No health care ruling yet. A case who's mother is the only one that cares about at the moment and the Stolen Valor case remains.
SCOTUS summarily handled an interesting looking voting rights case (presumably, it was a mandatory appeal) that split the civil rights community (Rep. Donna Edwards on the "anti" side) , a brief summary with link to a more expansive news story here. Election Law Blog summarizes result here. The primary concern was that blacks were being lumped together and this would result to vote dilution, but various legislators (the law was signed by a Democrat) etc. thought the final deal acceptable. Also, a provision that "purports to correct census data for the distortional effects of the Census Bureau's practice of counting prison inmates as residents of their place of incarceration." The court below in effect said not enough there. The home address law, a first, was praised here, though some were concerned with those without one.
A cross case was avoided, Justice Alito noting there wasn't a final ruling below. The Montana Supreme Court case that was thought of as a "fu" to the U.S. Supreme Court was summarily refused in a paragraph given there is "no serious doubt" that Citizens United was breached. Four justices wasn't quite as sure, but in a slightly longer opinion noted that it was a red flag of the problems the opinion wrought and it should have been taken. I'm not really surprised but the way the USSC keeps on rushing through these opinions (see also, the affirmance without comment of a case involving foreign money) is disconcerting if perhaps pragmatically the best reformers can hope for.
[And Also: Some background on the law that doesn't seem to have some racist senator (see Thomas' opinion in Citizens United) to taint it or anything. The Montana ACLU (the national ACLU supported Citizens United) believes corruption in the context of the law, as compared to general say-so without context, provides a compelling state interest to justify it. I'm an outlier, perhaps, but think there can be various shades of corporate regulation and think it deserved at least a hearing. Breyer et. al. probably reasonably enough didn't think the other five were listening.]
A 5-4 ruling, somewhat surprisingly given it is of some note written by Kagan, held it unconstitutional to apply mandatory life imprisonment in non-capital cases for minors. It did not decide if it never could be applied, even after individualized sentencing, since they did 'not consider if the 8A "requires a categorical bar on life without parole for juveniles, or at least for those 14 and younger." Two justices thought it likely one of the two people here did not intend to kill, so on that ground would not be liable to be executed. But, the two are not out of the woods yet, it actually conceivable for the same sentence to be applied on remand.
To recap" minus cites:
[And More: It is notable here that "and" in the "cruel and unusual" provision is not interpreted to mean BOTH have to be present. If crucifixion suddenly became popular, it would one assumes still violate the clause. The USSC has taken up a policy in recent years to "count noses" to help them determine what violates the provision, in effect to determine what is "unusual" and help determine what was "cruel and unusual." But, if the test is "that it is a precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense" (Weems v. U.S., 1910), again, the numbers games is only so important. Robinson v. California, which applied the 8A to the states, also didn't count noses. It found criminalizing addiction as a problem and not only because it was rare.]
In basically a 5-3 ruling (Alito agrees on two of four; Scalia/Thomas on one), the Obama Administration (in hopefully not a consolation prize way) mostly won (writ large too on some level; see here) in the "papers please" law, though ironically the one partial loss involved just that provision. I commented on the orals here, a couple links touching upon some key issues. The majority (by Kennedy) notes that it is too soon to know if that section will be applied so strictly that it would be a problem. Pre-emption the only issue, racial profiling concerns are a separate matter -- though as some noted, that factors into why the feds was so concerned about the law, given the foreign policy implications etc. Also, the opinion itself notes in passing:
Fairly busy morning, but one big event remains.
---
* In full, FOX News and Grandpa Simpson fashion, Scalia inspired a good amount of commentary today as he did with his PPACA orals performance etc. For instance, LGM has some snark here. This is the bridge between conservative and "can't take this guy seriously." It's embarrassing.
SCOTUS summarily handled an interesting looking voting rights case (presumably, it was a mandatory appeal) that split the civil rights community (Rep. Donna Edwards on the "anti" side) , a brief summary with link to a more expansive news story here. Election Law Blog summarizes result here. The primary concern was that blacks were being lumped together and this would result to vote dilution, but various legislators (the law was signed by a Democrat) etc. thought the final deal acceptable. Also, a provision that "purports to correct census data for the distortional effects of the Census Bureau's practice of counting prison inmates as residents of their place of incarceration." The court below in effect said not enough there. The home address law, a first, was praised here, though some were concerned with those without one.
A cross case was avoided, Justice Alito noting there wasn't a final ruling below. The Montana Supreme Court case that was thought of as a "fu" to the U.S. Supreme Court was summarily refused in a paragraph given there is "no serious doubt" that Citizens United was breached. Four justices wasn't quite as sure, but in a slightly longer opinion noted that it was a red flag of the problems the opinion wrought and it should have been taken. I'm not really surprised but the way the USSC keeps on rushing through these opinions (see also, the affirmance without comment of a case involving foreign money) is disconcerting if perhaps pragmatically the best reformers can hope for.
[And Also: Some background on the law that doesn't seem to have some racist senator (see Thomas' opinion in Citizens United) to taint it or anything. The Montana ACLU (the national ACLU supported Citizens United) believes corruption in the context of the law, as compared to general say-so without context, provides a compelling state interest to justify it. I'm an outlier, perhaps, but think there can be various shades of corporate regulation and think it deserved at least a hearing. Breyer et. al. probably reasonably enough didn't think the other five were listening.]
A 5-4 ruling, somewhat surprisingly given it is of some note written by Kagan, held it unconstitutional to apply mandatory life imprisonment in non-capital cases for minors. It did not decide if it never could be applied, even after individualized sentencing, since they did 'not consider if the 8A "requires a categorical bar on life without parole for juveniles, or at least for those 14 and younger." Two justices thought it likely one of the two people here did not intend to kill, so on that ground would not be liable to be executed. But, the two are not out of the woods yet, it actually conceivable for the same sentence to be applied on remand.
To recap" minus cites:
Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features—among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences. It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him—and from which he cannot usually extricate himself—no matter how brutal or dysfunctional. It neglects the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of his participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressures may have affected him. Indeed, it ignores that he might have been charged and convicted of a lesser offense if not for incompetencies associated with youth—for example, his inability to deal with police officers or prosecutors(including on a plea agreement) or his incapacity to assist his own attorneys. And finally, this mandatory punishment disregards the possibility of rehabilitation even when the circumstances most suggest it.Roberts accepted individualized sentencing in capital cases (though not a complete bar) so he was a maybe; no dice there. The substantive reasoning of the majority is as usual more convincing that the nose counting to determine "unusual" and it basically says so at one point. National limits on criminal sentencing of this sort is a bit concerning, but the narrow nature of the ultimate result (even if, as Roberts notes, it potentially benefits a lot more than many 8A rulings) reassures.
[And More: It is notable here that "and" in the "cruel and unusual" provision is not interpreted to mean BOTH have to be present. If crucifixion suddenly became popular, it would one assumes still violate the clause. The USSC has taken up a policy in recent years to "count noses" to help them determine what violates the provision, in effect to determine what is "unusual" and help determine what was "cruel and unusual." But, if the test is "that it is a precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense" (Weems v. U.S., 1910), again, the numbers games is only so important. Robinson v. California, which applied the 8A to the states, also didn't count noses. It found criminalizing addiction as a problem and not only because it was rare.]
In basically a 5-3 ruling (Alito agrees on two of four; Scalia/Thomas on one), the Obama Administration (in hopefully not a consolation prize way) mostly won (writ large too on some level; see here) in the "papers please" law, though ironically the one partial loss involved just that provision. I commented on the orals here, a couple links touching upon some key issues. The majority (by Kennedy) notes that it is too soon to know if that section will be applied so strictly that it would be a problem. Pre-emption the only issue, racial profiling concerns are a separate matter -- though as some noted, that factors into why the feds was so concerned about the law, given the foreign policy implications etc. Also, the opinion itself notes in passing:
Second, officers “may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution[s].”The mandatory system established (the opinion notes that this might violate federal enforcement policy, but is not clearly barred by federal law) only aggravates this fact. Still, it is overall a good win, Kagan recused. Alito as noted only concurred on that section and one other. Thomas went his own way. And, Scalia went Grandpa Simpson, SCOTUSBlog informing us that he even had written remarks for the press and public (apparently -- though I honestly never heard about this until now -- Scalia and Ginsburg has done this in the past; why not post them then?). Alito dissented from the bench as to teenage life imprisonment, Scalia here. SCOTUSBlog's live blog informed:
As part of Scalia's statement in dissent, he is commenting on the president's announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- something that was not part of the case.Scalia,* citing pre-20th Century opinions that later were at least partially reversed, started off noting how one of the "defining characteristic of sovereignty" of states is to keep non-citizens out. In effect, he demanded a strong clear statement rule that he argued was not met. After all, "citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy.” And, "we have no license to assume, without any support in the record, that Arizona officials would use their arrest authority under §6 to harass anyone" Does the executive department of the U.S.? Scalia has no "papers" either, apparently.
Fairly busy morning, but one big event remains.
---
* In full, FOX News and Grandpa Simpson fashion, Scalia inspired a good amount of commentary today as he did with his PPACA orals performance etc. For instance, LGM has some snark here. This is the bridge between conservative and "can't take this guy seriously." It's embarrassing.