The SCOTUS Thread

[HARK!]

10 to go!

 

[Pommer]

21.)

• The issue: The case involves whether North Carolina legislators may intervene to defend the state’s voter identification law in constitutional challenges and lawsuits concerning the Voting Rights Act. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

• The questions presented:
  1. "Whether a state agent authorized by state law to defend the State’s interest in litigation must overcome a presumption of adequate representation to intervene as of right in a case in which a state official is a defendant.
  2. "Whether a district court’s determination of adequate representation in ruling on a motion to intervene as of right is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion.
  3. "Whether Petitioners are entitled to intervene as of right in this litigation."[2]

Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP - SCOTUS

Won’t this ruling put the legislatures of the several states at odds with the Executive Branches?

The legislature, in this case, went to court because they were concerned that their Executive branch wasn’t going to do their jobs and vigorously defend the statute.

How doesn’t this violate the separation-of-powers doctrine that underpins our Constitutional system?

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Nice thread!

I imagine the Supreme Court will not give their Abortion decision till the end for their own sake if it strikes down Roe

1) For their own sake, so they can go away to a secret location or maybe holiday overseas while the rioting starts (A few police or Secret service standing guard by their homes may not be enough).

2) For the sake of 4th of July Fireworks!

 

[HARK!]

How doesn’t this violate the separation-of-powers doctrine that underpins our Constitutional system?

Why shouldn't a legislator have a right to file a lawsuit just like anyone else; and how would doing so violate the separation of powers?

 

[Pommer]

Why shouldn't a legislator have a right to file a lawsuit just like anyone else; and how would doing so violate the separation of powers?

It’s using the judiciary to enforce the legislature’s will upon the Executive branch’s authority as to how best to defend the laws that the legislature passes (in this particular case, as an override of the Governor’s veto).

 

[HARK!]

24.)

Holding: For purposes of calculating the Medicare fraction — one of two fractions the Medicare program uses to adjust the rates paid to hospitals that serve a higher-than-usual percentage of low-income patients — those individuals “entitled to [Medicare Part A] benefits” are all those qualifying for the program, regardless of whether they receive Medicare payments for part or all of a hospital stay.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 24, 2022. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined.

Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation - SCOTUSblog

Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

25.)

• The case: In 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a clinic and abortion facility in Mississippi, challenged the constitutionality of the "Gestational Age Act" in federal court. The law, enacted March 19, 2018, prohibited abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities. The U.S. district court granted Refers to a judgment granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of fact and to which the party moving for judgment prevails as a matter of law.
  
  ">summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the law was unconstitutional, and put a permanent stop to the law's enforcement. On appeal, the 5th Circuit The action of an appellate court confirming a lower court's decision.
  
  ">affirmed the district court's ruling. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

• The issue: The case concerns the constitutionality of a Mississippi state law prohibiting abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities, and the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).[1]

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. - SCOTUS

 

[Pavel Mosko]

25.)

• The case: In 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a clinic and abortion facility in Mississippi, challenged the constitutionality of the "Gestational Age Act" in federal court. The law, enacted March 19, 2018, prohibited abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities. The U.S. district court granted Refers to a judgment granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of fact and to which the party moving for judgment prevails as a matter of law.
  
  ">summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the law was unconstitutional, and put a permanent stop to the law's enforcement. On appeal, the 5th Circuit The action of an appellate court confirming a lower court's decision.
  
  ">affirmed the district court's ruling. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

• The issue: The case concerns the constitutionality of a Mississippi state law prohibiting abortions after the fifteenth week of pregnancy except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities, and the Supreme Court's decisions in Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).[1]

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. - SCOTUS

I take it this is the big case everybody has been anticipating.

I hear if it goes in favor of conservatives it won't really matter that much. The blue states that value abortion the most have Roe enshrined in their state constitutions, it will only affect some red states.

 

[HARK!]

I hear if it goes in favor of conservatives it won't really matter that much. The blue states that value abortion the most have Roe enshrined in their state constitutions, it will only affect some red states.

Let the children of the Red States proliferate. Glory to YHWH!

 

[Desk trauma]

I take it this is the big case everybody has been anticipating.

I hear if it goes in favor of conservatives it won't really matter that much. The blue states that value abortion the most have Roe enshrined in their state constitutions, it will only affect some red states.

It will be all about states rights right up until there is a republican congress and president then it’s going to be no longer be a states rights issue.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It will be all about states rights right up until there is a republican congress and president then it’s going to be no longer be a states rights issue.

why do you say that?

 

[Desk trauma]

why do you say that?

Long experience with politics.

 

[Pommer]

why do you say that?

Since Texas repudiated “states’ rights” with their ill-fated lawsuit against states following their own elections laws (and courts), the conservative principle is no more.

 

[Desk trauma]

Since Texas repudiated “states’ rights” with their ill-fated lawsuit against states following their own elections laws (and courts), the conservative principle is no more.

Oh it’s only no more when that is to their advantage.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Oh it’s only no more when that is to their advantage.

LOLOLOL......that's not a repudiation of states rights.
Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So point out in the article where you think Texas repudiated states right.......I dare you to try.....really SMH on this one......

 

[civilwarbuff]

Since Texas repudiated “states’ rights” with their ill-fated lawsuit against states following their own elections laws (and courts), the conservative principle is no more.

See #75........and attempt to answer the question......I dare you......

 

[BBAS 64]

The Court has ruled on the Praying coach. The coach wins (6-3)


"That Mr. Kennedy used available time to pray does

not transform his speech into government speech. Acknowledging that

Mr. Kennedy’s prayers represented his own private speech means he

has carried his threshold burden"



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf

 

[HARK!]

26.)

HIGHLIGHTS

• The case: In both Ruan v. United States and Kahn v. United States, medical doctors are appealing their convictions for unlawful distribution of controlled substances under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA) after they were found to have prescribed narcotics outside the usual course of professional practice. Both defendant doctors attempted to use a good faith defense to counter the charges against them at trial and, after their convictions, appealed the way in which the trial judges instructed, or failed to instruct, the jury on the defense. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Parties presenting a petition to an appellate court for relief on appeal.
  
  ">petitioners Ruan and Kahn asked the court to weigh in on the standard and elements required to assert a good faith defense under the CSA.[2][3] Click here to learn more about the cases' background details.

• The issue: The cases concern the good faith defense available to defendants charged under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act.

The question presented: "[W]hether a physician alleged to have prescribed controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice may be convicted under Section 841(a)(1) without regard to whether, in good faith, he “reasonably believed” or “subjectively intended” that his prescriptions fall within that course of professional practice.

Ruan v. United States


Ruan v. United States - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

27.)

HIGHLIGHTS

• The issue: The case concerns sentencing requirements and reductions for drug offenses under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and the First Step Act. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

The questions presented: "Whether, when deciding if it should "impose a reduced sentence" on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, 21 U.S.C. § 841 note, a district court must or may consider intervening legal and factual developments."

Concepcion v. United States



Concepcion v. United States - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

28.)


HIGHLIGHTS

• The case: High school football coach Joseph Kennedy prayed at midfield following the conclusion of games. The school district told Kennedy this violated school board policy and required him to stop so as not to violate the Constitution's establishment clause. Kennedy stated that he would not comply. The school district attempted to accommodate Kennedy's expressions, but Kennedy declined the offers and prayed on the field again after two more games. Kennedy was placed on administrative leave. Kennedy sued the school in U.S. district court for violating his right to free speech. The court ruled that the school district suspended Kennedy solely to avoid violating the establishment clause. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judgment. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

• The issue: The case concerns religious expression at a public school and the Constitution's establishment clause.

The questions presented:
"1. Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection.
"2. Whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it."


Kennedy v. Bremerton School District


Kennedy v. Bremerton School District - SCOTUS