And Also: A sports channel recently talked about a mostly forgotten (well, it was news to me) moment of history where Arizona lost a chance to host the Super Bowl since it refused to officially support Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday as a holiday. Before the Super Bowl, but too late to matter for that one (it was given one a few years later), the state finally caught up.
After a break, SCOTUS is back and continues its run of notable actions suggesting that the pause of sorts that might be seen going back to Scalia's death is truly over. This term has a range of notable cases though the rulings have not dropped yet. Or even been heard yet with Trump financial documents, abortion, faithless electors and more still pending.
There have been some notable actions, such as decisions on orders, which popped up on Friday after it looked like we had break. (It was another "oh come on! can I ever get a break?!" moment.) In early evening, another public charge case dropped, this time with a reply (if only a single justice, Sotomayor, writing her views; the other eight -- 5-3 -- not doing so). A strong response against SCOTUS Trump enabling. For the second time, by the way, there was confusion [saw this on Twitter among people more likely to pay attention] since the only place the order was found on the website is the lesser know "opinions related to orders" though repeatedly in the past a justice writing an opinion in response to an order does not stop the order itself to be on the order page.
The trend this term at least was to drop grants on Friday and then the Monday Order List has a range of denials and other mundane actions. This Monday, however, was one of those cases (not surprising given the break probably) where various justices commented on a range of cases. For instance, Sotomayor found another death penalty case that looked problematic. Thomas found another way to go after agency deference. Also, there was a per curiam regarding a case out of Puerto Rico with some complicated religious institutional issues that the Court found a way to punt. And, among the various odds and ends is a request for a reply from the solicitor general in a case involving disclosure laws. Might be important to flag the limits conservatives are taking things. Also, notable actions somewhat missed among the herd.
The big news is that the Supreme Court granted cert in a case regarding the power of Philadelphia to deny referring foster care cases to a religious organization that refuses same sex couples. State discretion here while the groups still has the power to their beliefs here underline how this is not a great avenue to change the rules. One question involves the need to revise Oregon v. Smith, the lower court upholding the policy because it deemed it a legitimate general rule. A few conservative justices meanwhile among the statements flagged the value of expanding religious exemptions in employment, which originally was something the likes of Thurgood Marshall thought appropriate. Justice Alito in particular have been generally consistent in such cases up to a point, even while on the court of appeals. OTOH, the rights of supporters of abortion to free exercise their religious and moral beliefs suggests the limits on his stance.
Also in Supreme Court news, Ginni Thomas is a major player in the Trump loyalist movement, including creating enemy lists against people inside the government and/or up for confirmation. As seen in the impeachment investigation, the fact that these people are in general loyal members of multiple conservative administrations is not enough. A higher standard of loyalty including in support of conspiracy theories and attacks on ideological enemies is necessary these days. Kudos to those who speak out.
ETA: Supreme Court cases are only part of the story -- e.g., often the party gets relief in state court or some other way. The D.C. sniper (still recall the terror while it occurred) is such a case with a change in Virginia law that allows minors to be eligible for parole after twenty years (Malvo agreed to wait the few years) as well as anyone with a single felony conviction.* The Supreme Court had oral argument, but it will be dropped.
This is appropriate -- we are talking about mere eligibility, even if some understandably use LWOP as an alternative as a way to show the death penalty is not necessary. Elizabeth Warren received some pushback -- at some point let's be realistic here but it's nice she apologized -- for supporting LWOP while being against the death penalty. But, yes, especially since the legislation here has a middle path, LWOP as an absolute rule (what? got to have those 75 year olds die in prison?) is bad policy and probably on principle (even if SCOTUS isn't going to find that any time soon) unconstitutional.
---
* The article gives the exact language: "any person sentenced to a term of life imprisonment for a single felony or multiple felonies committed while the person was a juvenile and who has served at least 20 years of such sentence shall be eligible for parole and any person who has active sentences that total more than 20 years for a single felony or multiple felonies committed while the person was a juvenile and who has served at least 20 years of such sentences shall be eligible for parole."
===
One interesting footnote is the issue of the power of the government to search people's garbage without a warrant or even probable cause. The matter was finally firmly addressed (7-2) in 1988, but just found out that there were at least two other cases (all out of California) over the years covering the matter. A few states (not New York; one thing done is searching garbage for recycling violations) have stricter rules. And, there still might be some questions along the margins. It reminds me of a portion in RBG's testimony at her confirmation hearing (SCOTUS) about how her appeals court case by case dealt with Fourth Amendment cases. Big questions are not handled all at once; differences arise.
The first SCOTUS case I found on the matter was back in the early 1970s, but it determined that there might be independent state grounds so punted. The California Supreme Court there held that there was privacy in "trash barrels in front on the parkway adjacent to the sidewalk." Noting specific details often can matter in Fourth Amendment cases, both here and the last case, the police directly sought assistance of the trash collectors. The middle case was different in that it looks like the police themselves searched the garbage. This is notable in part because it is said that basically people have no reasonable expectation of privacy here since they know others can and do search garbage. But, as the state court notes, people who realize this don't (reasonably so) expect police will do so. The trash collector or scavenger is not likely to work with the police on their own.
The California courts found various nuances that were not deemed important in the final Supreme Court case. It, e.g., noted that for purposes of California law that garbage in one's trash can is not deemed "abandoned." As noted by the dissent in the SCOTUS case, trash being deemed abandoned was an important reason most of the lower courts deemed trash not protected. It is true that the three justices in that middle case that dissented (Justice White included; he also wrote California v. Greenwood, the ultimate deciding precedent) granted that abandonment alone doesn't settle things. But, they still made it clear that it surely was relevant that people do so, leaving it open to others to search.
The oral argument in that middle case was interesting in that the government granted (at least for the sake of argument) that maybe certain trash searches might be different because the trash might be placed in the curtilage. For instance, the state court in that first case flagged an earlier case regarding a trash can on a back porch. Trash -- generally per local ordinances that require it -- placed on a curb might be less clear, but we are still talking about that region close to a home that might be deemed to be a protected area. Trash has a lot of intimate stuff in it, and if people put it in a black trash bag or on the bottom of the can, they do expect it to remain private. It is not quite egregious as the idea that because we let the phone company access our phone numbers and conversations (the "third party doctrine") that means the police can have access without probable cause, but it still is a bit much. At least, regulations and local law should put some limits on how this should work.
[These cases suggest the complications on determining what a reasonable expectation of privacy entails with split decisions. There can be a tag wags the dog quality here -- if courts protect something, people are more likely to accept it as reasonable and the reverse is true as well. Trying to reason from the nature of the search (a plastic bag with intimate items would usually be protected and do people really think their trash will be searched by the police? but then the material is disposed and open to the views of others) as shown in the discussion might not answer the question.]
The middle case involves a trash bin in the basement of an apartment building. (The other two cases involved drugs; this one illegal sports betting/betting slips.) Not deemed curtilage by the lower court, but still protected. But, maybe a line can be drawn there. It can be argued that protecting home trash would have discriminatory implications, but the nature of the Fourth Amendment probably does here protect a home more so than a basement trash room. Cf. allowing a roving drug sniff dog to roam in the halls and thus invading the space outside people's apartments. Note too that the lower court there did hold trash is not like a house -- its at risk nature allows a search without a warrant, but there still needs to be probable cause.
This is an interesting subject that provides a chance to examine various nuances of the question. The book on privacy related cases co-written by Caroline Kennedy also covered some of this ground. One situation, alluded to in one of the oral arguments, involved the government working around the shredding of documents. Such an action clearly shows some special effort to protect the privacy of papers but the government was allowed to in effect tape the strips back together. And, conceptually related, consider access to emails or files "deleted" that still can be accessed by the government since is anything truly deleted?
After a break, SCOTUS is back and continues its run of notable actions suggesting that the pause of sorts that might be seen going back to Scalia's death is truly over. This term has a range of notable cases though the rulings have not dropped yet. Or even been heard yet with Trump financial documents, abortion, faithless electors and more still pending.
There have been some notable actions, such as decisions on orders, which popped up on Friday after it looked like we had break. (It was another "oh come on! can I ever get a break?!" moment.) In early evening, another public charge case dropped, this time with a reply (if only a single justice, Sotomayor, writing her views; the other eight -- 5-3 -- not doing so). A strong response against SCOTUS Trump enabling. For the second time, by the way, there was confusion [saw this on Twitter among people more likely to pay attention] since the only place the order was found on the website is the lesser know "opinions related to orders" though repeatedly in the past a justice writing an opinion in response to an order does not stop the order itself to be on the order page.
The trend this term at least was to drop grants on Friday and then the Monday Order List has a range of denials and other mundane actions. This Monday, however, was one of those cases (not surprising given the break probably) where various justices commented on a range of cases. For instance, Sotomayor found another death penalty case that looked problematic. Thomas found another way to go after agency deference. Also, there was a per curiam regarding a case out of Puerto Rico with some complicated religious institutional issues that the Court found a way to punt. And, among the various odds and ends is a request for a reply from the solicitor general in a case involving disclosure laws. Might be important to flag the limits conservatives are taking things. Also, notable actions somewhat missed among the herd.
The big news is that the Supreme Court granted cert in a case regarding the power of Philadelphia to deny referring foster care cases to a religious organization that refuses same sex couples. State discretion here while the groups still has the power to their beliefs here underline how this is not a great avenue to change the rules. One question involves the need to revise Oregon v. Smith, the lower court upholding the policy because it deemed it a legitimate general rule. A few conservative justices meanwhile among the statements flagged the value of expanding religious exemptions in employment, which originally was something the likes of Thurgood Marshall thought appropriate. Justice Alito in particular have been generally consistent in such cases up to a point, even while on the court of appeals. OTOH, the rights of supporters of abortion to free exercise their religious and moral beliefs suggests the limits on his stance.
Also in Supreme Court news, Ginni Thomas is a major player in the Trump loyalist movement, including creating enemy lists against people inside the government and/or up for confirmation. As seen in the impeachment investigation, the fact that these people are in general loyal members of multiple conservative administrations is not enough. A higher standard of loyalty including in support of conspiracy theories and attacks on ideological enemies is necessary these days. Kudos to those who speak out.
ETA: Supreme Court cases are only part of the story -- e.g., often the party gets relief in state court or some other way. The D.C. sniper (still recall the terror while it occurred) is such a case with a change in Virginia law that allows minors to be eligible for parole after twenty years (Malvo agreed to wait the few years) as well as anyone with a single felony conviction.* The Supreme Court had oral argument, but it will be dropped.
This is appropriate -- we are talking about mere eligibility, even if some understandably use LWOP as an alternative as a way to show the death penalty is not necessary. Elizabeth Warren received some pushback -- at some point let's be realistic here but it's nice she apologized -- for supporting LWOP while being against the death penalty. But, yes, especially since the legislation here has a middle path, LWOP as an absolute rule (what? got to have those 75 year olds die in prison?) is bad policy and probably on principle (even if SCOTUS isn't going to find that any time soon) unconstitutional.
---
* The article gives the exact language: "any person sentenced to a term of life imprisonment for a single felony or multiple felonies committed while the person was a juvenile and who has served at least 20 years of such sentence shall be eligible for parole and any person who has active sentences that total more than 20 years for a single felony or multiple felonies committed while the person was a juvenile and who has served at least 20 years of such sentences shall be eligible for parole."
===
One interesting footnote is the issue of the power of the government to search people's garbage without a warrant or even probable cause. The matter was finally firmly addressed (7-2) in 1988, but just found out that there were at least two other cases (all out of California) over the years covering the matter. A few states (not New York; one thing done is searching garbage for recycling violations) have stricter rules. And, there still might be some questions along the margins. It reminds me of a portion in RBG's testimony at her confirmation hearing (SCOTUS) about how her appeals court case by case dealt with Fourth Amendment cases. Big questions are not handled all at once; differences arise.
The first SCOTUS case I found on the matter was back in the early 1970s, but it determined that there might be independent state grounds so punted. The California Supreme Court there held that there was privacy in "trash barrels in front on the parkway adjacent to the sidewalk." Noting specific details often can matter in Fourth Amendment cases, both here and the last case, the police directly sought assistance of the trash collectors. The middle case was different in that it looks like the police themselves searched the garbage. This is notable in part because it is said that basically people have no reasonable expectation of privacy here since they know others can and do search garbage. But, as the state court notes, people who realize this don't (reasonably so) expect police will do so. The trash collector or scavenger is not likely to work with the police on their own.
The California courts found various nuances that were not deemed important in the final Supreme Court case. It, e.g., noted that for purposes of California law that garbage in one's trash can is not deemed "abandoned." As noted by the dissent in the SCOTUS case, trash being deemed abandoned was an important reason most of the lower courts deemed trash not protected. It is true that the three justices in that middle case that dissented (Justice White included; he also wrote California v. Greenwood, the ultimate deciding precedent) granted that abandonment alone doesn't settle things. But, they still made it clear that it surely was relevant that people do so, leaving it open to others to search.
The oral argument in that middle case was interesting in that the government granted (at least for the sake of argument) that maybe certain trash searches might be different because the trash might be placed in the curtilage. For instance, the state court in that first case flagged an earlier case regarding a trash can on a back porch. Trash -- generally per local ordinances that require it -- placed on a curb might be less clear, but we are still talking about that region close to a home that might be deemed to be a protected area. Trash has a lot of intimate stuff in it, and if people put it in a black trash bag or on the bottom of the can, they do expect it to remain private. It is not quite egregious as the idea that because we let the phone company access our phone numbers and conversations (the "third party doctrine") that means the police can have access without probable cause, but it still is a bit much. At least, regulations and local law should put some limits on how this should work.
[These cases suggest the complications on determining what a reasonable expectation of privacy entails with split decisions. There can be a tag wags the dog quality here -- if courts protect something, people are more likely to accept it as reasonable and the reverse is true as well. Trying to reason from the nature of the search (a plastic bag with intimate items would usually be protected and do people really think their trash will be searched by the police? but then the material is disposed and open to the views of others) as shown in the discussion might not answer the question.]
The middle case involves a trash bin in the basement of an apartment building. (The other two cases involved drugs; this one illegal sports betting/betting slips.) Not deemed curtilage by the lower court, but still protected. But, maybe a line can be drawn there. It can be argued that protecting home trash would have discriminatory implications, but the nature of the Fourth Amendment probably does here protect a home more so than a basement trash room. Cf. allowing a roving drug sniff dog to roam in the halls and thus invading the space outside people's apartments. Note too that the lower court there did hold trash is not like a house -- its at risk nature allows a search without a warrant, but there still needs to be probable cause.
This is an interesting subject that provides a chance to examine various nuances of the question. The book on privacy related cases co-written by Caroline Kennedy also covered some of this ground. One situation, alluded to in one of the oral arguments, involved the government working around the shredding of documents. Such an action clearly shows some special effort to protect the privacy of papers but the government was allowed to in effect tape the strips back together. And, conceptually related, consider access to emails or files "deleted" that still can be accessed by the government since is anything truly deleted?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!