United State v. Texas

For my final blog post of this semester, I will look at a major case that is yet to be decided. With oral arguments just over a week ago, I will discuss the fresh case of United States. I will also discuss how I think the case will end up and some of those ramifications of that ruling.

First off, a few facts about United States v. Texas. In 2012, Homeland Security implemented DACA which allowed prosecutors not to enforce immigration laws. Then under DAPA, it expanded the people eligible that could not be prosecuted. Texas argued that it violated Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause. A conservative district court and Fifth Circuit court ruled in favor of Texas.

The way I see this case going is similar to other cases that have been decided since Justice Scalia’s death. I feel it might be another 4-4 ruling. A 4-4 ruling would affirm the lower court’s decision. The problem is that a 4-4 ruling would not create a nationwide precedent to follow. Instead, it would affirm the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision making the ruling only effective in that court’s jurisdiction.

This case looks like a good time when a ninth justice would be handy. However, with Obama’s nomination yet to be confirmed, this decision will likely be only decided by eight justices. This might even be the most important case the Supreme Court will hear this year and it is a shame that it could be potentially deadlocked at 4.

 

This might even be moot when Donald Trump becomes President and changes the immigration laws. #Trump2016 #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

 

Williams v. Pennsylvania

Sorry for the barrage of all these blog posts, I am trying to play a little catch up as finals are coming to an end. For this post I will discuss a case that has just been recently argued and yet to be decided upon that originated here in Pennsylvania. I will also discuss how I might rule if I was sitting in the Justice’s shoes. The case in question is Williams v. Pennsylvania, which oral arguments were heard at the end of February.

First off a little background of the case, before I tell you how I would decide. The petitioner, Terrance Williams, was convicted and sentenced to death for robbery and murder. He filed petitions for federal habeas relief and on the fourth petition, the state court said he provided ample evidence for governmental interference. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the decision and lifted the stay of execution.

The Chief Justice for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, was the District Attorney throughout Williams trial and sentencing. When Williams petition for the Justice to recluse himself, he refused and eventually joined the opinion that lifted the stay of execution. The question the court has to answer is that is the 8^th and 14^th of Terrance Williams were violated when the judge refused to recuse himself and whether those violations biased the other judges even if that judge was not ultimately decisive?

A small disclaimer before I tell you how I would decide is that I am not a judge and I do not know all the facts pertaining from this case, but I think I have a pretty good case.

I would say that I believe the petitioner’s rights were violated in this instance. With a case having such a magnitude on someone’s life, they deserve a fair trial provided to them by the Constitution. Any type of bias should be eliminated when determining the fate of an individual. However, at the same time I would also think that there would not be any bias towards the other judges in this case. The Judge is supposed to be the one who uses his own individual reasoning when determining the case. Even with the influence of one justice, I think that since his vote was not ultimately decisive, it did not violate any of his rights.

Looking back, the chief justice of the PA Supreme Court should have just recused himself and there would not have been this mess. Whatever the case may be, it will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court of the United States ultimately decides.

 

Evenwel v. Abbott

The next case discussed on this blog will be a case decided in the beginning of the month that was argued in December. That case is Evenwel v. Abbott. This case focuses on the redistricting plan in Texas that was signed into law. Just a day after our own primaries here Pennsylvania, we see a case arguing the redistricting in Texas.

First I will discuss some of the facts of the case. Sue Evenwel argued that the new redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. They said that the new plan was apportioned on population and not on voter registration and therefore did not adhere to “one person, one vote” which would violate the Equal Protection Clause.

The Court, not surprisingly, ruled a unanimous decision for Abbott. The said that states MAY use total population in drawing legislative districts. The Court said that the “one person, one vote” principle does allow for a state to define voting districts based purely on total population. The Court took from previous precedent and state practice that total population can determine if the districts are valid.

It would be interesting to see what the disparity is in registered voters between these districts and if they have any effect on elections. It brings up an interesting point about redistricting, but it lacked any legal precedent to back it. That is why in a pretty convincing fashion, the Supreme Court Justices ruled in favor of Abbott.

Also, with this unanimous decision, it did not open up the door for new methods of redistricting. Other methods could have included something like voter turnout, voter registration, or eligible voters. However, this was quickly squashed by the Supreme Court which they upheld the principle of “one person, one vote.”

 

Luis v. US

For this blog post, I will discuss a Supreme Court in Luis v. United States that was heard in November and decided in March. This post will discuss the case and some of the ramifications of that decision.

First off, a few facts about the case. Sila Luis was indicted for Medicare fraud for giving kickbacks. She tried to take away healthcare from millions of people and almost 45 million dollars. The government then filed to freeze her assets including those not directly related to the fraud. She argued that she needed these funds to hire a lawyer and granting the restraint on her assets would violate her right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment.

In a 5-3 decision for Luis, the court held that pretrial restraint of untainted assets to retain a lawyer violates the 6^th Amendment. An argument made by the majority was that since the assets were untainted by criminal behavior, they should not be restrained since the 6^th Amendment gives the right to use lawful property to pay for counsel and, the defendant’s right to afford counsel outweighs any government’s interest in freezing those untainted assets. The opinion also created a balancing test when determining what assets can be frozen.

The ruling for Luis provides more than ramifications of not being allowed to freeze untainted assets. In reality, it will relieve some of the public defender’s workload that is already overburdened. It is clear that the public defender’s in America are overworked and this decision will potentially remove future clients that would not be able to pay a criminal defense lawyer.

The major reason why I like the decision is because I have trouble seeing how the government freeze any funds from a defendant. We have the presumption of innocence and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. By freezing assets it seems that it would nullify this presumption. Mix the presumption of innocence and lessening the workload of public defenders, it seems I am in agreeance with this decision.

 

Blog Audit

As I am starting to catch up, I need to quickly take a post to audit my work so far. You can expect to have the rest of my post to be up to date by the end of the week. However, I would like to take this post to discuss what I have been talking about as well as talk about where it is going.

My blog posts start out by how I naturally intended the blog to be about. I talked about Montgomery v. Louisiana. My original intent for the blog was to discuss some of the bigger cases and their opinions. However, a couple of my posts have discussed some of the more interesting news on the Supreme Court. The abrupt death of Scalia and the new appointment make the Supreme Court a rather interesting topic this semester. However, even in these cases I still found a way to tie in a case to talk about.

My biggest surprise came to me when I realized that I didn’t know much about the Supreme Courts calendar or daily activities. While researching cases, I noticed that there were specific days set up for just hearing oral arguments, making opinions, etc.

That’s what I value the most is that it is very beneficial to use my blog to gain some background knowledge into the world of the U.S Supreme Court. It also helped me realize how much I didn’t know about the Supreme Court. Overall, it gives me up to date news surrounding the Supreme Court and some of its decisions.

Finally, moving forward I expect much of the same with the exception of being a little more organized and completely every post on time. I will continue to discuss more important cases while also adding some interesting news to the posts.

 

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Another day down, another day with only 8 sitting judges on the Supreme Court. Another case ends with a four to four deadlock. Even with a nominated justice looming over the court, there seems to be no headway in confirming him, instead congress and the courts will settle for a tie (perhaps).

Another deadlock came with Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. The case starts with a union becoming the exclusive bargaining representative for the school. In turn public employees are forced to either join or pay the dues of the union. The unions must however, send a breakdown of the fees where the employee has the option to opt out of the nonchargeable portion of the fee each year.

Then the public school employees sued the California Teachers Association saying that this requirement violated their First Amendment Rights. The district court said the precedent preclude its judgment to which the Ninth Circuit Confirmed. The case finally made its way to the Supreme Court where they had to answer whether the public- sector agency shop or the affirmatively having to opt-out violate First Amendment Rights.

And an 8 Justice court came back with an unsigned per curiam opinion. Once again, another deadlock in a case. And once again, the Supreme Court had to affirm the judgement of the lower court. Even though this seems to be a tie, conservatives can chalk it up to a loss. In a case that would probably went 5-4 leaning to the left, gets negated to the lower courts which did not rule that way. So even though there was a tie, it doesn’t seem like one.

And yet with another tie, we still do not seem rather close to confirm another justice to fill the vacancy. It seems that the conservative congress wants to hold up to allow the next president to make the appointment, but look at the sacrifice they are making in the meantime. And who knows, we could see a lot more of these cases in the meantime.

 

Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore

So I have been really slacking for these blogs (or maybe still grieving the death of Justice Scalia), either way I intend to catch up over the course of the next week. My first case back I will discuss Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore. This inconspicuous case shows some importance since it is the first four to four deadlock since the unexpected and abrupt death of Justice Scalia.

The case involves the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA). It started in 2005 when Community Bank gave loans to PHC Development. When PHC failed to make the payments, Community declared the loans default and demanded payment. Hawkins and Patterson sued community stating that the only reason they were required to execute their guaranties is because they were married. They argued that this discriminated on their marital status which was a violation of the ECOA.

The district court held that the wives did joined their husbands and they did not qualify under protections of the ECOA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision made by the district court.

Like previously noted, the Supreme Court’s decision was equally divided 4 to 4. The court had an unsigned per curiam opinion where there was no decision rendered by the court. Thus, the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit was upheld.

This case seems rather inconspicuous, but its implications might run deeper than a case regarding the ECOA. This case marks the first tie since Scalia’s death. Without a new justice being confirmed, the court might see more of these cases deadlocked. The Supreme Court is supposed to make a decision that everyone is supposed to follow. However, when they cannot even make a decision, some important cases and points may never be brought up. Hypothetically speaking what if Brown v. Board of Education was a tie. The court would have let the decision up to lower courts, and we still might have segregation today. You never know when a landmark case will need to be decided, and without a full court the outcome could be detrimental. (ObamaCare)

Justice Thomas Said What?

In the first time in a decade Justice Clarence Thomas spoke during an oral argument. This comes in the first case following Justice Scalia’s death. In the oral argument of Voisine v. United States, asked the attorney general his first question in 10 years. His last questions came in a death penalty cases in Holmes v. South Carolina.

Before discussing the breaking of Justice Thomas’ silence, I will give a little background of the feature case this week in the blog, Voisine v. United States. It starts with Stephen Voisine being convicted of assaulting a women who he had a relationship with. Under a Maine statute, that penalty is also considered to be a misdemeanor domestic violence assault if the victim is a family member or living with the attacker. Then later on, Voisine was later arrested for killing a bald eagle. (How un-American?) During the investigation a gun was found which is against a federal statute saying that someone convicted of a domestic assault cannot own a firearm. The question the Supreme Court was left to answer was whether the misdemeanor crime in Maine which only require recklessness constitutes the same as a federal violation of domestic violence?

Justice Thomas’s first question in 10 years? “Can you give me another area where a misdemeanor violation suspends a constitutional right?” Finally, the justice has spoken (asked a question in the oral argument). Justice Thomas was considered to have the same “Originalism” mindset of Justice Scalia, who bombarded attorneys with questions in oral arguments. Now with Scalia gone, we could see Thomas speaking up to help convey his thoughts in oral argument. However it might not be the case, Justice Thomas was for allowing the attorneys to convey their argument in their short allowance of 30 minutes. (Sounds like a guy you want judging on your moot court) With Scalia gone, he might need to speak up some more.

It is interesting that the first case heard since Scalia’s death was the case the Thomas his silence. Bet hey, it might just be a coincidence. Going forward, I will be on the lookout for any more questions present by Justice Thomas. Maybe it will be this term, or maybe we will have to wait another 10 years for him to break his silence again. My bet is on the former instead of the latter.

 

Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016)

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association (2016). In this week’s edition of Just Another SCOTUS Blog, we mourn the sudden death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016). Justice Scalia was a conservative textualist who served on the Supreme Court for nearly 30 years. A death on the Supreme Court is rare, only Chief Justice William Rehnquist has died in office since the 1950s. Just like studies suggest, Justices are more likely to die when the President is of the opposing party.

As a tribute to Justice Scalia, I will discuss his last written dissent. That dissent came in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association (2016). This case does not have much meaning outside the electric power industry, but essentially they ruled in a 6-2 decision that “Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decision to compensate demand response providers at the same price paid to generators is not arbitrary and capricious.” Justice Scalia in the dissent argued that the “plain language” of the Federal Power Act does not allow the FERC to regulate them.

As we see, Justice Scalia held textualism close to his heart, which was evident in his final dissent. This innocuous dissent just epitomizes the nature of Justice Scalia’s tenure on the bench. Furthermore, it will be interesting moving forward with the court. This will be President Obama’s chance at a lasting legacy with the court, but it will be difficult for him and Congress to agree on a replacement due to the split partisanship. Also, the Court will not have the 5-4 conservative vote that was expected on these major upcoming cases. And with a 4-4 tie, the case reverts back to the decision of the lower courts. This ‘conservative’ court will likely change, it will be interesting to the politics involved in the new appointment process.

Hanging on from the Raegan era, Justice Scalia will surely be missed by the staunch conservatives trying to hold on to the tiny margin of rulings. He will also be missed by many because of some of his boisterous and amusing dissents. However, this could be good news for liberals, and an opportunity to shift the ideology of the court. Whatever the case may be, hopefully he is in judge heaven writing all the dissents his little heart desires.

 

Campbell-Ewald Co v. Gomez

This week’s edition of my blog will include, Campbell-Ewald Co v. Gomez (2016), a case we discussed in class. The case starts out with Jose Gomez receiving a text message which advertised the United States Navy that was created by Campbell- Ewald Company and the actual sending was outsourced to Mindmatics. Gomez sued Campbell- Ewald for allowing Mindmatics to send these unwanted text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Then Gomez rejected a settlement offered by Campbell Ewald which caused them to move to dismiss the case since the rejection of the settlement made the case moot. After the motion was denied, Campbell- Ewald argued that the company had sovereign immunity since it was acting on behalf of the government.

The case finally made it to the Supreme Court in which it had to answer two questions. The first being: does a case become moot when the plaintiff receives complete compensation under the law? And the second being: does sovereign immunity apply in this situation where Campbell Ewald was acting on behalf of the government?

In 6-3 decision, Ruth Bader Ginsburg addresses the court by saying that an unaccepted settlement offer does not make a claim moot. They reasoned that just like other areas of like, specifically in contracts, a refusal has no force or obligation. The court also held that sovereign immunity does not apply since they violated federal law and the government’s instructions.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his dissent that since relief was available, the plaintiff no longer had any stake in the outcome of the case. Since he didn’t have a stake, there was no controversy which would render the case moot. He also argued that contract law does not apply to whether there is still a controversy in the case.

Now for a little of my own thoughts about the case. First off, the text message read, “DESTINED FOR SOMETHING BIG? DO IT IN THE NAVY, GET A CAREER. AN EDUCATION. AND A CHANCE TO SERVE A GREATER CAUSE.” It seems like a rather innocuous text message that started the lawsuit and I wonder how Gomez new it was against the law and could receive damages from it. Gomez did decline the settlement because he didn’t want this larger company to pay him off before a class-action suit could be formed.

When it comes to the decision of the Supreme Court, I feel that they got this one right. It seemed that every step of the way Campbell- Ewald was trying to avoid harsher punishments for their wrongdoings which included just paying the guy off to trying to claim sovereign immunity. I agreed with the court’s logic of contract law and a refusal of the offer does not create an obligation. I also agreed with the ruling on sovereign immunity because of how Campbell- Ewald violated the government’s expressed emotions. I feel that Campbell- Ewald was trying to hide behind sovereign immunity to prevent from paying damages. Finally, this ruling limits the scope of sovereign immunity which will benefit future plaintiffs from the blanket claims of sovereign immunity.