (forced subsidies / 1 st Am. ) +quick word on Noel v. Harris appointments clause case, very interesting but not very relevant for states and localities Heidi Kitrosser, University of Minnesota Law School Schuette v. CDA At issue: the constitutionality of Art. I 26 of MI Constitution, enacted by state voters via referendum in bars any consideration of race across state government. Issue here was its application to higher education admissions decisions. Background against which 26 was enacted includes two important U.S. S.Ct. cases from 2003 Gratz & Grutter, both involving U. of MI. 1
2 U.S. S.Ct., w/ J. Kagan recused, decided 6-2 in favor of 26 s constitutionality. No majority opinion. J. Kennedy wrote for plurality of himself, C.J. Roberts, J. Alito. PLURALITY OPINION CONSISTED OF TWO MAIN STEPS: (1) 26 does not violate Equal Protection Clause of 14 th Amendment. (a) There is no clear discrimination in intent or effect. (b) Distinguished prior political process cases as involving intentional discrimination by states (or something perilously close to the same). (2) Given absence of EP violation, important to let such questions play themselves out in the political process, w/o S.Ct. intervening. Lots of Kennedy-esque rhetorical flourishes here with respect both to federalism & to individual participation in the political process: e.g., our federal structure permits innovation and experimentation and enables greater citizen involvement in democratic processes ; Our constitutional system embraces... the right of citizens to debate so they can learn and decide and then, through the political process, act in concert to try to shape the course of their own times and the course of a nation that must strive always to make freedom ever greater and more secure. 2
3 J. Scalia wrote separately for himself & J. Thomas, joining the judgment but concurring in separate opinion: Deems question posed unbelievably simple, and the fact that it is posed thus frighteningly bizarre : Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires? This quote encapsulates their position, and also hearkens back to many past debates (mostly in cases asking whether particular AA policies themselves were constitutional). J. Breyer also concurred separately, says political process problem not at issue here b/c elected regents boards had delegated AA questions to unelected administrators. J. Sotomayor dissents for herself & J. Ginsburg. Reasserts the political process rationale of prior cases, explains that it applies here in full force. In embracing political process rationale reasoning, the dissent largely engages the federalism / political participation rationale of the plurality on its own terms. 3
4 McCullen v. Coakley At issue: MA statute making it crime to knowingly stand on a public way or sidewalk within 35 ft. of entrance or driveway to any place, other than a hospital, where abortions are performed (exemptions for persons entering & exiting facility, sidewalk passer-bys, facility employees, etc.) All Justices agreed with judgment striking down statute as unconstitutional under 1 st Amendment. C.J. Roberts wrote for majority, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan. Majority opinion: The law is a time, place, manner restriction. Therefore subject only to intermediate scrutiny Ct. asks: is law narrowly tailored to a significant gov t interest? Are there ample alternative channels available for speakers? Ct. agrees that the state interests are significant: public safety, patient access to healthcare, and the unobstructed use of public sidewalks and roadways But Ct. concludes that the law burdens substantially more speech than needed to further its interests, emphasizes existence of many less restrictive alternatives & the special importance of one-on-one speech for protestors, the absence of adequate alternatives 4
5 Concurrence by J. Scalia*, joined by Kennedy & Thomas Law is content-based, thus should be examined under strict scrutiny, which it fails (strict scrutiny asks: is law least restrictive means to achieve a compelling gov t interest) Law content-based given facial restriction to abortion-provider locations, purpose discernible from the law & its history, and statutory exemption for facility employees or agents. Opinion excoriates majority for what it deems the majority s sui generis approach to abortion, and for its Something for Everyone opinion *this is one of J. Scalia s three furious concurrences of the term according to NYT s Adam Liptak, this is a new genre of opinion pioneered this term by Scalia! (see also concept of fauxnanimity described in a later slide) J. Alito concurs to similar effect, deeming law viewpoint-based McCutcheon v. FEC S.Ct., 5-4 (no majority opinion), struck down the aggregate contribution limits of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), popularly known as McCain-Feingold. The most recent aggregate limits allowed an individual to contribute total of $48,600 to fed. candidates and $74,600 to other political committees. These aggregate limits were layered on top of the act s base limits for individual donations to candidates and committees. 5
6 Plurality by C.J. Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy & Alito. Recounts dichotomy created in 1974 s Buckley v. Valeo expenditure limits get strict scrutiny, contribution limits get slightly easier scrutiny. Unnecessary to revisit here, aggregate limits fail under either level. Linchpin of analysis is minimalist conception of legit. state interests. Ct. has, since Citizens Utd. (2010) made clear that the only legit. interest is a very specific kind of anti-corruption interest one in avoiding quid pro quo corruption or the appearance thereof That interest not served here. First, plurality does not buy the argument that aggregate limits are needed to avoid circumvention of base limits. Stresses the govt s tough burden of proof to make this case. Furthermore, plurality says that avoiding the influence or access that $ can buy is NOT relevant to the anti-corruption interest, given the narrowness of the interest. Plurality waxes philosophical on this point, e.g.: We have said that government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford. Ingratiation and access... are not corruption. They embody a central feature of democracy that constituents support candidates who share their beliefs and interests, and candidates who are elected can be expected to be responsive to those concerns. 6
7 J. Thomas, concurring would revisit and reject the Buckley dichotomy between contributions & expenditures. Would apply strict scrutiny & strike down the limits on that basis. J. Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor & Kagan dissent Most fundamentally they dispute the plurality s narrow conception of corruption, which they argue should encompass monetarily-gained access & influence. This broader conception of corruption is rooted in the Constitution and in the First Amendment itself. Dissent also argues that Citzns Utd. narrow anti-corruption interest is not applicable here that case concerned expenditures, not contributions. Dissent also deems the applicable scrutiny level misapplied by the plurality. Finally and related to the question of scrutiny application, the dissent says that the plurality should at minimum have remanded for a fuller evidentiary hearing. 7
8 Lane v. Franks Justice Sotomayor writes for a unanimous court! (This case involves true unanimity, meaning a 9-0 majority opinion / rationale, not the fauxnanimity* of a unanimous judgment w/ splintered rationales) J. Thomas does write a separate concurrence for himself, Scalia & Alito, but they also join the majority opinion. They concur just to emphasize the opinion s relative narrowness. *so far as I can tell, fauxnanimity was coined this term by journalist Dalia Lithwick (slate.com) Factual background: Lane was hired in 2006 as the Director of Community Intensive Training for Youth (CITY) at Central Alabama Community College. CITY was having severe financial problems and so Lane conducted a full audit. Lane discovered that Suzanne Schmitz, an Alabama state rep. on CITY s payroll, had not been reporting to her CITY office. Lane fired Schmitz who vowed to get him back. Schmitz termination and the alleged corruption underlying it drew FBI attention. Lane testified before grand jury. Schmitz then indicted on several counts. Under subpoena, Lane testified at Schmitz trial in He testified again in 2009 at her retrial. 8
9 Schmitz convicted upon retrial. In 2009, Lane was terminated by Steve Franks, then CACC pres. In January 2011, Lane sued Franks in his individual & official capacities. He sought damages and reinstatement. Lane claimed that he was terminated for his testimony in violation of his 1 st Amendment right to free speech. The trial & appellate courts found that, even if Lane was retaliated against for his testimony, he had no legit. 1 st Amendment claim. To understand the lower courts reasoning, here are the relevant points of judicial precedent: Relevant judicial precedent: Gov t employees do not waive their first amendment rights by virtue of their gov t. employment. Gov t. thus not fully unfettered in its ability to terminate or discipline them for their speech. At same time, gov t has greater power over their employees speech in its role as employer than it has over citizen speech generally. 3-fold test (from Pickering line of cases plus 2006 s Garcetti) Was the speech part of speaker s official employment duties? If yes, NO PROTECTION. IF NOT Is the speech on a matter of public concern? If not, NO PROTECTION. If yes Does the employer s interest in suppression outweigh that of the speaker & the public in the speech? 9
10 Question in Lane pertained to first part of the test. Lower courts had deemed the speech part of Lane s employment duties and thus fully unprotected. Rationale was that he was speaking of matters that he learned of through his employment In J. Sotomayor opinion for unanimous Court, Ct. explained that speech is not automatically within employment duties b/c it is about employee s job or contains info. learned at work. This is a very important conclusion forecloses a path that would have dramatically limited employee 1 st Am. rights. Indeed, Court affirms special value of employee speech about their employment: Such speech holds special value precisely because [gov t] employees gain knowledge of matters of public concern through their employment. 10
11 Still, Court cautiously declines to opine on hypothetical facts not presented in this case: We... need not address in this case whether truthful sworn testimony would constitute citizen speech under Garcetti when given as part of an employee s ordinary job duties. (Concurring opinion largely just reiterates this same point concurrence by J. Thomas for himself, Scalia, Alito) Moving on to other parts of the relevant test, Ct. finds it easy to conclude that the speech is on a matter of public concern and outweighs any employer interest in suppressing it. Harris v. Quinn This case broke down along pretty familiar conservative / liberal lines. J. Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by C.J. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy & Thomas. Dissent penned by J. Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer & Sotomayor. At issue was an aspect of Illinois Rehabilitation Program (RP). RP uses federal Medicaid funds to pay home health care workers (personal assistants, or PAs) to assist people in their homes who, without such care, would require institutionalization. Illinois could have chosen to centralize RP as a fully state-run program with PAs as state employees. Instead, it made PAs joint private-state employees. 11
12 PAs are hired, fired by the persons needing care ( customers ), also sign agreements with customers and work out much of the job s day-to-day details with them. State also maintains a regulatory role, among other things sets and pays wages & benefits, including health insurance, for PAs. In setting such terms, the state negotiates with the union (a branch of the Service Employees International Union) designated as the PAs exclusive representative. Under the IL Public Labor Relations Act (PLRA), all PAs must pay a fair share fee to the union even if they do not wish to join. Three IL PAs including one who provides care at home for her own daughter argue that the PLRA violates the 1 st Am. insofar as it requires PAs who do not wish to support the Union to do so through dues. Some key judicial precedent: In 1977 case of Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., S.Ct. held that public workers could be required to pay dues to their exclusive union rep. They agreed that the state had important interests in facilitating exclusive union representation and avoiding free-riding by non-paying employees who benefit from negotiated wages, terms. Abood did acknowledge legit. 1 st Am. concerns of dissenting employees insofar as unions also engaged in political activity, campaign contributions, lobbying, etc., beyond their core role in bargaining, holding grievance proceedings, etc. Abood thus allowed union dues to be required, so long as employees could opt out of payments for unions extraneous expressive activity (i.e., political, ideological activities). 12
13 In his opinion for the majority, J. Alito: Spends considerable time suggesting that Abood was poorly reasoned. Perhaps most fundamentally, he argues that Abood overlooked the intrinsically political nature of so much public sector business, including union bargaining, grievance procedures, etc. Nonetheless, Ct. concludes that it needn t revisit Abood s status now. It need only decline to extend Abood to cover IL PAs. Ct. distinguishes PAs from full-fledged public employees. Role of private customers in employing PAs makes the union s bargaining role less central than in full public employment contexts. This lessens any state interests in requiring payments to the union. Given state s less compelling position in this case than in cases involving full-fledged public employment, Ct. declines to extend the extraordinary power that Abood accords unions to IL PAs. Nor, says Ct., do broader first amendment considerations, beyond Abood, support IL s position. The forced fee amounts to compelled speech, which at minimum demands that the state have a compelling interest that can t be met through means significantly less restrictive of 1 st Am. freedoms. There are far less restrictive options. Indeed, it s not clear why a forced fee is necessary. There s evidence of substantial support for the union in IL, hence voluntary support probably would suffice. 13
14 In a dissent joined by Ginsburg, Breyer & Sotomayor, J. Kagan writes: Majority s distinction of this case from Abood is unsound. Union here still performs fundamental union role of bargaining employment terms and conditions. This is unaffected by the existence of some role for the private customer. In fact, majority opinion creates perverse incentives for states to take over such Medicaid-funded programs entirely (rather than creating public/private partnerships). Majority also defends Abood and emphasizes that it remains solid precedent after Quinn: Today s majority cannot resist taking potshots at Abood, but it ignores the petitioners invitation to depart from principles of stare decisis. And the essential work in the majority s opinion comes from its extended (though mistaken) distinction of Abood, not from its gratuitous dicta critiquing Abood s foundations. That is to the good or at least better than it might be. The Abood rule is deeply entrenched, and is the foundation for not tens or hundreds, but thousands of contracts between unions and governments across the Nation. Our precedent about precedent, fairly understood and applied, makes it impossible for this Court to reverse that decision. 14
15 Finally, a few words on NLRB v. Noel Canning (to provide a taste of an opinion that is interesting, but not directly relevant for our purposes) When can a recess appointment be made under Article II (thus enabling the Pres. to make the appointment w/o Senate consent)? Relevant constitutional language: The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. In a fauxnanimous decision (9-0 on judgment, 5 on majority opinion, 4 furiously concur) Ct. struck down Obama recess appointments to NLRB. Majority opinion (penned by J. Breyer) reasoned on largely functional grounds (said the text is ambiguous, must look to underlying purposes as informed by historical experience). Said that intra-session recess at issue was only 3 days in light of pro forma sessions. That s too short to create a recess. Furious concurrence (penned by J. Scalia) says that the questions are formal in nature, in light of original understanding of the constitutional text. Is Senate between sessions? If not, there is no recess. Even if there is a recess at the time of appointment, did the vacancy occur during the recess? If not, there can be no recess appointment. 15
By: Mariana Gaxiola-Viss 1. Before the year 2002 corporations were free to sponsor any
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 Violates Free Speech When Applied to Issue-Advocacy Advertisements: Fed. Election Comm n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652 (2007). By: Mariana Gaxiola-Viss
More informationSupreme Court Decisions
Hoover Press : Anderson DP5 HPANNE0900 10-04-00 rev1 page 187 PART TWO Supreme Court Decisions This section does not try to be a systematic review of Supreme Court decisions in the field of campaign finance;
More informationUnit 7 SG 1. Campaign Finance
Unit 7 SG 1 Campaign Finance I. Campaign Finance Campaigning for political office is expensive. 2016 Election Individual Small Donors Clinton $105.5 million Trump 280 million ($200 or less) Individual
More informationCampaign Finance Law and the Constitutionality of the Millionaire s Amendment : An Analysis of Davis v. Federal Election Commission
Order Code RS22920 July 17, 2008 Summary Campaign Finance Law and the Constitutionality of the Millionaire s Amendment : An Analysis of Davis v. Federal Election Commission L. Paige Whitaker Legislative
More informationSIGNS, SIGNS EVERYWHERE A SIGN: WHAT THE TOWN OF GILBERT CASE MEANS FOR SCHOOLS. Kristin M. Mackin SIMS MURRAY LTD.
SIGNS, SIGNS EVERYWHERE A SIGN: WHAT THE TOWN OF GILBERT CASE MEANS FOR SCHOOLS Kristin M. Mackin SIMS MURRAY LTD. First Amendment Governments shall make no law [1] respecting an establishment of religion,
More informationAPPEARANCES CAN BE DECEIVING
APPEARANCES CAN BE DECEIVING OCTOBER TERM 2013 MOVED THE LAW TO THE RIGHT Erwin Chemerinsky T HE CONSERVATIVE POSITION PREVAILED in virtually every major case during October Term 2013. Many of the cases
More informationSLC Supreme Court Update. Lisa Soronen State and Local Legal Center
SLC Supreme Court Update Lisa Soronen State and Local Legal Center lsoronen@sso.org 202.434.4845 Term Statistics From SCOTUSblog Seventy-three case decided Sixty-six percent were unanimous (highest percent
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationIntroduction. REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZ. What do we have? What can you do?
Introduction REED V. TOWN OF GILBERT, ARIZ. What do we have? An over broad standard Can effect any city Has far reaching consequences What can you do? Take safe steps, and Wait for the inevitable clarification.
More informationWilliams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar: Judicial Elections as the Exception
Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar: Judicial Elections as the Exception ANDREW LESSIG I.) Introduction On April 19, 2015, the United States Supreme Court handed down their decision in Williams-Yulee v.
More informationA Conservative Rewriting Of The 'Right To Work'
A Conservative Rewriting Of The 'Right To Work' The problem with talking about a right to work in the United States is that the term refers to two very different political and legal concepts. The first
More informationMEMORANDUM. Nancy Fletcher, President, Outdoor Advertising Association of America. To: From: Laurence H. Tribe ~~- ~- ~ ~~- Date: September 11, 2015
HARVARD UNIVERSITY Hauser Ha1142o Cambridge, Massachusetts ozi38 tribe@law. harvard. edu Laurence H. Tribe Carl M. Loeb University Professor Tel.: 6i7-495-1767 MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Fletcher, President,
More informationCharles W. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director/General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association
Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Executive Director/General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association Court receives about 10,000 petitions a year. Last year a little under 9,000 petitions. About 21%
More informationPackingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct (2017) ABSTRACT
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - SEX OFFENSES AND FREE SPEECH: CONSTITUTIONALITY OF BAN ON SEX OFFENDERS USE OF SOCIAL MEDIA: IMPACT ON STATES WITH SIMILAR RESTRICTIONS Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730
More informationCHAPTER 9. The Judiciary
CHAPTER 9 The Judiciary The Nature of the Judicial System Introduction: Two types of cases: Criminal Law: The government charges an individual with violating one or more specific laws. Civil Law: The court
More informationFriedrichs v. California Teachers Association
Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law Volume 38 Issue 2 Article 5 7-1-2017 Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association Diana Liu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/bjell
More informationThe Federal Courts. Chapter 16
The Federal Courts Chapter 16 3 HISTORICAL ERAS OF INFLUENCE 1787-1865 Political Nation building (legitimacy of govt.) Slavery 1865-1937 Economic Govt. roll in economy Great Depression 1937-Present Ideological
More informationSection 5: First Amendment & Separation of Powers
College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2013 Section 5: First Amendment & Separation of Powers Institute
More informationAre We There Yet? The Roberts Court, Race & Post Integration America: A Selective View of Three Supreme Court Cases
Are We There Yet? The Roberts Court, Race & Post Integration America: A Selective View of Three Supreme Court Cases Francisco M. Negrón, Jr. Associate Executive Director & General Counsel National School
More informationCORPORATE POLITICAL SPEECH AND THE BALANCE OF POWERS: A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE JURISPRUDENCE IN WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE FRANCES R.
CORPORATE POLITICAL SPEECH AND THE BALANCE OF POWERS: A NEW FRAMEWORK FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE JURISPRUDENCE IN WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE FRANCES R. HILL* Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC (WRTL II) is an agenda-setting,
More informationMcCutcheon v Federal Election Commission:
McCutcheon v Federal Election Commission: Q and A on Supreme Court case that challenges the constitutionality of the overall limits on the total amount an individual can contribute to federal candidates
More informationIn Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), the Supreme Court
LEGAL NOTE Does the First Amendment Render Nonpartisan Elections Meaningless? The Sixth Circuit s Carey v. Wolnitzek Decision MARK S. HURWITZ In Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002),
More informationNo Brief on the Merits for Appellant Republican National Committee
No. 12-536 In The Supreme Court of the United States Shaun McCutcheon and Republican National Committee, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Federal Election Commission On Appeal from the United States District Court
More informationANALYSIS OF SUPREME COURT DECISION IN RANDALL V. SORRELL
ANALYSIS OF SUPREME COURT DECISION IN RANDALL V. SORRELL To: Interested Persons From: Brenda Wright, NVRI Date: June 29, 2006 On June 26, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in Randall
More informationBits and Pieces to Master the Exam Random Thoughts, Trivia, and Other Facts (that may help you be successful AP EXAM)
Bits and Pieces to Master the Exam Random Thoughts, Trivia, and Other Facts (that may help you be successful AP EXAM) but what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
More informationAP Gov Chapter 15 Outline
Law in the United States is based primarily on the English legal system because of our colonial heritage. Once the colonies became independent from England, they did not establish a new legal system. With
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-2239 Free and Fair Election Fund; Missourians for Worker Freedom; American Democracy Alliance; Herzog Services, Inc.; Farmers State Bank; Missouri
More informationINTRO TO POLI SCI 11/30/15
INTRO TO POLI SCI 11/30/15 Objective: SWBAT describe the type of court system in the US and how the Supreme Court works. Agenda: Turn in Late Work Judicial Branch Notes When your friend asks to borrow
More informationSHIFTS IN SUPREME COURT OPINION ABOUT MONEY IN POLITICS
SHIFTS IN SUPREME COURT OPINION ABOUT MONEY IN POLITICS Before 1970, campaign finance regulation was weak and ineffective, and the Supreme Court infrequently heard cases on it. The Federal Corrupt Practices
More informationUnit 4C STUDY GUIDE. The Judiciary. Use the Constitution to answer questions #1-9. Unless noted, all questions are based on Article III.
Unit 4C STUDY GUIDE The Judiciary Use the Constitution to answer questions #1-9. Unless noted, all questions are based on Article III. 1. What power is vested in the courts? 2. The shall extend to all
More informationNovember 28, Elections Voting Places and Materials Therefor Placement of Political Signs during Election Period; Constitutionality
November 28, 2018 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2018-16 The Honorable Blake Carpenter State Representative, 81st District 2425 N. Newberry, Apt. 3202 Derby, Kansas 67037 Re: Elections Voting Places and
More informationCase: 1:12-cv Document #: 65 Filed: 05/10/13 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:2093
Case: 1:12-cv-05811 Document #: 65 Filed: 05/10/13 Page 1 of 20 PageID #:2093 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ILLINOIS LIBERTY PAC, a Political
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. Ronald John Calzone, Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 17-2654 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Ronald John Calzone, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald Summers, et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District
More informationCitizens United: A World of Full Disclosure
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary Volume 31 Issue 2 Article 4 10-15-2011 Citizens United: A World of Full Disclosure Maxfield Marquardt Follow this and additional works
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-681 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States PAMELA HARRIS et al., Petitioners, v. PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, et al., Respondents. On a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More information1 424 U.S. 1 (1976) (per curiam). 2 Compare id. at 25 (noting that contribution limits may be sustained if the State demonstrates
First Amendment Freedom of Speech Aggregate Contribution Limits McCutcheon v. FEC In Buckley v. Valeo, 1 the Supreme Court subjected limits on political contributions to a lower level of constitutional
More informationTHE JUDICIAL BRANCH: THE FEDERAL COURTS
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH: THE FEDERAL COURTS DUAL COURT SYSTEM There are really two court systems in the United States National judiciary that extends over all 50 States Court systems found in each State (most
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (2000) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 98 963 JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationCampaign Finance Law and the Constitutionality of the Millionaire s Amendment : An Analysis of Davis v. Federal Election Commission
Campaign Finance Law and the Constitutionality of the Millionaire s Amendment : An Analysis of Davis v. Federal Election Commission name redacted Legislative Attorney September 8, 2010 Congressional Research
More informationCase: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/22/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1
Case: 1:18-cv-01362 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/22/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION James M. Sweeney and International )
More informationTHE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 1
THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION 1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
More informationSupreme Court Review, First Amendment & Campaign Finance Litigation
Supreme Court Review, First Amendment & Campaign Finance Litigation 2 hours Copyright 2017 by Comedian of Law LLC All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Written permission must be
More informationArizona Free Enterprise Club s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett 131 S. Ct (2011)
Arizona Free Enterprise Club s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett 131 S. Ct. 2806 (2011) I. INTRODUCTION Arizona Free Enterprise Club s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 1 combined with McComish v. Bennett, brought
More informationCampaign Finance Fall 2016
Campaign Finance 17.251 Fall 2016 1 Problems Thinking about Campaign Finance Anti incumbency/politician hysteria Problem of strategic behavior Why the no effects finding of $$ What we want to know: Why
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 16-865 In the Supreme Court of the United States REPUBLICAN PARTY OF LOUISIANA, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
More informationRohit Beerapalli 322
MCCUTCHEON V. FEC: A CASE COMMENT Rohit Beerapalli 322 INTRODUCTION The landmark ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 323 caused tremendous uproar
More informationWhat If the Supreme Court Were Liberal?
What If the Supreme Court Were Liberal? With a possible Merrick Garland confirmation and the prospect of another Democrat in the Oval Office, the left can t help but dream about an ideal judicial docket:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2010 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationchapter one: the constitutional framework of buckley v. valeo
chapter one: the constitutional framework of buckley v. valeo Campaign finance reformers should not proceed without some understanding of the 1976 Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2003 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationSwift Boat Democracy & the New American Campaign Finance Regime
Swift Boat Democracy & the New American Campaign Finance Regime By Lee E. Goodman The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Shover, 2012-Ohio-3788.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) STATE OF OHIO C.A. No. 25944 Appellee v. SEAN E. SHOVER Appellant APPEAL
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL LAW: LOWERING THE STANDARD OF STRICT SCRUTINY. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) Marisa Lopez *
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: LOWERING THE STANDARD OF STRICT SCRUTINY Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) Marisa Lopez * Respondents 1 adopted a law school admissions policy that considered, among other factors,
More informationInternational Association of Chiefs of Police. Legal Officers Section October 2013
International Association of Chiefs of Police Legal Officers Section October 2013 Presenters Karen J. Kruger Funk & Bolton, P.A. Baltimore, MD Brian S. Kleinbord Chief, Criminal Appeals Division Office
More information2018 Jackson Lewis P.C.
2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. 2018 THE MATERIALS CONTAINED IN THIS PRESENTATION WERE PREPARED BY THE LAW FIRM OF JACKSON LEWIS P.C. FOR THE PARTICIPANTS OWN REFERENCE IN CONNECTION WITH EDUCATION SEMINARS PRESENTED
More informationJurisdiction. Appointed by the President with the Advice and Consent of the Senate according to Article II, Section 2
The Judicial Branch Jurisdiction Federal Courts Article III, Section 1 vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and other inferior courts created by Congress Judges serve during good Behavior Appointed
More informationANSWER KEY EXPLORING CIVIL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM DBQ: LIBERTY AND THE
ANSWER KEY EXPLORING CIVIL AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM Critical Thinking Questions 1. The Founders understood that property is the natural right of all individuals to create, obtain, and control their possessions,
More informationCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) Petitioner: Citizens United Respondent: Federal Election Commission Petitioner s Claim: That the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violates the First
More informationTHE IMPACT OF FEC V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC.
THE IMPACT OF FEC V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC. ON STATE REGULATION OF ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS IN CANDIDATE ELECTIONS, INCLUDING CAMPAIGNS FOR THE BENCH February 2008 The Brennan Center for Justice
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationLucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission 138 S. Ct (2018)
Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission 138 S. Ct. 2044 (2018) Justice KAGAN, delivered the opinion of the Court. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution lays out the permissible methods of appointing
More informationA GLIMPSE INTO THE FUTURE? JUDGE KOLLAR-KOTELLY'S VIEW OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE POLITICAL MONEY. Robert F. Baue;
A GLIMPSE INTO THE FUTURE? JUDGE KOLLAR-KOTELLY'S VIEW OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO REGULATE POLITICAL MONEY Robert F. Baue; I agree with those who argue that the district court has been unfairly savaged
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 533 U. S. (2001) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of
More informationWhat is a Person? LISA SORONEN STATE AND LOCAL LEGAL CENTER
What is a Person? LISA SORONEN STATE AND LOCAL LEGAL CENTER LSORONEN@SSO.ORG Corporations Are People, My Friend Who or what is a person? This is the million dollar question Matt Romney, Iowa State Fair,
More informationBEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION In re: ) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ) Notice 2007-16 Electioneering Communications ) (Federal Register, August 31, 2007) ) FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC. AND FREE
More informationSupreme Court Upholds the Affordable Care Act
Supreme Court Upholds the Affordable Care Act What it Means for Employers and the Future of Health Care in the US June 28, 2012 Jennifer Kraft, Employee Benefits Department Mark Casciari, Employee Benefits
More information2017 U.S. LEXIS 1428, * 1 of 35 DOCUMENTS. LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. PROMEGA CORPORATION. No
Page 1 1 of 35 DOCUMENTS LIFE TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. PROMEGA CORPORATION. No. 14-1538. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 2017 U.S. LEXIS 1428 December 6, 2016, Argued February
More informationCh.9: The Judicial Branch
Ch.9: The Judicial Branch Learning Goal Students will be able to analyze the structure, function, and processes of the judicial branch as established in Article III of the Constitution; the judicial branches
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 1999 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationMcDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
Street Law Case Summary Argued: March 2, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010 Background The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, but there has been an ongoing national debate
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2009 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationDid Citizens United Get it Right? Campaign Finance Reform and the First Amendment Finding the Balancing Point
University at Albany, State University of New York Scholars Archive Political Science Honors College 5-2017 Did Citizens United Get it Right? Campaign Finance Reform and the First Amendment Finding the
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
1 1 1 1 Stephen Kerr Eugster Telephone: +1.0.. Facsimile: +1...1 Attorney for Plaintiff Filed March 1, 01 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 0 1 0 1 STEPHEN KERR EUGSTER, Plaintiff,
More informationSTUDY PAGES. Money In Politics Consensus - January 9
Program 2015-16 Month January 9 January 30 February March April Program Money in Politics General Meeting Local and National Program planning as a general meeting with small group discussions Dinner with
More informationLESSON Money and Politics
LESSON 22 157-168 Money and Politics 1 EFFORTS TO REFORM Strategies to prevent abuse in political contributions Imposing limitations on giving, receiving, and spending political money Requiring public
More informationMoney and Political Participation. Political Contributions, Campaign Financing, and Politics
Money and Political Participation Political Contributions, Campaign Financing, and Politics Today s Outline l Are current campaign finance laws sufficient? l The Lay of the Campaign Finance Land l How
More informationAP Government Chapter 15 Reading Guide: The Judiciary
AP Government Chapter 15 Reading Guide: The Judiciary 1. According to Federalist 78, what s Hamilton s argument for why the SCOTUS is the weakest of the branches? Do you agree? 2. So the court has the
More informationNo Sn t~e ~uprem~ (~ourt of the i~tnit~l~
No. 09-154 Sn t~e ~uprem~ (~ourt of the i~tnit~l~ FILED ALIG 2 8 200 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL LOBBYISTS, INC., a Florida Not for Profit Corporation; GUY M. SPEARMAN, III, a Natural Person; SPEARMAN
More informationLANE V. FRANKS: THE SUPREME COURT FRANKLY FAILS TO GO FAR ENOUGH
LANE V. FRANKS: THE SUPREME COURT FRANKLY FAILS TO GO FAR ENOUGH INTRODUCTION The role of the First Amendment in the public workplace is one of high importance, as nearly twenty-two million Americans are
More informationA well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Heller v. District of Columbia 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821 (2008)
More informationESSAY HOW SAUSAGE IS MADE: A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LOBBYING
ESSAY HOW SAUSAGE IS MADE: A RESEARCH AGENDA FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND LOBBYING DANIEL P. TOKAJI & RENATA E. B. STRAUSE Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made. Attributed to Otto
More informationCase 2:14-cv CB Document 84 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:14-cv-01197-CB Document 84 Filed 11/16/17 Page 1 of 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NIKKI BRUNI, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.
More informationSupreme Court Upholds Landmark Federal Health Care Legislation
July 2, 2012 Supreme Court Upholds Landmark Federal Health Care Legislation In a high-profile test of the Supreme Court s approach to constitutional limits on Congressional power, the Court has upheld
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1077 In the Supreme Court of the United States KENNETH TYLER SCOTT AND CLIFTON POWELL, Petitioners, v. SAINT JOHN S CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS, CHARLES I. THOMPSON, AND CHARLES W. BERBERICH, Respondents.
More informationThe Courts. Chapter 15
The Courts Chapter 15 The Nature of the Judicial System Introduction: Two types of cases: Criminal Law: The government charges an individual with violating one or more specific laws. Civil Law: The court
More informationAppellee s Response to Appellants Jurisdictional Statements
No. 06- In The Supreme Court of the United States FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION, ET AL., Appellants, v. WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC., Appellee. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District
More informationAn Uncertain Future: The Supreme Court Docket
An Uncertain Future: The 2013-2014 Supreme Court Docket In the 2012-2013 term, despite positive outcomes in several high-profile cases, the conservative wing of the Supreme Court managed to accomplish
More informationThe Changing Standards of Campaign Finance Regulation: The Real Impact of McCutcheon v. FEC
Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Law Reviews 1-1-2015 The Changing Standards of Campaign
More informationLABOR LAW SEMINAR 2010
Twentieth Annual LABOR LAW SEMINAR 2010 CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW DEVELOPMENTS Daniel Kornfeld, Esq. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW BASICS... 1 A. LOBBYING COMPARED TO CAMPAIGN FINANCE... 1
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2016 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationUnit V: Institutions The Federal Courts
Unit V: Institutions The Federal Courts Introduction to Federal Courts Categories of law Statutory law Laws created by legislation; statutes Common law Accumulation of court precedents Criminal law Government
More information1 U.S. CONST. amend. XI. The plain language of the Eleventh Amendment prohibits suits against
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW STATE EMPLOYEES HAVE PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST EMPLOYERS UNDER FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES V. HIBBS, 538 U.S. 721 (2003). The Eleventh Amendment
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 548 U. S. (2006) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Nos. 04 1528, 04 1530 and 04 1697 NEIL RANDALL, ET AL., PETITIONERS 04 1528 v. WILLIAM H. SORRELL ET AL. VERMONT REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE,
More informationChapter 13: The Judiciary
Learning Objectives «Understand the Role of the Judiciary in US Government and Significant Court Cases Chapter 13: The Judiciary «Apply the Principle of Judicial Review «Contrast the Doctrine of Judicial
More informationBRIEF IN OPPOSITION FOR RESPONDENT HARRY NISKA
No. 14-443 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States BONN CLAYTON, Petitioner, v. HARRY NISKA, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE MINNESOTA COURT OF APPEALS BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
More informationProcurement Fraud and False Claims Act Developments. Mark R. Troy Robert R. Rhoad Andy Liu Jonathan Cone
Procurement Fraud and False Claims Act Developments Mark R. Troy Robert R. Rhoad Andy Liu Jonathan Cone Procurement Fraud and False Claims Act Developments FCA Statistics and Enforcement trends Public
More information[Sample Public Presentation]
REED v. TOWN OF GILBERT THE BLOCKBUSTER DECISION [Sample Public Presentation] 2016 Presenter: William D. Brinton Rogers Towers, P.A. 1301 Riverplace Blvd., Suite 1500 Jacksonville, FL 32207 wbrinton@rtlaw.com
More information