-
Recent Posts
Search
Welcome to DCW
Upcoming Events
7/15/24 - GOP Convention
TBD - Democratic Convention
11/5/24 - Election DayTools
Archives
Tag Cloud
2008 Democratic National Convention 2012 Democratic National Convention 2012 Republican National Convention 2016 Democratic National Convention 2016 Republican National Convention 2020 Census 2020 Delegate Selection Plans 2020 Democratic Convention 2024 Democratic Convention 2024 Republican Convention Abortion Affordable Care Act Alabama Arizona Bernie Sanders California Delegate Selection Donald Trump Florida Free Exercise Clause Free Speech Georgia Hillary Clinton Immigration Iowa Joe Biden John Kasich Kansas Maine Marco Rubio Michigan Missouri Nevada New Hampshire North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania redistricting South Carolina Supreme Court Ted Cruz Texas Virginia Voting Rights Act WisconsinDCW in the News
Blog Roll
Site Info
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- DocJess on GOP convention plans remain in flux
- tmess2 on Dems prepare for virtual voting by delegates
- DocJess on GOP Jacksonville money woes continue
- DocJess on Dems prepare for virtual voting by delegates
- tmess2 on GOP now looking at outdoor Jacksonville convention
Archives
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- March 2014
- January 2014
- August 2013
- August 2012
- November 2011
- August 2011
- January 2011
- May 2010
- January 2009
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
Categories
- 2019-nCoV
- 2020 Convention
- 2020 General Election
- 2020DNC
- 2024 Convention
- 2028 Convention
- Anti-Semitism
- Bernie Sanders
- Charlotte
- Chicago
- Civil Rights
- Cleveland
- Climate Change
- Coronavirus
- Coronavirus Tips
- COVID-19
- Debates
- Delegate Count
- Delegates
- Democratic Debates
- Democratic Party
- Democrats
- DemsinPhilly
- DemsInPHL
- Disaster
- DNC
- Donald Trump
- Economy
- Elections
- Electoral College
- Federal Budget
- Freedom of the Press
- General Election Forecast
- GOP
- Healthcare
- Hillary Clinton
- Holidays
- Hotels
- House of Representatives
- Houston
- Identity Politics
- Impeachment
- Iowa Caucuses
- Jacksonville
- Joe Biden
- Judicial
- LGBT
- Mariner Pipeline
- Merrick Garland
- Meta
- Milwaukee
- Money in Politics
- Music
- National Security
- Netroots Nation
- New Yor
- New York
- NH Primary
- Notes from Your Doctor
- NoWallNoBan
- Pandemic
- Philadelphia
- PHLDNC2016
- Platform
- Politics
- Polls
- Presidential Candidates
- Primary and Caucus Results
- Primary Elections
- Public Health
- Rant
- Republican Debates
- Republicans
- Resist
- RNC
- Russia
- Senate
- Snark
- Student Loan Debt
- Sunday with the Senators
- Superdelegates
- Syria
- The Politics of Hate
- Uncategorized
- Vaccines
- War
- Weekly White House Address
Meta
Tag Archives: Free Speech
Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 1
We are three weeks away from the First Monday in October which means that the Supreme Court will soon be back in session. Putting to the side the continued questions about the ethical failings of certain ultra-conservative justices (who unfortunately would never be convicted by the Senate even in the unlikely event that the more ethically-challenged Republican caucus in the House would actually allow articles of impeachment to pass), that means time to look ahead to the politically-significant cases on this year’s docket.
For a brief refresher, during its annual term, the U.S. Supreme Court sits in seven argument sessions. Each of these argument sessions lasts for two weeks. After five of these argument sessions, the U.S. Supreme Court takes a two-week break (with longer breaks over the holidays and after the January argument session). Typically, for ease of convenience, the sessions are referred to as the October, November, December, January, February, March, and April sessions even though some sessions will begin in one month and conclude in another month (like the November session this year which will begin on October 30). During the argument session, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. If one of those days is a holiday, that day is skipped. There is no firm rule (as the Supreme Court will make adjustments if the docket requires it), but a “full” docket will have two arguments in the morning on each day. Subject to adjustment if a third party (usually the Solicitor General if a case involves a federal statute) is permitted to argue, the party that lost below gets thirty minutes to argue and answer questions followed by thirty minutes for the party that won below followed by a brief rebuttal argument by the party that lost below.
On the Friday before the argument session, the justices meet to review pending petitions for review and to finalize any opinions to be released the following week. There are similar conferences on the Fridays on the weeks in which there are arguments at which the justices also discuss the arguments that were heard that week and take an initial vote on those cases which is used to assign a justice to write an opinion. On the Mondays of argument week (and the Monday after the argument week), the Supreme Court releases on order list announcing the decision on pending petitions for review. In the early part of the term, there might be a separate list announcing the cases accepted for review on Friday to give the parties additional time to start preparing their briefs (the written arguments on the case) as the time schedule gets rather tight for completing the briefs before the oral argument. Because of those time limits on the written briefs, the January argument session is effectively the cut-off date for a case being heard during the term. If review is granted after January, the case is held for the following term. Thus, the cases that we are about to discuss are those that the Supreme Court granted review on between February and June. (On rare occasions, as it did for one case this year, the Supreme Court may add a case during its summer recess, but the norm is that — other than emergency matters — the period between July 1 and October 1 is quiet.) The cases that they will accept (some of which may be discussed in Part III of this preview) in the next several weeks will be argued in the second half of this term.
Posted in Civil Rights, House of Representatives, Judicial
Also tagged Americans with Disabilities Act, appropriations, Entitlements, Equal Protection, redistricting, Second Amendment, Social Security, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 1
Immigration Week at the Supreme Court
While the timing of the release of cases by the Supreme Court is somewhat random, ocassionally, we get several unrelated cases in the same area of law. This week, out of eight cases released by the Supreme Court, three were somewhat significant immigration cases.
The most favorable for immigrants, and the one most likely to be significant for other areas of law was United States vs. Texas. The basic facts of this case is that the law on immigration mandates that the government pursue “removal” (i.e. deportation) against a wide range of immigrants — both those who unlawfully entered the U.S. (or unlawfully remained after their authorization expired) and those who have engaged in some act which justifies terminating the authorization to remain in the U.S. The problem is that (as is true for other areas of criminal and civil law enforcement) enforcing the law takes resources. You need agents to investigate, attorney to handle the cases on behalf of the U.S., and judges to hear the cases once they are brought. And Congress is only willing to budget for a certain number of agents, attorneys, and immigration judges. Thus, the enforcement agency (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement which is part of the Department of Homeland Security) has to set priorities. In setting priorities, it is conceivable that an agency could pursue a “first in” policy in which it pursues all cases in the order in which they come in. But that creates a never ending backlog in which the most serious cases get delayed. On the other hand, the government can decide which casses qualify as the “most serious” and let “minor” cases slide. Every administration for the past fifty years has set (and over the course of the administration adjusted) its own priorities.
In the past, states have typically recognized that federal government decisions are federal government decisions and that the states have no authority to challenge the decisions. But in recent years, state Attorney Generals have switched from building up their reputation via criminal cases to filing frivolous claims against the federal government. So today, every decision made by the federal government inevitably results in Attorney Generals of the other party filing a suit on behalf of their state. And thus, when the Biden Administration implemented its priorities for enforcing immigration law, red state Attorney Generals led by accused felon Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, filed suit claiming that the policy was improperly adopted (claiming that such a directive needed to be adopted through the same process as a formal regulation) and failed to comply with the statutory mandate. Because this case was filed in federal court in Texas (heard by a very Trumpy judge) and appealed to the Fifth Circuit, the lower courts were more than willing to grant relief to Texas and bar the Biden priorities. The United States Supreme Court reversed finding that the states lacked “standing” (or in plain English, the right to sue). Stripped to its essence, the Supreme Court found that, while the failure to more vigorously enforce immigration laws might, in some way, harm the states, finding that the government’s priorities were in some sense wrong would not eliminate the harm. In short, enforcement priorities are inherently a matter of discretionary decision making by the Executive branch and it would be improper for the courts to interfere with that discretionary authority.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Immigration, standing, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Immigration Week at the Supreme Court
Supreme Court Mid-Term Update
As a New Year starts, the Supreme Court returns on Monday for the first of four argument sessions. This term is already shaping up as a weird term. By the fourth argument session of the term, you typically have at least one opinion from an argued case and a handful of opinions granting summary reversals in cases in which the lower courts clearly erred. While the bigger “political” cases normally take longer, the Supreme Court also takes “routine” cases that simply involve conflicting interpretations of statutes and regulations by different circuits. It is not unusual for these cases to be resolved by unanimous opinions. Maybe it’s just that none of the October cases (with the exception of the Andy Warhol case) fits that criteria, but the lack of an opinion is unusual.
At this point, the first half of the term saw some rather significant cases that will undoubtedly get attention when they are decided — the Voting Rights Act dispute regarding Alabama’s new district lines and the failure to create a second majority minority district (which will also impact the lines in Florida, Georgia, and Lousiana); the challenges to the Affirmative Action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina; the challenge to the Indian Child Welfare Act; challenges to the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to set priorities related to deportation; whether state courts can use state constitutions to regulate congressional redistricting; and whether there is a free speech exception to civil rights laws (specifically those barring discrimination based on sexual orientation).
The January session should be relatively quiet. There are two labor cases on the docket — one involving the weird hybrid status of certain national guard employees and whether that hybrid statute makes them subject to certain protections for federal workers and the other whether an employer can maintain a state tort against a labor union for timing the start of the strike to damage the property of the employer.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Affirmative Action, civil rights, Independent State Legislature, Indian Child Welfare Act, Supreme Court, Voting Right Act
Comments Off on Supreme Court Mid-Term Update
Supreme Court — End of Term Preview 2022
Normally, by this time of the year, the Supreme Court term is coming into focus. With three weeks to go, typically, there is one or two cases left from the Fall. While there are always question marks, it is possible to try to figure out results in the key case by who is in the running for getting the remaining opinions from a month.
This year is different. There are still 29 opinions outstanding out of 62 cases. While there have been years with more opinions outstanding heading into the last three weeks, those years were back when the Supreme Court was hearing a lot more cases per year.
To date, almost all of the opinions have been in cases that (other than the parties) mostly interested those practicing in that field. The biggest attention getting case was the decision reinstating (at least for now) the death penalty against the surviving Boston Marathon bomber. The legally biggest case of the year so far also came from Boston in a Free Exercise/Free Speech case involving Boston’s refusal to let a Christian group use one of the city’s flagpoles in connection with an event even though it routinely gave such permission to nonreligious groups. That decision may be an indicator of the likely result in some of the remaining cases, but it was merely a continuation of the recent trend in Free Exercise cases.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, EPA, Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, Second Amendment, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court — End of Term Preview 2022
The Supreme Court this Week — Puerto Rico and Signs
We are nearing the turn for home of the current Supreme Court term. This upcoming week is the last week of arguments for the term. After the upcoming Friday conference, the Supreme Court will take its last two-week recess which will be followed by several weeks of issuing opinions until all of the opinions are done.
Thursday saw the first large opinion dump from the Supreme Court. This post will focus on the two with the most political significance.
First up is the latest on Puerto Rico. The U.S. Constitution implicitly assumes that territorial status is temporary with Congress having ultimate control over the territory and the laws that apply in the territory until it can become a state. On the other hand, once a territory becomes a state, it has equal status to other states.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Puerto Rico, signs, Social Security, Supreme Court
Comments Off on The Supreme Court this Week — Puerto Rico and Signs
Supreme Court October Term 2021 Preview — Part I
Once again, it’s that time of year. Every year, the Supreme Court starts a new term on the first Monday in October. This is the first full term for the new alignment of justices. While one term is not enough to predict the future, it seems that we have a 2-3-1-2-1 court with Justices Thomas and Alito on the far right with the three Trump justices (it is unclear where they line up and there are some weird issues where they flip) on the right, Chief Justice Roberts on the center-right, Justices Breyer and Kagan on the center-left and Justice Sotomayor on the left.
As noted in pervious years, the Supreme Court follows a routine during their sittings of four week cycles (a/k/a argument sessions). In Week 1, the Supreme Court issues an “order list” on Monday , holds arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, and meets in a conference on Friday. The same thing occurs in Week 2. In Week 3, there is an order list issued on Monday. Finally, in Week 4, the Supreme Court meets in a conference on Friday. At the conference, the Supreme Court reviews that weeks arguments (if any) and takes a tentative vote on each of the cases. Based on that vote, the senior justice in the majority (either the Chief Justice or the longest serving Associate Justice) gets to decide which justice gets the opinion. Also at the conference, the Supreme Court reviews some of the pending petitions for certiorari (the formal name for an application seeking Supreme Court review of a lower court decision). (If a justice believes that an application potentially should be granted, it is added to the agenda for the weekly conference. If no justice believes that an application should be granted, it is denied.) During the first half of the term, the Supreme Court tends to announce grants of certiorari immediately after the conference to give the parties three more days to complete their written legal arguments (called briefs). The Monday order list includes any grants not previously announced, some summary reversals (which is supposed to be limited to lower court decisions that are so clearly wrong that further argument is not needed), and, mostly, denials of certiorari. As noted above, most cases are denied at the initial conference (and the Supreme Court website contains a feature that allows you to run a docket search on a case to see its current status). In recent years, if the Supreme Court is interested in a case, the justices have typically “relisted” the case for a second conference to make sure that there is no procedural flaw that will prevent consideration of the main issue. While the Supreme Court typically has a four-week cycle, the December and January sessions tend to have a six week cycle (to push the January sitting past New Year’s Day and to get the February session past the worst part of winter). If there are opinions on argued cases, they can be announced at any time but usually are announced immediately before the Tuesday and Wednesday arguments. The Supreme Court calendar features seven argument sessions. After the last argument session, May and June are spent finalizing the remaining opinions from the year. After the Supreme Court releases its last opinion, they recess for the summer. Even during the summer recess, there are still some orders — periodic order lists addressing motions for rehearing (which are routinely denied) and miscellaneous orders on emergency application).
As noted above, during the argument sessions, there are six days set for argument (unless a holiday falls on one of those six days). On a typical day, there are two arguments (of approximately one hour each) in the morning. Rarely, there are additional afternoon arguments. More often, there is only one argument on a day. The argument docket for a month tends to be released approximately two months prior to the argument. There are currently nine cases set for October and nine cases set for November.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, First Amendment, free exercise, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Second Amendment, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court October Term 2021 Preview — Part I
Supreme Court — The Final Week (Updated)
This past week was a busy week with the justices issuing eleven opinions which means that there are only five cases left to be decided — two of which are extremely significant.
As discussed in last week’s post, the Supreme Court tries to keep assignments to each justice balanced both within each month and as the term progresses. That gives us a clue as to which justice could have an opinion. But within each month, once you have identified the candidates, it is pure speculation as to which justice seems most likely to have the opinion. And as we have already seen several times this term, trying to guess which justice will get assigned the opinion from the potential candidate will often be wrong. For example, last week, I guessed that Chief Justice Roberts was most likely to have Brnovich (the voting rights case) from February. While the Chief Justice did have a February opinion, it ended up being Arthex — a patent case involving the Appointments clause. Similarly, many had the Chief Justice writing the Obamacare case from November with the Justice Alito writing Fulton, but Justice Breyer got the Obamacare case and the Chief Justice got Fulton.
The big question is how many opinions each justice will get. With fifty-four opinions and nine justices, each justice in theory should have six opinions. But Justice Barrett started one month late. Currently, Justice Thomas has seven opinions which means that, at least one justice should have five opinions). So far, Justice Barrett has been one opinion behind the pace for the entire term (one through November, three through February). As such it seems like Justice Barrett will end up with five opinions for the term with Justice Thomas having the extra opinion and the remaining justices having six opinions each. The problem with that theory is that Justice Breyer had the extra opinion in October/November and Justice Thomas did not pick up the extra opinion until April. So does Justice Breyer still have one opinion left (in which case he is due for one in the December-February period and some other justice besides Justice Barrett only has five opinions)? Or did that extra opinion migrate over the course of the term (in which case any justice with only five opinions for the term could be the justice who had the extra opinion at the end of February)?
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Supreme Court, Voting Rights Act
Comments Off on Supreme Court — The Final Week (Updated)
October Term 2020 — Supreme Court Preview (Part One)
Last night, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg lost her fight against cancer. In the upcoming days, much will be written commemorating her long fight for justice. Much will also be written about the politics of appointing her replacement (and I will almost certainly be putting in my two cents). But very little pauses the Supreme Court calendar, and the Supreme Court’s term effectively begins next week when the justices will meet (either with appropriate social distancing in a large conference room or via teleconferencing) for the annual “long” conference that reviews all of the applications for review that have piled up over the summer. The following week — on the First Monday in October — the Supreme Court will commence hearing argument on this term’s cases.
Before starting a look at the cases on the docket, three key things to note. First, until the Ginsburg vacancy is filled, there will only be eight justices on a case (barring a recusal). That creates the possibility of a 4-4 tie. In the case of a 4-4 tie, there are two options. On the one hand, the Supreme Court can “affirm by an equally divided court.” Such a decision leaves the lower court ruling in place for the parties involved in the case, but is not a precedent for future cases. On the other hand, the Supreme Court can set the case for re-argument when there is a full court. It is really up to the justices to decide which option to take. Second, who ultimately fills the vacancy will impact the outcome of a small number of cases, but those cases tend to be the most significant. Third, at least for the October argument session (the Supreme Court term typically consists of seven argument sessions of two weeks each) and probably for most of this term, the Supreme Court will be holding its arguments by teleconference with each justice, taking turns by seniority, getting approximately three minutes per party to ask questions to the attorney. The audio from these arguments will be livestreamed by several news organizations.
October is likely to be the calm before the storm. Back last Spring, the Supreme Court had to cancel the March and April argument sessions. The Supreme Court decided to hold a special May argument session, but only put the most important (and politically sensitive) cases into that argument session. That left about half of the cases that would have been heard in March or April on the docket. Those cases are being heard in October. The biggest case in October is probably the first case up for argument — Carney v. Adams. This case arises from Delaware. Delaware requires that judges on the top three courts be balanced with no more than a one-judge majority for either major party with the other judges coming from the other major party. So, on a seven judge court, there would likely be four Democratic judges and three Republican judges. The claim presented to the Supreme Court is that conditioning eligibility for a judicial vacancy on an applicant’s partisan affiliation violates the First Amendment rights of potential judicial applicants.
Posted in Civil Rights, Healthcare, Judicial
Also tagged Affordable Care Act, Employee Benefits, First Amendment, Free Exercise Clause, HealthInsurance, Immigration, Junevile Justice, Justice Ginsburg, LGBT rights, Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Supreme Court
Comments Off on October Term 2020 — Supreme Court Preview (Part One)
Political Robocalls and Faithless Electors — Supreme Court Overtime Edition 1 (UPDATED — 7/8)
On Monday, the Supreme Court went into what is essentially overtime. We are now the latest for issuing opinions since 1974 (the year of Watergate) when the last opinion from the regular term was issued the day after the Supreme Court heard the Watergate arguments. It is unlikely that we will reach that July 25 date this year, but anything is possible. (Given that the Watergate opinion is a key precedent on the still pending Trump Organization subpoena cases, the poetic irony has to be appreciated.) We do have a second opinion day this week scheduled for Wednesday; so potentially Wednesday could be the last day or there could still be additional opinion days to come. (With five cases still outstanding, getting all five on Wednesday would be somewhat surprising given the pace of opinions so far this term, but anything is possible, but there already has been one five-opinion day this term.)
Monday’s two opinions both concerned the process of elections. On the one hand, the Barr case was brought by the lobbying group for political consultants challenging the barriers that the federal robocall statute places to even more repetitive phone calls from campaigns. On the other hand, the Chiafalo case (and the companion case from Colorado) involves the very rules governing the conduct of the electors chosen by the various states to actually cast the “real” votes in the presidential election.
In the long run, Barr may be the more important of the two. The federal robocall statute dates back to the early 90s (and, yes, it has been close to an utter failure). In 2015, Congress amended the statute to pass an exception allowing the federal government to have people make robocalls seeking to collect debt owed to the government. Some political consultants and other groups saw this amendment as an opening to raise a First Amendment complaint against the robocall statute. The bottom line of this decision is they won the battle, but lost the war.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Affordable Care Act, Faithless Electors, Robocalls, Severability, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Political Robocalls and Faithless Electors — Supreme Court Overtime Edition 1 (UPDATED — 7/8)
Supreme Court — Progressive Pyrrhic Victories and Conservative Triumphs
This week the Supreme Court issued five opinions. Putting aside a case about when [generic term].com can be trademarked, the other four cases represent two big wins for conservatives and two narrow wins for progressives in which the reasoning adopted by the controlling vote — in both cases, the Chief Justice — signals bad news for progressives in future cases.
But first, there are some housekeeping details. This week’s opinion finished the outstanding cases from January and February. The only cases left are from May, but we still have eight of the ten cases left. As a result, it is practically wide open as for as which justice has which case. Justice Gorsuch and Justice Ginsburg have both authored six opinions for the Court this year (implying that they are probably done, but Justice Gorsuch still has an outside chance at picking up one of the May cases). Justice Thomas has only authored four opinions for the Court, so he may get two May opinions. Everybody else appears to be due for one May opinion.
This past week, the Supreme Court issued opinions on the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, abortion, tax credits for religious schools, and conditions on aid to foreign non-governmental organizations. In all of these cases, the controlling opinion established rules that conservatives will love, even if they hate the result in the individual case.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, Religion, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court — Progressive Pyrrhic Victories and Conservative Triumphs