The SCOTUS Thread

HARK! · Jun 29, 2022

29.)

HIGHLIGHTS

The case: The A party petitioning an appellate court to consider its case.

">petitioner Le Roy Torres served in the U.S. Army and is a former state trooper in Texas. While deployed, Torres sustained lung damage. Upon his honorable discharge, Torres sought employment with the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) but requested to be placed in a different position other than as a state trooper, as his lung damage precluded him from performing all of his duties. DPS declined the request and offered him a temporary position as a state trooper, stating that if he did not report to duty, his employment would be terminated. Torres resigned. Later, he sued DPS in state court for violating the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) by not accommodating him. DPS moved to dismiss the case, citing sovereign immunity from USERRA lawsuits. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, the Texas Thirteenth District Court of Appeals granted DPS' motion. Torres appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

The issue: The case concerns the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and sovereign immunity.

The questions presented: Whether U.S. Congress has the authority to authorize lawsuits against nonconsenting states according to its constitutional war powers.[2]

Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety

Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety - SCOTUS

HARK! · Jun 29, 2022

30.)

HIGHLIGHTS

The issue: The case concerns state authority in Indian country and the scope of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the case McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020). Click here to learn more about the case's background.

The questions presented:
"1. Whether a State has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.
"2. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta - SCOTUS

BBAS 64 · Jun 30, 2022

Last 2 will be out today:

State (VA) vs EPA
Remain in Mexico policy

BBAS 64 · Jun 30, 2022

Good Day,

EPA losses in court:

Independent Federal agencies power is curtailed greatly, which will keep regulations in check.

"Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act
the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting
approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan. Pp. 16–31." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

Green Sun · Jun 30, 2022

Supreme Court restricts the EPA's authority to mandate carbon emissions reductions

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a major blow to the Environmental Protection Agency's power to regulate carbon emissions that cause climate change. The decision by the conservative court majority sets the stage for further limitations on the regulatory power of other agencies as well.

By a vote of 6 to 3, the court said that any time an agency does something big and new – in this case addressing climate change – the regulation is presumptively invalid, unless Congress has specifically authorized regulating in this sphere.

The decision was a particularly bad omen for environmentalists. In a very real sense, it seemed to reject any holistic regulatory attempt to deal with climate change.

What's more, the way the court dealt with the case is an indication of its new and very muscular approach to regulations in general. After all, when the case was initially before the court, for all practical purposes, there was no regulation in place. The Obama rule had been put on hold by the court and then repealed by the Trump administration; the Trump rule had similarly been paused, and the Biden administration said it would not adopt either the Obama or Trump approach. So it would have been easy, indeed, even expected, that the Supreme Court would toss the whole case out and wait for a new rule to be adopted.

As Case Western Reserve professor Jonathan Adler put it, "The fact that the court took the case shows that these are justices in a hurry" – in a hurry to rewrite the nation's regulatory laws in a way not seen in three quarters of a century.

It saddens me greatly that we have an entire political wing of this country that seemingly wants to accelerate climate change.

Quite literally, billions of future lives will suffer if we don't work our hardest to reduce our emissions, reduce our pollution. And it saddens me that the idea of making the world a healthier place to live, so that our future generations can thrive is considered "political" by those on the right.

HARK! · Jun 30, 2022

Green Sun said:
It saddens me greatly that we have an entire political wing of this country that seemingly wants to accelerate climate change.

Quite literally, billions of future lives will suffer if we don't work our hardest to reduce our emissions, reduce our pollution. And it saddens me that the idea of making the world a healthier place to live, so that our future generations can thrive is considered "political" by those on the right.

It saddens me that a greedy Authoritarian Oligarchy are using bunk science to blame man, and subject him to oppression, for an event that is a natural cycle.

BBAS 64 · Jun 30, 2022

Green Sun said:
Supreme Court restricts the EPA's authority to mandate carbon emissions reductions

It saddens me greatly that we have an entire political wing of this country that seemingly wants to accelerate climate change.

Quite literally, billions of future lives will suffer if we don't work our hardest to reduce our emissions, reduce our pollution. And it saddens me that the idea of making the world a healthier place to live, so that our future generations can thrive is considered "political" by those on the right.

Good Day, Green Sun

What does you assertion have to do with the Courts ruling regarding over reach on the part of the EPA?

In Him,

Bill

Pommer · Jun 30, 2022

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day, Green Sun

What does you assertion have to do with the Courts ruling regarding over reach on the part of the EPA?

In Him,

Bill

If the EPA does not (as the Court says) have the authority that the Congress delegated to it to regulate carbon emissions, then which agency does?
None?
______
Or…should congress be charged with writing EPA’s “authority” out, with detailed, “in-the-weeds” legislation to spell out exactly EPA’s scope really is?

KCfromNC · Jul 1, 2022

Green Sun said:
It saddens me greatly that we have an entire political wing of this country that seemingly wants to accelerate climate change.

I think it is more that they want zero restrictions on business. The resulting climate change, pollution of drinking water, and so on are just collateral damage that they're likely neutral on.

The SCOTUS Thread

HARK!

שמע

More options

HARK!

שמע

More options

BBAS 64

Contributor

More options

BBAS 64

Contributor

More options

Green Sun

404: Star not found

More options

HARK!

שמע

More options

BBAS 64

Contributor

More options

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

More options

KCfromNC

Regular Member

More options

Similar threads

The SCOTUS Thread

שמע

שמע

Contributor

Contributor

404: Star not found

שמע

Contributor

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Regular Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency