Category: General Law

4

The Guarantee Clause

Some attention is being given (or should be) to Footnote 3 of the Court’s opinion in the Arizona redistricting case, which states:

The people’s sovereign right to incorporate themselves into a State’s lawmaking apparatus, by reserving for themselves the power to adopt laws and to veto measures passed by elected representatives, is one this Court has ranked a nonjusticiable political matter. Pacific States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U. S. 118 (1912) (rejecting challenge to referendum mounted under Article IV, §4’s undertaking by the United States to “guarantee to every State in th[e] Union a Repub­ lican Form of Government”). But see New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 185 (1992) (“[P]erhaps not all claims under the Guarantee Clause present nonjusticiable political questions.”).

Why add the “But See” cite?  Because the Court wants to invite litigants to try out a Guarantee Clause claim somewhere?  Maybe in a voting rights case?

1

FAN 66.1 (First Amendment News) The Indecency Wars Continue — WDBJ TV opposes $325K fine proposed by FCC

The enormous fine proposed by the FCC is also an extraordinary burden on protected speech. The FCC’s largest base fine for other types of violations by broadcasters is $10,000. — Jeffrey A. Marks, President & General Manager of WDBJ

* *  * * 

Travis LeBlanc, chief of the FCC’s enforcement bureau, said that the agency’s action “sends a clear signal that there are severe consequences for TV stations that air sexually explicit images when children are likely to be watching.” (Variety, March 23, 2015)

Yesterday lawyers for WDBJ Television filed an Opposition to a FCC Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL) against the station. The 55-page opposition was filed by Jack N. Goodman and Robert Corn-Revere. The case is titled In the Matter of WDBJ Television, Inc. (files #s: EB-IHD-14-00016819 & EB-12-IH-1363).

UnknownThe proposed FCC fine stemmed from a July 12, 2012 WDBJ newscast concerning a Roanoke County controversy over a former adult film star who had joined the local volunteer rescue squad. WDBJ covered the story and the dispute over the firing of a female volunteer. Parts of WDBJ’s story were illustrated from materials taken from the Internet, including some from an adult-film website.  “Due to equipment limitations,” Goodman and Corn-Revere argue, “station personnel were unable to see the full screen of the online material, and the eventual broadcast briefly displayed a small image of an erect penis at the extreme margin of the screen. The image appeared for 2.7 seconds during a three minute and ten second story, covered only 1.7 percent of screen at the far right edge, and prompted an immediate response from WDBJ once it became aware of the mishap.”

In response, on March 23, 2015 the FCC issued a NAL and a proposed fine of $325,000 — the maximum amount permissible under the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act.

Dennis Wharton, spokesman for the National Assn. of Broadcasters, said, “NAB is disappointed with today’s remarkably punitive indecency fine proposed against WDBJ. Schurz Communications apologized for the fleeting image, which was clearly unintended. This unprecedented fine against a family-owned broadcaster with a demonstrated commitment to serving communities is wholly unwarranted.”  (VarietyMarch 23, 2015)

WDBJ’s lawyers contend that the FCC’s NAL “rests on incorrect factual premises” and that the Commission “misapplied its indecency standard to the WDBJ newscast.” As to the latter point, they make three basic arguments:

  1. “The newscast was not graphic and explicit under Commission precedent”
  2. “The broadcast did not dwell on or repeat sexual material,” and
  3. “The broadcast did not seek to pander or titillate.”
Jack N. Goodman

Jack N. Goodman

Goodman and Corn-Revere also maintain that the FCC “lacks a constitutionally sound test for indecency.” In this regard, they offer three basic arguments:

  1. “The Supreme Court neither upheld nor ratified the FCC’s indecency policy” (“The constitutional questions left open in Fox must be addressed.”)
  2. “Devising a constitutional policy to regulate broadcast indecency requires great restraint” (The FCC must adhere to the First Amendment” and “Pacifica’s restrained enforcement approach is constitutionally required.”) and
  3. “As applied to WDBJ, the proposed fine violates the First Amendment.”
Robert Corn-Revere

Robert Corn-Revere

Additionally, Goodman and Corn-Revere contend that the FCC’s NAL “articulates an erroneous and unconstitutional standard for willfulness. On this point they contend that the FCC’s NAL is unlawful insofar as it “proposes to penalize WDBJ for an alleged indecency violation that was neither ‘willful” nor ‘repeated,’ as required by 47 U.S.C.  503 (b)(1).”

Finally, they argue that even if the Commission “could find that WDBJ violated the indecency policy, the proposed [fine] should be vastly reduced.” Here Goodman and Corn-Revere maintain that the FCC’s NAL “sets out various reasons — many of which are incorrect — for a [maximum fine], but utterly fails to explain why it is appropriate to impose a [fine] more than forty-six times the base amount for the inadvertent inclusion in a news program of a depiction of a sexual organ for less than three seconds.” As for the enhanced fines allowed for under the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, they argue that “Congress did not attempt to establish [the $325,000 fine] as the minimum or even the expected [fine], or to indicate any intent to override the Commission’s normal decision with respect to the amount of a [fine] in any particular case.”

5

Undue Burden and Federalism

Before saying more on the cases just decided, I want to throw out an observation about the Texas abortion regulations that were stayed by the Court yesterday.

Suppose that Rhode Island put strict limitations on abortions.  If that statute were challenged under the “undue burden” standard set forth in Casey, one response could go something like this.  “Hey, all of our neighboring state have broad access to abortion.  We’re tiny, and so getting from Providence to another state takes hardly any time or cost.  Therefore, no undue burden is being imposed.

Does this argument work?  The reason I ask is that in Texas the opposite is true.  It’s a huge state, many of the neighboring states do not have broad abortion access, and thus it would be costly and time-consuming to go elsewhere for an abortion.  Thus, you could say that an undue burden is being imposed.  If this is so, though, then wouldn’t you have to say that small states with a pro-choice neighbor would have greater leeway to restrict abortion than large states?

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 66 (First Amendment News) Another money-is-speech controversy — Court agrees to hear public employee union free-speech case

As this case came to us, the principal question it presented was whether to overrule Abood: The petitioners devoted the lion’s share of their briefing and argument to urging us to overturn that nearly 40-year-old precedent . . . . Today’s majority cannot resist taking potshots at Abood, but it ignores the petitioners’ invitation to depart from principles of stare decisis. And the essential work in the majority’s opinion comes from its extended (though mistaken) distinction of Abood, not from its gratuitous dicta critiquing Abood’s foundations. That is to the good—or at least better than it might be. The Abood rule is deeply entrenched, and is the foundation for not tens or hundreds, but thousands of contracts between unions and governments across the Nation. Our precedent about precedent, fairly understood and applied, makes it impossible for this Court to reverse that decision. Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting in Harris v. Quinn (2014)

Rebecca Friedrichs (credit: Greg Schneider, AP)

Rebecca Friedrichs (credit: Greg Schneider, AP)

Before this Term came to its end, the Court agreed to hear Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, et al. The issues in the case are:

  1. Whether in light of Harris v. Quinn (2014) Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and
  2. whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed the District Court’s ruling against the Petitioners and their First Amendment claims. Acting on behalf of Rebecca Friedrichs and others, the Center for Individual Rights thereafter petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case, which the Justices agreed to do yesterday. Relying on the First Amendment, that suit challenged California’s “agency shop” laws, which require public employees to pay union dues as a condition of employment.

Michael Carvin, lead counsel for Petitioners

Michael Carvin, lead counsel for Petitioners

“At the center of the test case before the Court,” wrote SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Dennisotn, “is a practice that labor unions consider essential to their very survival: the ability to draw some financial support from all workers in a unit covered by a union contract, whether they belong to the union or not. Because unions have a binding legal duty to act in the interest of all workers included in the unit, the labor organizations want to collect fees even from ‘free riders,’ as they call non-union workers. . . . [T]he Abood decision,” he added, “is the direct target of the new Friedrichs case.  The lawyers who developed that case contend that everything a public-employee union does is an attempt to influence public policy, so non-union members should not have to pay any fees to support the union, if they have a personal objection.”

By much the same logic, if the Court declines to rule in their favor on the first issue, Petitioners also argue that non-union public employees should not be required to pay fees to support union collective bargaining activity unless they expressly opt in to do so (an not the other way around).

Effectively, such a decision would convert the twenty-six states that now require union membership into open-shop states.Center for Individual Rights

Counsel: Michael Carvin filed the petition for certiorari (see here re Reply Brief). Jeremiah Collins filed a brief in opposition on behalf of the California Teachers Association. California’s Attorney General, Kamala Harris, filed a brief on behalf of the Respondents (see here re Reply Brief).

Looking Back to Harris v. Quinn (2014)

Before joining the Georgetown Law faculty Neal Kumar Katyal was one of the lawyers on the Petitioners’ merits brief in Harris. Before that he was one of the lawyers for the Petitioner in Knox v. Service Employees Int’l Union, Local 1000 (2012) (see brief here). 

→ Mr. Carvin had also filed an amicus brief in Harris v. Quinn in which he argued that Abood should be overruled. Among others, a contrary position was advanced in an amicus brief filed in Harris on behalf of labor law professors (Professor Charlotte Garden, counsel of record). 

In Friedrichs amicus briefs were in filed in support of the Petitioners  by the Cato Institute, Constitutional Law Professors, Pacific Legal Foundation, Michigan and Eight other States, and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund, among others.

Rebecca Friedrichs

Americans of all political preferences would rise up against such tyranny if their rights were squelched by corporations, yet teachers unions have been legally trampling the free-speech rights of teachers throughout our nation for decades through forced dues used to fund their one-sided political agendas. This practice is unconscionable; especially considering that unions are tax-free “corporations” who long ago abandoned the individual rights and desires of their members. — RF, “Teachers stand against tyranny,” Orange County Register, February 16, 2014

 SCOTUSblog Symposium on Harris v. Quinn (contributors: Catherine Fisk, Tom McCarthy, Samuel Gedge, Charlotte Garden, Terry Pell, Jason Walta, Samuel Bagenstos, and John Eastman).

Washington State High Court: First Amendment protects profanity against police Read More

1

The Arizona Legislature Case

I was surprised by the outcome, the reasoning in the opinion, and that there were two votes (from Scalia and Thomas) to dismiss the suit for lack of standing.  In the end, I wonder if the Court should have just said “no standing” and left the status quo in place (in other words, the result would have been the same without needing to reach the merits).

UPDATE:  After reading the opinions again, I’m persuaded by the argument that there was no standing and that the Court should not have reached the merits.

1

Same-Sex Marriage Whoppers

Let’s turn to the same-sex marriage decision.  I’ll have a separate post on the Court’s opinion later.  Basically, my thought is that it reads like a lot of Justice Kennedy’s decisions, unfortunately.

With respect to the dissents, I want to make two points.  The first is that the Chief Justice’s dissent is greatly weakened by its cliched use of Lochner.  It’s as if he decided to repeat what he learned about the case in law school thirty-five years ago and thought that was a winner.  It’s not.  His story is riddled with historical inaccuracies (I’m sure David Bernstein will have more to say about that) and that charge no longer packs a wallop anyway.

Second, Justice Scalia’s dissent loses much of his credibility when he says at the outset that he personally does not care whether same-sex marriage is legal or not (as a policy matter).  I don’t believe that, and I think that few who read the opinion do.  Moreover, I find his speeches about the Justices usurping democracy to be getting rather tiresome.  He reminds me of a coach that the players no longer listen to.

0

Where to Begin?

I’ll have several posts this week on the work of the Court.  Let me start by addressing King v. Burwell.

The debate over the Affordable Care Act is now closed.  Sure, some people will make noises next year about repealing the law, but that’s not going to happen.  As Justice Scalia suggested in his dissent, the ACA will probably attain the status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act (the latter is an interesting choice–more on that another time.)  I’ll leave the discussion of the opinions themselves to people who are more expert on statutory construction.

I do have one thought to offer about Chief Justice Roberts’s role in saving the ACA.  In 2005, Justice O’Connor retired and John Roberts was nominated as her successor.  While that nomination was pending, Chief Justice Rehnquist died and Roberts was nominated as the Chief.  I wonder if that was a fateful choice.  Would Associate Justice Roberts have voted the same way in Sebelius?  Associate Justices get a sort of herd immunity if they do not write the Court’s opinion.  They do not bear the same institutional burdens as the Chief Justice.  Now maybe any Chief Justice fill-in-the-blank nominated by President Bush would have felt the same pull to not strike down the ACA by a 5-4 vote, but that is hard to know.  Hopefully, I’ll live long enough to see the papers on the internal deliberations in Sebelius opened for scrutiny.

0

FAN 65.1 (First Amendment News) Court vacates & remands three 1-A cases

When it issued its orders list today, the Supreme Court did the following:

  1. In Berger v. American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina it granted the petition for certiorari; the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015).
  2. In Thayer v. City of Worcester the petition certiorari was granted; the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further consideration in light of Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015), and
  3. In Central Radio Co., Inc. v. City of Norfolk the petition certiorari was granted;the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015).

The Court’s 2014-2015 Free Expression Docket

[last updated: 6-29-15 — what remains on the docket will either be resolved at “clean up” conference this Term or dealt with in late September when the Court has a “long conference.”]

Cases Decided 

  1. Elonis v. United States (argue: 12-1-14 / decided: June 1, 2015) (8-1 per Roberts) (statutory-based ruling)
  2. Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar (argued: Jan. 20, 2015 / decided: April 29, 2015) (5-4 per Roberts)
  3. Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans (argued 3-23-15 / decided 6-18-15) (5-4 per Breyer)
  4. Reed v. Town of Gilbert (argued 1-12-15 / decided 6-18-15) (9-0 per Thomas)

Pending Petitions*

  1. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, et al. (4-27-15: The Court asked the Calif. AG to respond to the petition)
  2. Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris (emergency application for injunction pending Cert.)

Review Denied*

  1. Walker-McGill v. Stuart
  2. O’Keefe v. Chisholm
  3. King v. Christie
  4. Apel v. United States 
  5. Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District
  6. The Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York 
  7. Arneson v. 281 Care Committee
  8. Kagan v. City of New Orleans
  9. ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen
  10. Clayton v. Niska
  11. Pregnancy Care Center of New York v. City of New York 
  12. City of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Annex Books, Inc.
  13. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. United States 
  14. Mehanna v. United States
  15. Stop This Insanity Inc Employee Leadership Fund et al  v. Federal Election Commission
  16. Vermont Right to Life Committee, et al v. Sorrell

Though these lists are not comprehensive, I try to track as many cases as possible. If you know of a cert. petition that is not on these lists, kindly inform me and I will post it.   

9

Crisis of the Dissents Divided? — Disagreement among the Obergefell Four

imagesIn the various news feeds and pundit commentaries concerning the recent same-sex marriage case, the focus has been on the divide between the majority and dissenting opinions. Some side with the majority, others with the dissenters. Putting such differences aside for the moment, what is noteworthy is that while the Justices in the majority all spoke with one voice, the same was not true for the dissenters.

Though the judgment in Obergefell v. Hodges was 5-4, none of the four separate dissents garnered more than a total of three votes:

  • 3 votes: Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent — joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas
  • 3 votes: Justice Alito’s dissent — joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas
  • 2 votes: Justice Scalia’s dissent — joined by Justice Thomas
  • 2 votes: Justice Thomas’ dissent — joined by Justice Scalia

Notably, neither the Chief Justice nor Justice Alito signed onto any of the other dissents. Why?

The Scalia Dissent: Too confrontational?

UnknownWhile the Chief Justice and Justice Alito share many of the constitutional concerns stated by Justice Scalia (e.g., the need for judicial restraint, adherence to precedent, undermining the political process, and deference to the traditional roles of the states), they tend to be uneasy with the kind of in-your-face confrontational tone Justice Scalia employed in his unrestrained dissent.

It is a tried-and-true canon of civility: Attempt to avoid confrontational terms or phrases such as “hubris,” “egotistic,” “mummeries,” and “silly extravagances.” By that creed of civility it is unnecessarily vituperative to equate another Justice’s reasoning with “mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie” or “pop-philosophy” or to refer to that Justice’s opinion as “judicial Putsch” – even if the seriousness of the latter is “not of immense personal importance” to you.

The Thomas Dissent: Too cabined or too natural law focused?

UnknownThe Chief Justice and Justice Alito also did not sign onto Justice Thomas’ dissent. Why? Though it is more difficult to answer this question, one explanation is a possible disagreement over the contours of due process as Justice Thomas offered it up. That is, his conservative colleagues may have been uncomfortable with Thomas’ reliance on Blackstonian notions of due process – notions perhaps too cabined for their constitutional tastes. Consider in this regard Professor Michael Dorf’s observation over at SCOTUSblog: “To the extent that Justice Thomas would allow any substantive due process, it would be for the liberty of movement only, and failing that, for no more than negative liberties. Marriage, as state recognition, would not be a fundamental right for anyone.”

And then there is Justice Thomas’ invocation of natural law and natural rights. The debate over the use and relevance of natural law has been an ongoing one in conservative circles. On that score, Chief Justice Roberts’ former boss, William Rehnquist, once found himself in the crosshairs of controversy brought on by a defender of natural law. See Harry V. Jaffa, Storm over the Constitution (1999) and his Original Intent and the Framers of the Constitution: A Disputed Question (1994) and his article “Judicial Conscience and Natural Rights,” 11 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 219 (1987).

The Alito Dissent: Reservations about the “further decay” of marriage argument?

(drawing by Arthur Lien: courtartist.com)

(drawing by Arthur Lien: courtartist.com)

While there is much similarity between the Roberts and Alito dissents on matters such as due process, equal protection, and the specter of vilifying people of faith, both nonetheless declined to affirm the other’s dissent. What might explain the Chief Justice’s unwillingness?

Did he have some reservations about the following?: “the tie between marriage and procreation has frayed. Today, for instance, more than 40% of all children in this country are born to unmarried women. This development undoubtedly is both a cause and a result of changes in our society’s understanding of marriage. While, for many, the attributes of marriage in 21st-century America have changed, those States that do not want to recognize same-sex marriage have not yet given up on the traditional understanding. They worry that by officially abandoning the older understanding, they may contribute to marriage’s further decay.”

The Roberts Dissent: Too charitable?

(credit: WSJ)

(credit: WSJ)

If you believe (as Justice Alito seems to) that same-sex marriages may contribute to the “further decay” of marriage, then you are unlikely to be as generous of spirit as the Chief Justice was when he declared: “If you are among the many Americans — of whatever sexual orientation — who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. . . .” By the same normative token, Justice Alito is not one who would appear to be inclined to say: “Many people will rejoice at [today’s] decision, and I begrudge none their celebration.”

Or what about this Roberts’ statement?: “The opinion describes the ‘transcendent importance’ of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to ‘demean,’ ‘devalue,’ ‘denigrate,’ or ‘disrespect’ the institution. . . . Nobody disputes those points.” Nobody?

Here, too, speculation is more the measure than certainty.

Crisis of the Dissents Divided?

However close my speculations are to the mark, one thing is certain: there was no unanimity of thought strong enough to convince the four dissenting Justices to lend all of their names to a single opinion. Despite their strong differences with the majority opinion, they, too, had reservations about one another’s views of law and life and how those differences should be expressed.

* * * * 

(credit: NYT)

(credit: NYT)

On a related point: What are we to make of the fact that none of the four liberal Justices who signed onto Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Obergefell found it necessary, or desirable, to write separate concurrences? The same was true with Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer in Romer v. Evans (1996) and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and later with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan in United States v. Windsor (2013).

One would think that these four Justices would push for a more protective conception of equal protection concerning discrimination against gays and lesbians. No? Then again, perhaps these four think the body of law tracing back to at least Romer will suffice.  And so far it has.