Monthly Archives: September 2018

Supreme Court Preview 2018-19 Term: Part III (Rest of the Term)

In Part I and Part II of this series, I discussed the highlights of the cases set for the October argument session and the November argument session.  Between those two months, the Supreme Court will hear 22 arguments on 23 cases.  As of this point in time, the Supreme Court has accepted 38 cases for argument.  That means that there are fifteen cases already accepted that do not yet have an argument date.  The cases for the December argument session will be announced in the next several weeks.  It is more likely than not that the Supreme Court will fill all the morning slots for that session (twelve cases).  The best bet will be that the Supreme Court will schedule the remaining three cases for the January argument session.  However, sometimes, the Supreme Court has scheduled afternoon argument sessions for December rather than carrying a case over to January.

Besides the existing cases that the Supreme Court will carry over to January, the Supreme Court will begin the process of filling the rest of the 2019 arguments sessions with its initial conference on September 24.   However, there are only a limited number of cases that the Supreme Court has to take.  Even with those cases, the Supreme Court can resolve those cases with a short unsigned (formally per curiam) opinion and does not have to accept full briefing and argument.  Everything else on the docket requires four justices to vote to accept the case.    Which means that the Supreme Court can decline to accept any case — no matter how important — because six justices do not want to address the issue at the present time or because they think that there is something unusual in the current case that interferes with reaching that issue.  Because, in a typical year, the Supreme Court gets over 8,000 petitions from parties that want the Supreme Court to take their case but grants review in less than 80 cases, it is hard to predict which cases will be accepted.   According to certpool.com, Monday’s conference will cover over 1,200 cases.  Even before relists (a decision by the Supreme Court to table a petition to a second conference before making a final decision — which has tended to become more common for cases under serious consideration in recent years), the October 5 conference will cover approximately 250 cases.   Even a site like Scotusblog which tries to list the most interesting of the petitions filed each week misses some grants and lists cases that are denied.  With all of these caveats, I will try to list some of the cases that appear to be in the pipeline that are of interest.

Among the cases already accepted, there are a handful that could have some significant impact.  For example, there is an anti-trust case looking at how to make the traditional rules fit apps for the I-phone.  Typically, Apple would be considered a mere intermediary between the purchaser and the suppliers and, thus, would not be subject to anti-trust claims.  However, Apple plays a unique role in the marketplace and does that unique role require anti-trust protection for both purchasers and suppliers.   Similarly there is a case (involving Merck) about the interaction between FDA labeling requirements and state “failure to warn” claims for the side effects of medications.   The Supreme Court has also accepted a case in which it may reconsider the “dual sovereign” exception to double jeopardy (basically that, if a defendant’s conduct violates the laws of multiple states or a state and the federal government, the defendant could be charged by both governments).  The Supreme Court will also consider whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the states and how that impacts civil forfeiture cases.  There are also two cases involving the relationship between treaties with two native tribes and state court jurisdiction over criminal matters. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview 2018-19 Term: Part III (Rest of the Term)

Supreme Court Preview 2018-19: Part II (November Arguments)

In the first part of this year’s term preview, I looked at the cases set for October.  This post will take a look at the cases set for November.

As is true in three years out of seven, the November argument session actually begins in the last week of October with arguments on October 29, 30, and 31.   The argument session begins with two cases on one of the favorite business law topics — interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act.  In recent years, the Supreme Court has been real big on enforcing the Arbitration Act to keep cases out of court.  The first case on the 29th (Henry Schein, Inc.,) involves an agreement that allows the arbitrator to decide if a specific claim is within the scope of the arbitration agreement.  The issue presented is when a court can decline to enforce that part of the agreement and find that a claim is clearly outside the scope of the arbitration agreement.  The second case (Lamps Plus, Inc.) involves when a court in compelling arbitration should find that the case can be handled as a class action by the arbiter.

The November docket also includes an “Indian Treaty” case (Cougar Den Inc.) Cases involving treaties with Native American tribes have been a growing part of the Supreme Court docket.  Basically put, the Constitution allows Congress to regulate the relation between tribal governments and the states.  Many of the treaties signed (and only partially honored) in the late 19th Century established exemptions from state law for the tribes and members of the tribe.  In recent years, tribal governments (and individual members, whether as civil plaintiffs, civil defendants, or criminal defendants)  have become more aggressive in asserting the rights granted in those treaties, and the Supreme Court has taken a significant number of these cases. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview 2018-19: Part II (November Arguments)

Supreme Court Preview 2018-19 Term: Part I (October Arguments)

It’s mid-September.  In less than one week, the Supreme Court will meet behind closed doors in conference (the so-called “Long Conference”) to consider petitions for review (primarily petitions for certiorari a/k/a “cert petitions”) that have piled up since they recessed at the end of June.  And, in less than two weeks, the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments for this year’s term.

Before they left at the end of June, the Supreme Court had agreed to review thirty-eight cases on the merits.  Two of these cases involve the same issue (arising from different states) and have been consolidated for argument, meaning that the Supreme Court has agreed to thirty-seven arguments.   Traditionally, the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in two-week sessions — having argument on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday starting at 10 AM Eastern Time.  Usually, each argument is sixty-minutes (thirty minutes per side).   The Supreme Court has a maximum of two cases in the morning, and can reconvene after lunch for additional arguments.  With seven argument sessions (typically referred to by the month — starting in October and running through April), the Supreme Court has slightly less than 42 days of argument. (Columbus Day always falls in the October session.  In some years, Veteran’s Day,  Martin Luther King’s Birthday, and President’s Day fall within an argument session.  And, depending on the Hebrew Calendar,  Yom Kippur can also fall within an argument session.  Thus, there can be anywhere between 37 and 41 argument days.)  This year, there are potentially 41 argument days.  In the 60s and 70s, when the Supreme Court was issuing over 100 opinions per year, afternoon arguments were common.   In recent years, with fewer than seventy opinions in some years, there are argument days with only one argument, and we rarely have an afternoon argument.

In the past two years, thanks in part to the vacancy after Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court started the term without enough cases to fill the 2018 argument sessions (October, November, December).  Since it takes about 70 days after a case is accepted for the parties to complete briefing (the written arguments on the case which — in most cases — matter more than oral arguments), cases being accepted from late September through January are for the 2019 argument sessions.  With 37 arguments accepted, there should be more than enough cases to fill the 2018 argument session. (There are 17 argument days, implying 34 arguments through December with three cases carried over to the January 2019 argument session.  As December’s docket will be posted toward the end of this month, there might be one or two afternoon arguments in December reducing the carryover.) Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview 2018-19 Term: Part I (October Arguments)

Thinking 2021

One weakness that the Democratic Party has had over the years is getting loosely attached Democratic voters to think beyond the current election.  But many components of the political system elect members in staggered elections (e,g,, the U.S. Senate); so gaining the ability to pass your legislation requires a multi-year plan.

While in the weeks ahead, posts on this site will undoubtedly focus on the race for power in D.C., this post is about the other offices that will be on the ballot in November — state positions.  In less than nineteen months, residents of the U.S. will receive and then return their census forms for the 2020 census.  In slightly over two years, the Census Bureau will release the numbers from that census to the states which will then begin anew the process of drawing the political maps that will control U.S. House (and state legislative elections) between 2022 and 2031.  And some of the people elected at the state level this November will still be around in 2021 to vote on these new maps.

The big office in most of the states is governor.  There are 36 governor’s offices up for election this cycle with Republicans currently holding 26 of them.  In 34 states, the term of office is four years; so the winner this year will be around in 2021.  (In two states — New Hampshire and Vermont, both held by Republicans — the term of office is two years; so we will get another shot at removing the Republican in 2020 and only New Hampshire is likely to have multiple congressional seats after the 2020 census.)   In some of these states — Arizona, California, and Iowa — the redistricting process minimizes the influence of the governor or legislature; so, while — for other reasons — holding California and picking up Arizona and Iowa would be useful, they will not have a big impact on redistricting in 2021.  There are also some states that currently only have one representative in Congress eliminating the need for Congressional Districts — Alaska (Independent); South Dakota (Republican), and Wyoming (Republican).  Even after eliminating these states, you have twenty states held by Republicans and eight states held by Democrats in which the winner of the 2018 election for governor will be around in 2021 and have the power to veto or sign any proposed congressional map. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Thinking 2021

Happy Labor Day!

I start all Labor Day posts with a shout out to my Gramma Lenke, member of the ILGWU from sometime in the 1920’s until she passed away in 2005. She was the longest dues-paying member of the union, yup, until the day she died. Lenke believed in unions, and knew about before and after…

Labor Day became a Federal holiday in 1894, and was enacted to honour the contributions of workers. The holiday is celebrated in the United States on the first Monday in September, and also serves as the unofficial end of summer. For political junkies, it also kicks election season into high gear.

It was a hard slog for the formation of unions after the Industrial Revolution, and a lot of the things you may well take for granted today came out of the union/worker movement. To wit: Continue Reading...

Posted in Holidays | Tagged | Comments Off on Happy Labor Day!

Sunday with the Senators: Can we win it back?

I’ll spare you the suspense — if a number of things break well, yes, we can. Let’s dig in.

We have a good shot at picking up four seats: Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee and Texas. Will we get all four? Let’s assume no, but that we pick up three. That takes us to 52, less any seats we lose. The question in Arizona, Nevada and Texas is whether millennial and Hispanic voters come out in droves. The Hispanic population of Tennessee is 5%, so that would make a difference only in the closest of races, but the Hispanic populations of Arizona, Nevada and Texas are 31%, 29%, and 39%, respectively. Note that is only population, not voters. The percentage of registered Hispanic voters in all those states is lower. Still, those are election-changing numbers. Plus, “Hispanic” is not a monolithic voting bloc. However, in the era of families separated at the border, the rescinding of passports of American citizens, and the horror of how the incumbent fascist regime treats and speaks about Hispanics, and it may well get people to the polls.

Add to that the number of people who want a check against Trumpkin in the Senate, as well as the regular base of Democratic voters, and we’ve got a real shot. If it was possible to turnout millennials, and we’d for sure be over the top. Millennials are huge in number, but their turnout levels in the past several elections has been less than stellar. BUT – this year we have the “Parkland Effect” – many people turning 18 this year are energized (and registered) and that could make a difference, especially in Arizona and Texas where age distribution skews young. That’s true to a slightly lesser effect in Nevada, and not a consideration in Tennessee. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, Senate, Sunday with the Senators | 3 Comments

Latest Legal News on Gerrymandering

As readers may recall, back in June, the United States Supreme Court evaded ruling on the issue of partisan gerrymandering in three cases.  In particular, the United States Supreme Court declined to review the merits in a case out of Wisconsin based on a question of “standing” (who can bring a case), declined to review a case out of Maryland because the appeal was from a ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction rather than a final judgment, and opted to send a case from North Carolina back to the trial court to consider whether the other two rulings had any impact on the trial court’s ruling.  Earlier this week, a three-judge panel for the Middle District of North Carolina completed the reconsideration ordered by the United States Supreme Court and once again struck down the North Carolina congressional district map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

From the beginning, the outcome in North Carolina has mostly been about whether there is a way to make a partisan gerrymandering claim.  At the time that the legislature was enacting the current maps, the Republicans in North Carolina boasted that they drew the map to lock in a 10-3 advantage only because they could not find a way to draw a map that gave them an 11-2 advantage.  As detailed in the opinion, the redistricting committee only considered partisan data (after an earlier map had been struck down by the courts as a racial gerrymander, the goals of the committee expressly included drawing a 10-3 map, and the maps reflected lines that either split Democratic areas between Republican districts (cracking to avoid potential that including entire area might make a single district competitive) or put Democratic areas intact into districts that were already overwhelmingly Democrat (packing to avoid such voters having any influence in a competitive district).  Once the panel decided that  this summer’s opinions implicitly recognized that there could be a partisan gerrymandering claim, it was easy to find on multiple grounds that these maps were unconstitutional.

However, June’s decision to send this case back to the trial court created a problem with the trial court imposing a remedy.  As of Monday, when this decision came down, there were only ten weeks left until the November election.  The decision did leave open the possibility that the trial court would try to craft a remedy that could take effect in 2018 and gave the parties until Friday to make suggestions about how to proceed.   However, according to the latest reports, the plaintiffs (which include the North Carolina Democratic Party) conceded in their suggestions that there was no practical solution that could be completed in time to avoid disrupting the November elections.  (Additionally, if the trial court had tried to impose a remedy, the legislature could have asked the Supreme Court to issue a stay.  Depending on how long it took to craft a remedy, it is possible that Judge Kavanaugh would already be sitting as Justice Kavanaugh giving five votes for a stay.  Even if the confirmation process was not yet complete, there is a tradition of a “courtesy” fifth vote for a stay in cases that are divided 4-4. ) Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, Judicial | Tagged , | Comments Off on Latest Legal News on Gerrymandering