This might be called "statutory" day at the Court though the divisions do also overlap with some wider constitutional interests.
We have immigration law (5-4 by normal division, conservatives win), clean water (6-3, Breyer with a "seven factor" test getting Roberts and Kavanaugh) and patents (unanimous in result but Alito/Breyer and Sotomayor disagree on reasoning). There is some strong disagreement on what the law means in the first two with lesser disagreement whole thing is twelve pages long with Alito writing a paragraph) on the holding in the last case. The liberty and property rights of the first two cases also suggest why there is such disagreement with second a relatively long fifty pages.
The SCOTUSBlog live blog summaries the water dispute thusly: "This was a case about the Clean Water Act and whether the County of Maui needed a permit when its wastewater facility released treated water into the ground, which then traveled about a half-mile through groundwater to the Pacific Ocean." The opinion taking a middle path. The immigration case regards rules for removal for those who commit crimes, we having another sympathetic case of those who committed crimes some time ago being affected. The SCOTUSBlog opinion summary notes the patent dispute is a minor one. Not knowing much at all about patent law, I'll grant the point.
I'll note as well that many commentaries on the non-unanimous jury case do not reference the special case of Puerto Rico. And, in lower court news, one federal circuit recognized a basic right to education (at least to the level of basic literacy). Various Supreme Court opinions recongized the importance of education, particularly Brown v. Bd., but left open the question. The lawsuit was sent back to continue, so we have a ways to go. Plus, I think there is a basic question here -- to the degree a state (and all do) provide public education, it should be provided equally.
And, these cases always tend to raise questions of what other positive rights should be offered, such as food or police protection. A key difference here, putting aside the basics of education to citizenship (thus the felt need for education), is mandatory education laws. We are not mandated to eat. If the state forces children to go to school, and this is referenced in the opinion, there needs to be grounds to do so. And, once there is positive action by the state, the state has more responsibility. It cannot force children to spend seven days at school, e.g., mainly to play sports or something. This suggests education is even different from parents having a basic obligation to feed and clothe their children. There, e.g., if children are taken in by the state to a group home, there would be a minimum standard of care. But, here, there is a sort of across the board involvement.
We shall see how this goes, but other countries have recognized some basic right/obligation of the government in such cases and a human right to education (admittedly, other things too) has also been recognized by international human rights law. Perhaps, we should catch up. Conference scheduled Friday and additional orders on Monday probable. Next opinion day is to be determined. And, May will bring more orals.
[There looks to be opinion(s) on Monday.]
We have immigration law (5-4 by normal division, conservatives win), clean water (6-3, Breyer with a "seven factor" test getting Roberts and Kavanaugh) and patents (unanimous in result but Alito/Breyer and Sotomayor disagree on reasoning). There is some strong disagreement on what the law means in the first two with lesser disagreement whole thing is twelve pages long with Alito writing a paragraph) on the holding in the last case. The liberty and property rights of the first two cases also suggest why there is such disagreement with second a relatively long fifty pages.
The SCOTUSBlog live blog summaries the water dispute thusly: "This was a case about the Clean Water Act and whether the County of Maui needed a permit when its wastewater facility released treated water into the ground, which then traveled about a half-mile through groundwater to the Pacific Ocean." The opinion taking a middle path. The immigration case regards rules for removal for those who commit crimes, we having another sympathetic case of those who committed crimes some time ago being affected. The SCOTUSBlog opinion summary notes the patent dispute is a minor one. Not knowing much at all about patent law, I'll grant the point.
I'll note as well that many commentaries on the non-unanimous jury case do not reference the special case of Puerto Rico. And, in lower court news, one federal circuit recognized a basic right to education (at least to the level of basic literacy). Various Supreme Court opinions recongized the importance of education, particularly Brown v. Bd., but left open the question. The lawsuit was sent back to continue, so we have a ways to go. Plus, I think there is a basic question here -- to the degree a state (and all do) provide public education, it should be provided equally.
And, these cases always tend to raise questions of what other positive rights should be offered, such as food or police protection. A key difference here, putting aside the basics of education to citizenship (thus the felt need for education), is mandatory education laws. We are not mandated to eat. If the state forces children to go to school, and this is referenced in the opinion, there needs to be grounds to do so. And, once there is positive action by the state, the state has more responsibility. It cannot force children to spend seven days at school, e.g., mainly to play sports or something. This suggests education is even different from parents having a basic obligation to feed and clothe their children. There, e.g., if children are taken in by the state to a group home, there would be a minimum standard of care. But, here, there is a sort of across the board involvement.
We shall see how this goes, but other countries have recognized some basic right/obligation of the government in such cases and a human right to education (admittedly, other things too) has also been recognized by international human rights law. Perhaps, we should catch up. Conference scheduled Friday and additional orders on Monday probable. Next opinion day is to be determined. And, May will bring more orals.
[There looks to be opinion(s) on Monday.]
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!