-
Recent Posts
- Election Night Preview — Part Five — The Local News and the West Coast (11:00 To 11:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Four — Prime Time Hour Three (10:00 to 10:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Three — Prime Time Hour Two (9:00 To 9:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Two — Prime Time Hour One (8:00 to 8:59 p.m. Eastern)
- Exit Polls and Projections
- Election Night Preview — Part I — Pre-Prime Time
- Voting and Vote Counting 101
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 Democratic Convention 2024 Democratic Convention 2024 Republican Convention Abortion Affordable Care Act Alabama Arizona Bernie Sanders California Donald Trump First Amendment 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 United Kingdom Virginia Voting Rights Act WisconsinDCW in the News
Blog Roll
Site Info
-
Recent Posts
- Election Night Preview — Part Five — The Local News and the West Coast (11:00 To 11:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Four — Prime Time Hour Three (10:00 to 10:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Three — Prime Time Hour Two (9:00 To 9:59 P.M. Eastern)
- Election Night Preview — Part Two — Prime Time Hour One (8:00 to 8:59 p.m. Eastern)
- Exit Polls and Projections
Recent Comments
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- 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: Bankruptcy
Supreme Court Potpourri for $200
Normally, at this time of the term, there is a lot to talk about. But this year’s docket is weird in having a lot of associated cases. As such, the meaning of one case is not clear until you have all of the related cases. Some terms, you will get all of the related cases on the same day. But, in other years, like this year, the release seems to be like that leaky sink faucet . . . drip, drip, drip.
This past week, we had opinions in nine cases out of the twelve/thirteen cases left. But many of them are related to the three/four cases left. We had three big administrative law cases, but there is one administrative law case left for an opinion tomorrow. We had one opinion on Free Speech and social media, but there are the two cases (and one or two opinions) left for tomorrow. And we had cases on the charges against the January 6 defendants (and a bribery case that is also significant) but we have the presidential immunity case that will put a potential gloss on both of those decisions. So that covers six of the nine opinions from this past week. What’s left are the emergency abortion case, the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case, and a municipal ordinance on homeless individuals sleeping on public property.
The abortion case, Moyle v. United States, involves the conflict between Idaho’s rather draconian abortion law (which apparently only permits abortions to save the life of the mother) and the federal law on Medicaid which requires hospitals that receive Medicare to provide medically appropriate treatment (including to save the health of the patient). Oversimplified the question is whether the Idaho statute in some way controls what is medically appropriate in Idaho or does the federal law mandate that doctors provide abortions when medically necessary even if the abortion would otherwise violate Idaho law. The problem is that Idaho brought this case on an emergency stay request from the lower court order granting a temporary injunction and was one of the rare cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court took an appeal before the appellate court had considered the issues. It became clear during argument that the theories of the parties on how these two statutes relate were still evolving. So the majority of the Supreme Court decided to “dismiss as improvidently granted,” or, in plain English, the majority said that they made a mistake in taking the case as it was not (yet) ready for Supreme Court review. While the judgment of the court is simply a one paragraph order returning the case to the Ninth Circuit for the initial appellate review, there were multiple opinions related to that order. Justice Kagan, in an opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor, finds that it was inappropriate to take the case but suggests that Idaho is unlikely to prevail on its position that its law takes precedence over the federal statute. Justice Barrett, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kavanaugh emphasized how the positions of the parties had changed since the Supreme Court took the case with the federal government disavowing the potential interpretation of its position on which Idaho based their claim for relief and Idaho relaxing what needs to be shown to support an emergency abortion. As such, Justice Barrett felt that the need for the Supreme Court to address the novel claims on an expedited basis no longer existed. The bottom line of these five justices is that there is no need to stay the lower court ruling and that the case should return to the lower courts to address the new positions of the parties. Justice Jackson wrote a separate opinion agreeing that the stay should be vacated but arguing that the Supreme Court should resolve the merits now rather than sending the case back to the Ninth Circuit. (While it is possible, and significant as far as who is writing the presidential immunity case, that Justice Jackson’s opinion started out as the majority opinion, I tend to doubt it from the text of the opinions. Justice Jackson’s opinion does not read like an almost majority opinion, and the reasons for dismissing the case are not new. Justice Alito’s dissent (joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch) is along the lines of “how dare the Biden Administration use the law to frustrate our desire to allow stringent anti-abortion laws.”
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Abortion, homelessness, opioids, Purdue Pharma, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court Potpourri for $200
Supreme Court Term 2023-24 — Two Weeks to Go (?) Update
This past week, the U.S. Supreme Court went from one opinion day (Thursday) per week to two opinion days (Thursday and Friday). But the Supreme Court only issued three opinions on each day — four of the six have some political significance and so there will be posts on them later. There are still 23 cases left to be decided (with 21-23 opinions) between them. Thus unless, the pace of opinions picks up (and maybe 4 per day is likely), the Supreme Court needs at least seven opinion days between now and June 28. The next opinion day is this Thursday. While it is more likely than not that opinions will also be released on Friday, that would still leave four or five opinion days for the last week in June. Maybe the last opinion day will be July 1 or July 2, but the Supreme Court tries really hard to leave town before July 4.
With this week’s opinion release, the dust has started to settle on who likely has what opinion. Until opinions are released, such guesses are who likely initially got the opinion. While not common, splits in how to decide a case and justices changing their minds as they dig further into writing an opinion can result in opinions being reassigned. These predictions are based on the Supreme Court’s practice of trying to maintain a balanced workload — both within each month’s argument session and across the term as a whole.
At this point, enough opinions have been released to identify who still has opinions left to write from the first five months of arguments with two question marks. The two question marks are two sets of companion cases — one from January in which two cases seek to overturn Chevron deference (a doctrine created by Justice Scalia that has courts deferring to administrative agencies over the proper interpretation of ambiguous regulatory statutes) and the other from February in which two cases involve state attempts to regulate interstate social media websites. For both sets, it is possible that the Supreme Court will issue separate “authored” (i.e. the justice writing is identified) or that the Supreme Court will issue one “authored” opinion in one case with a brief per curiam (i.e. the justice writing is not identified) in the second case or that the Supreme Court will issue one opinion covering both cases. If only one authoried opinion is released in both sets of cases, then things fall more smoothly in terms of the number of opinions per justice through February. If either set has a second authored opinion, that adds an additional opinion for some justice making things more uncertain.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Chevron deference, Confrontation Clause, EPA, income tax, presidential immunity, Purdue Pharma, Second Amendment, Social Media, Supreme Court
Comments Off on Supreme Court Term 2023-24 — Two Weeks to Go (?) Update
Supreme Court Update — Appropriations and Redistricting
We are at that point of the Supreme Court terms when we are waiting for the other shoe to drop. All the arguments and briefing for the term is done, and what is left is for the opinions to slowly drip out. For now, the Supreme Court is only holding one opinion day per week. That will be changing soon.
In May, we tend to get the older cases (October, November, and December) that have multiple opinions and newer cases (March and April) that were “easy” unanimous decisions. As we get later into June, we will get the 5-4 decisions from February, March, and April, and the number of cases will pick up.
So far, in May, there have been three opinion days (with one more set for this Thursday). On those opinion days, we have gotten, two, three, and three opinions. With eight opinions down, we still have approximately thirty-five opinions (approximately because there are a few cases that could be consolidated) left to come over the next five weeks. That number is why we are likely to get multiple opinion days per week in the latter part of June as we need nine to twelve opinion days.
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Appropriations Clause, Chevron deference, Chief Justice John Roberts, Consumer Finance Protections Bureau, Equal Protection, Free Speech, Immigration, income tax, opioids, Originalism, Purdue Pharma, Second Amendment, Securities and Exchange Commission, South Carolina, Supreme Court, textualism, Voting Rights
Comments Off on Supreme Court Update — Appropriations and Redistricting
Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 2
Last week, we took a look at the cases that are set for argument in October and November. This week, we look at the cases that have been accepted for argument, but have not yet been set for an argument date. These cases will probably be heard in December or January.
The primary job of the Supreme Court (reflected in the criteria that it lists on its rules for what applicants need to demonstrate before the Supreme Court will accept review) is to assure that courts uniformly interpret and apply federal law. As such, every case is important to some groups of people. But the focus in these posts are on those cases which could have a political impact.
First on this list is Muldrow. This case involves Title VII — the law barring discrimination based on race and gender in employment. The issue in this case is “transfers.” Basically, by transfer, we are talking about the reassignment of employees from one job to another job. Generally, Title VII only applies to “adverse” actions. As such, the issue is what type of damage/impact does the employee have to show. At least the argument from the employer is that if the transfer is truly a lateral move with no impact on pay or promotion opportunity, then there is no discrimination. Obviously, there are other things that impact what qualifies as a desirable job. Here, the employer is a police department and the transfer is from a detective-type squad to a patrol squad. Technically, the ranks are equal, but there are reasons why a detective squad is a preferred position. Needless to say, this case could either indicate an approach to Title VII that would allow it to broadly apply to transfer decisions or an approach in which transfers to nominally equivalent positions will rarely implicate Title VII. From a practical standpoint, there seems something wrong with an interpretation that would, for example, let an employer assign most women to a night shift and most men to a day shift on the theory that the positions are equivalent, but I would not put such a myopic view past some of the current justices.
Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial
Also tagged Chevron deference, income tax, non-delegation doctrine, Supreme Court, Title VII
Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview — October Term 2023 — Part 2
The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico — Part Two
As noted in Part One, the Supreme Court had two cases involving Puerto Rico this term. The first, decided, last Thursday was the more philosophical of the two cases — focusing on Puerto Rico’s status under the Constitution. The ink was barely dry on that opinion when the Supreme Court issued the second opinion — dealing with the more immediately practical question of how bankruptcy law applies to Puerto Rico’s debt.
As a general matter, the Constitution gives Congress the power to enact a “uniform” law governing bankruptcy — a process that allows private individuals, businesses, and even government to restructure (and in some cases partially reduce) their debts. As the fact that it is one of the enumerated powers in the original text of the Constitution shows, bankruptcy is not a new concept and predates the United States. The Bankruptcy Code (Title 11 of the United States Code) is divided into chapters with different chapters applying to different entities and the circumstances of that entity — one for businesses that just want to wind up their affairs, one for businesses that want to try to continue, one for private individuals, and one (which applies here) governing the debts of municipalities (Chapter 9).
Posted in Judicial
Also tagged Puerto Rico
Comments Off on The Supreme Court and Puerto Rico — Part Two