Tag: Supreme

Durbin asks Roberts to testify on Supreme Court ethics flaps

[ad_1]

“The time has come for a new public conversation on ways to restore confidence in the Court’s
ethical standards. I invite you to join it,” Durbin added.
A Supreme Court spokesperson did not immediately respond to an inquiry about whether Roberts plans to accept Durbin’s invitation.
Asked by reporters Thursday if he planned a subpoena for the chief justice if he does not agree to appear voluntarily, Durbin appeared to allude to Democrats’ ongoing difficulties related to the absence of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a longtime Judiciary committee member who has been absent from the Senate for months for medical reasons.
“It takes a majority. I don’t have a majority,” Durbin said bluntly, adding that he was hopeful Roberts would agree. “There’s been no discussion of subpoenas for anyone at this point.”
One Republican on the panel, Sen. Thom Tillis of South Carolina, expressed concern that a hearing with Roberts could wind up in a slugfest over issues unrelated to ethics practices at the court.
“You could quickly see it become a political show from either end of the spectrum,” Tillis said. “We could see it devolve into something that had nothing to do with the subject matter.”
Tillis also said the justices should be the ones deciding how to address ethics complaints and he questioned whether the high court’s standing with the public has, in fact, eroded.
“They themselves need to decide what, if anything, they need to do to restore any confidence that they think that they’ve lost, if in fact they think they’ve lost it,” Tillis said.

Durbin’s letter said Roberts “would not be expected to answer questions from Senators” about matters other than ethics, but it seems unlikely Durbin could prevent his colleagues from using a hearing to air such questions.
The Judiciary chair also offered an alternative, if Roberts doesn’t want to attend himself: He could send another justice in his place.
The Supreme Court is not bound by the code of ethics that applies to other federal judges and has no formal process to review ethics complaints. Roberts has said that the justices consult the ethics code for judges and also rely on various other authorities in deciding how to address ethics issues.
Democratic lawmakers have proposed imposing an ethics code and process on the Supreme Court by legislation, if the court does not craft such reforms itself.
The last appearance before a congressional committee by members of the Supreme Court came in 2019, when Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan attended a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the high court’s budget.
Kagan said at that hearing that the justices were discussing an ethics code, but in the four years since no such regime has been adopted by the high court.
Durbin noted in his letter, and to reporters, that a pair of justices – Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer – testified to the Judiciary panel in 2011. “There’s precedent for this,” the senator said.
The call for Roberts to testify comes in the wake of reports by ProPublica about Thomas’ frequent vacationing, sometimes on private jets, with wealthy Texas real estate developer Harlan Crow, and about Crow’s purchase of Thomas’ childhood home and neighboring properties.
Thomas has said in a statement that he has attempted to abide by financial disclosure requirements that apply to all federal judges and that he was advised “personal hospitality” from Crow did not have to be disclosed. Thomas, the court’s oldest and longest-serving justice, has not commented on the sale of his mother’s home to Crow or why it was not reported.
[ad_2]
#Durbin #asks #Roberts #testify #Supreme #Court #ethics #flaps
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 20, 2023
Supreme Court sides with New Jersey in dispute over port police agency

[ad_1]

The high court sided with New Jersey.
During oral arguments in March, justices were clearly willing to allow New Jersey to exit the deal; they were only trying to figure out how to do so without creating precedent that might disrupt other multistate deals, like those setting boundaries and setting water rights.
In a short, 11-page ruling, Kavanaugh distinguishes this deal, known as a compact, from such water rights cases and ruled “it would not make much sense to conclude that each State implicitly conferred on the other a perpetual veto of withdrawal” in this deal.
After the oral arguments, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, both Democrats, had their staffs start meeting to figure out how to maintain ongoing investigations, enforcement actions and operations in anticipated of a ruling in New Jersey’s favor.
[ad_2]
#Supreme #Court #sides #Jersey #dispute #port #police #agency
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 18, 2023
Senate Dems weighing a Clarence Thomas invite to future Supreme Court ethics hearing

[ad_1]
Earlier in the day, when asked if he’d consider subpoenaing Thomas for his testimony, Durbin told reporters that his panel would “talk about a number of options.”
Thomas’ behavior was “high on the list” of topics discussed Monday evening, said Blumenthal, who added that there is no final decision yet on who else should testify.
Durbin has not yet confirmed that Thomas would be asked to testify. Any subpoena that Democrats might issue, should the justice turn down such an invitation, would likely be challenged and could end up before Thomas and his colleagues at the high court.
Judiciary Democrats already sent a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts urging him to investigate Thomas’ undisclosed acceptance of luxury travel and gifts from wealthy GOP donor Harlan Crow. Later reports from ProPublica delved into the sale to Crow of three Georgia properties, including the home where Thomas’ mother currently lives.
“What he did is really unprecedented, the magnitude of the gifts and luxury travel but the money changing hands and the nondisclosure,” said Blumenthal.
Senators are still hoping that the Supreme Court will take its own action, but Durbin said his panel was also open to discussing proposals to impose a formal code of ethics on the court.
“This reflects on the integrity of the Supreme Court. [Roberts] should take the initiative and initiate his own investigation and promise results that answer this problem directly,” the chair said on Monday.
[ad_2]
#Senate #Dems #weighing #Clarence #Thomas #invite #future #Supreme #Court #ethics #hearing
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 18, 2023
Alito keeps access to abortion pill unchanged for next five days while Supreme Court reviews emergency appeals

[ad_1]

The appeals court ruling — if it takes effect — would suspend several policies the FDA has approved since 2016 to make mifepristone more accessible, including telemedicine prescription, mail delivery and retail pharmacy dispensing. The ruling also would suspend approval of the generic version of the drug and would narrow the window of time the drug can be prescribed from 10 to seven weeks of pregnancy — though off-label prescription after seven weeks would still be possible. The Biden administration warned the court in its Friday petition that letting these changes move forward would wreak “regulatory chaos” nationwide and harm patients.
The ruling had been scheduled to take effect on Saturday. But it is now temporarily frozen by Alito’s interim orders — known as administrative stays — keeping everything on hold until next Wednesday night while the justices receive further briefing and decide whether to issue a longer stay.
The anti-abortion medical groups challenging the pill’s approval have until noon on Tuesday to file responses. In a statement Friday, their attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erin Hawley, called Alito’s stay orders “standard operating procedure” that would give justices “sufficient time to consider the parties’ arguments before ruling.”
Alito’s move maintains for now the current national patchwork of abortion access, with near-total bans on all forms of abortion in many red states and broad access to both medication abortion and surgical abortion in blue states.
Alito, a George W. Bush appointee who wrote the court’s decision last year overturning Roe v. Wade and allowing a wave of GOP-led states to impose abortion bans, single-handedly issued the administrative stays on Friday because all emergency appeals from the 5th Circuit are initially directed to him. As is customary with interim orders, he did not elaborate on why he granted the temporary relief. But administrative stays are typically intended only to buy the court time in fast-moving litigation and do not foreshadow the justices’ substantive views.
The FDA did not immediately comment on the stay orders or how the agency plans to enforce the restrictions if the high court allows them to go into effect.
Abortion rights groups cheered the stay orders and vowed to keep pressing the court to permanently halt the looming restrictions on the drug. Anti-abortion groups called them disappointing, with one group, Students for Life, accusing the Supreme Court of “playing politics.”
The legal battle over mifepristone escalated last week when a federal district judge in Texas, Matthew Kacsmaryk, issued an order suspending the approval of mifepristone nationwide and halting the various moves FDA has made since 2016 to broaden access to the drug.

On Wednesday, a panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling putting a hold on the portion of the lower judge’s order that suspended the drug’s approval but allowing the rest of his decision to kick in on Saturday.
That prompted the Justice Department and Danco, which makes the brand-name version of mifepristone, to turn to the high court for relief. They said that even the 5th Circuit panel’s approach – leaving the drug approved but rolling back expanded access in recent years – would be highly disruptive and could force the company to stop selling and distributing the drug for months.
Adding to the turmoil is a separate ruling from a federal judge in Washington state, who last week ordered the FDA not to permit any new restrictions on access to mifepristone in 17 states and the District of Columbia.
[ad_2]
#Alito #access #abortion #pill #unchanged #days #Supreme #Court #reviews #emergency #appeals
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 15, 2023
Supreme Court rejects bid to block major class-action settlement on student debt relief

[ad_1]
Conservatives had seized on the case as a way to rein in Joe Biden’s efforts to cancel student debt and attack a potential backup plan to enact mass loan forgiveness if the Supreme Court strikes down his debt relief program in two other pending cases.
The three college operators were challenging the same law — the Higher Education Act’s “compromise” authority — that is widely seen as a fallback option for Biden. The administration’s existing student debt relief program is tied to the Covid-19 national emergency under a 2003 law known as the HEROES Act.
Everglades College Inc., Lincoln Educational Services Corporation and American National University argued that the settlement unfairly maligns them. About 3,800 of the colleges’ former students who said they were defrauded are set to receive relief under the settlement, but the schools note that those allegations were never proven.
The settlement, which the Education Department agreed to last year, came after years of litigation that accused the agency of mishandling and delaying applications by borrowers seeking loan forgiveness based on the misconduct of their college.
The deal is aimed at wiping out a backlog of hundreds of thousands of those applications, which are known as “borrower defense” claims. Some have languished at the department for years.
The Biden administration and attorneys who represent the student loan borrowers had argued that the three colleges lacked standing to challenge the settlement in the first place, dismissing the schools’ claims of reputational harm as too speculative.
In its brief earlier this week, the Justice Department pushed back on the idea that the class-action settlement is related to Biden’s broader debt cancellation program, calling them “entirely distinct.” The settlement “does not reflect any ‘en masse’ cancellation of outstanding debt, nor an assertion by the Secretary of the power to discharge the Department’s entire $1.6 trillion loan portfolio,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar wrote.
The decision by the Supreme Court on Thursday sends the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has already set a briefing schedule to hear the colleges’ appeal of the settlement.

It’s possible the case could return to the high court after that. The justices’ ruling on Thursday addressed only emergency relief.
But in the meantime it clears the Education Department to continue processing loan discharges for tens of thousands of borrowers.
The Biden administration reported on Wednesday that it had already wiped out the debts of about 78,000 borrowers out of the roughly 200,000 borrowers who qualify for immediate relief under the settlement.
Beyond the immediate loan forgiveness, the settlement also requires the Education Department to set up a streamlined process for tens of thousands of additional borrowers to obtain loan forgiveness.
Eileen Connor, president and director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending, which represents the class of student loan borrowers in the case welcomed the court’s decision on Thursday.
“Today’s swift and decisive action from the highest court should end, once and for all, any ongoing debate about the legitimacy of this settlement,” she said in a statement. “The message is clear: the rights of student borrowers will not falter, even in the face of well-funded, politically-motivated attacks masquerading as legal argument.”
Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#Supreme #Court #rejects #bid #block #major #classaction #settlement #student #debt #relief
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 14, 2023
Jaipur serial blasts: Rajasthan BJP says SLP will be filed in Supreme Court

[ad_1]
Jaipur: A Special Leave Petition will be filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the family members of the victims of the 2008 Jaipur serial bomb blasts against the Rajasthan High Court verdict acquitting four people previously accused in the case, a senior BJP leader said on Wednesday.
Leader of opposition in Rajasthan Assembly Rajendra Rathore said he will visit Delhi on Thursday for this.
Rathore and other party leaders, including BJP state president CP Joshi, attended a dharna at Ramlila ground at Sanganeri gate on Wednesday. After the dharna, a candle march was also taken out.

The family members of those who were killed or injured in the blasts took part in the protest.
“I assure that the BJP is standing with the victims until they get justice,” Rathore said.
Joshi questioned why the Congress government could not engage good lawyers to ensure justice to the victims.
“It is understood from the verdict that the Congress government is definitely an anti-Hindu government. Sometimes it bans Ram Navami (processions), and sometimes it fails to save people like Kanhaiya Lal,” he said.
Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor in Udaipur, was hacked to death in July last year by two men who said in a video posted online that they had avenged an insult to Islam.

On March 29 this year, the Rajasthan High Court acquitted four people accused in the Jaipur blasts case on the ground of shoddy investigation. The four were awarded the capital punishment by a lower court.
The BJP has accused the state government of presenting a weak case which led to their acquittal.
The state government said it will file a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the verdict.
A lower court in December 2019 awarded the death sentence to Mohammad Sarwar Azmi, Mohammad Saif, Mohammad Salman and Saifur Rahman and acquitted the fifth accused Shahbaz Hussain while giving benefit of doubt.
Jaipur was rocked by a series of blasts on May 13, 2008, when bombs went off one after another at Manak Chawk Khanda, Chandpole Gate, Badi Chaupad, Chhoti Chaupad, Tripolia Gate, Johri Bazar and Sanganeri Gate.
[ad_2]
#Jaipur #serial #blasts #Rajasthan #BJP #SLP #filed #Supreme #Court
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 12, 2023
Three Bills accorded assent by Telangana governer: Supreme Court

[ad_1]
Delhi: Telangana governor’s office on Monday told the Supreme Court that assent has been given to three Bills passed by the state legislature and two others have been reserved for consideration and assent of the President.
A bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and J B Pardiwala was told by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that he has received a communication dated April 9 from the secretary to the governor of Telangana in regard to the position of the Bills, which were submitted to the governor for assent.
The bench took the letter on record and noted that the assents of governor were given for the Bills which include The Telangana Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Bill, 2022, The Telangana Municipalities (Amendment) Bill, 2023, and The Professor Jayashankar Telangana Agricultural University (Amendment) Bill, 2023.

It noted that two Bills which were reserved for consideration and assent of the President are The University of Forestry Telangana Bill, 2022 and The Telangana Universities Common Recruitment Board Bill, 2022.
The bench recorded in its order that the Bills which are under active consideration of the governor are The Telangana State Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) (Amendment) Bill, 2022, The Telangana Municipal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022 and The Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Bill, 2022.
“The statement indicates that certain clarifications have been sought by the Governor from the State Government in regard to Telangana Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Bill 2023,” the bench said in its order.
It added that it has been stated that the Azamabad Industrial Area (Termination and Regulation of Leases) (Amendment) Bill 2022 has not been submitted as yet by the Law Department to the governor for consideration and assent.
The court posted the matter for further hearing on April 24.

On March 27, the top court had deferred to April 10 the hearing on the Telangana government’s plea seeking directions to the state governor to clear 10 Bills that have been passed by the assembly but are awaiting gubernatorial assent.
The top court was told by Mehta that he had some discussion with the governor on the issue and would make a statement on the next date of hearing.
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the Telangana government, had said that in Madhya Pradesh, the governor grants assent to Bills within seven days while in Gujarat, Bills are cleared within a month.
On March 20, the top court sought the Centre’s response on the plea filed by the state government.
It had clarified that the court will not issue notice to the office of governor but would like to see the reply of the Union of India on the state government’s plea.
On March 14, the apex court agreed to hear a petition filed by the Telangana government seeking directions to the state governor to clear 10 pending Bills passed by legislative assembly but are awaiting gubernatorial assent.
The court had agreed to hear the plea, after Dave mentioned it for urgent listing, saying several Bills of public importance are stuck.
The state government has said in its petition it is constrained to move the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution in view of a “constitutional impasse” created on account of refusal of the governor to act on several Bills passed by the state legislature.
It said Article 200 of the Constitution empowers the governor to either give assent to a Bill passed by the state assembly or to withhold the assent or reserve the Bill for consideration of the President.
“This power has to be exercised as soon as possible,” it said.
The state government said several Bills passed by the assembly, including the Telangana Municipal Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2022, Telangana Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) Amendment Bill 2022 and Telangana Universities Common Recruitment Board Bill, 2022, are awaiting Governor Tamilisai Soundararajan’s nod.
Soundararajan, a former Tamil Nadu BJP chief, is locked in a running feud with the BRS government in Telangana.
[ad_2]
#Bills #accorded #assent #Telangana #governer #Supreme #Court
( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

April 11, 2023
Supreme Court keeps West Virginia transgender sports ban on ice

[ad_1]
Passed in 2021, the law requires that female sports teams at the state’s public middle schools, high schools and colleges be based on “biological sex.” Becky Pepper-Jackson, a 12-year-old transgender girl who was looking to try out for her school’s girls cross-country team, challenged the law. Pepper-Jackson has played sports on teams that match her gender identity during several sports seasons.
After the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the state from enforcing the law, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey filed an emergency request with the high court seeking to put it back into effect.
In a two-page opinion, Alito said the dispute raises “an important issue that this Court is likely to be required to address in the near future.” While acknowledging arguments that West Virginia moved too slowly in the case, he said state officials had the better legal position, at least at this juncture. Thomas joined Alito’s opinion.
Pepper-Jackson’s lawsuit argues that the law violates both Title IX protections against sex discrimination and equal protection rights found in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal lawyers had urged the high court to reject the state’s request, arguing that West Virginia could not prove that there was an emergency that necessitated the court’s intervention.
“We are grateful that the Supreme Court today acknowledged that there was no emergency and that Becky should be allowed to continue to participate with her teammates on her middle school track team, which she has been doing without incident for three going on four seasons,” the groups said in a statement.
This is the second time the court’s conservative majority has declined to weigh in on a high-profile case related to transgender students. In 2021, the court decided not to take up a case on transgender students’ rights to use bathrooms that match their gender identity.
At least 19 states have laws barring transgender women and girls from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity. West Virginia’s request had the support of more than 20 states, which urged the high court to vacate the injunction.

The Supreme Court’s decision comes as the Biden administration is pushing back on those laws by advancing a Title IX rule on athletics participation that is widely expected to safeguard transgender students’ right to play on sports teams.
Morrisey expressed disappointment that the justices declined to step in, but said he expects a different result if and when the appeal in the case reaches the high court for more regular review.
“This is a procedural setback, but we remain confident that when this case is ultimately determined on the merits, we will prevail,” Morrisey said, noting that the 4th Circuit has yet to issue a final ruling on the validity of the law. “We maintain our stance that this is a common sense law — we have a very strong case. It’s just basic fairness and common sense to not have biological males play in women’s sports.”
Alito’s opinion also lamented the fact neither the appeals court nor the Supreme Court’s majority explained their decisions to reject the state’s emergency request.
[ad_2]
#Supreme #Court #West #Virginia #transgender #sports #ban #ice
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 7, 2023
Liberals take over Wisconsin Supreme Court — with major implications for abortion

[ad_1]

The race was the most expensive state judicial race in American history. As of late last week, over $45 million has been spent on the contest, according to WisPolitics.com.
That is roughly three times the previous record.
The election will have wide-sweeping effects on the state, including, in the nearest-term, access to abortion in Wisconsin. The state has a 1840s law on the books that bans abortion in nearly all instances in the state. State Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, has brought a lawsuit challenging that law in state court that is widely expected to eventually land in front of the state Supreme Court.
But in the interim, abortion providers have stopped performing the procedure in the state.
That was an animating factor for Protasiewicz’s campaign, whose advertising regularly spoke about abortion rights. On the trail, she has repeatedly said “my personal value is that a woman has a right to choose,” while stressing that she is merely speaking about her values and not prejudging any particular court case.
The race court could have a significant impact on election laws in the state, which has regularly ruled on contentious election issues since the 2020 election.
Perhaps most notably, the state Supreme Court turned away then-President Donald Trump’s attempts to throw out the 2020 election results in the state.
Its 4-to-3 vote came only after Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative who sometimes served as a swing vote, joined the liberal bloc to reject the case.

Protasiewicz’s win also makes Democrats much more likely to bring challenges to the state’s congressional and legislative lines.
Republicans have near-supermajorities in both legislative chambers and a 6-2 split of the congressional delegation in a state that routinely votes close to 50-50 on a statewide level.
Similarly to her comments about values on abortion, Protasiewicz has said that it is clear the maps in the state are unfair.“
Wisconsin has probably the most gerrymandered maps in the entire country,” she said in an interview with POLITICO in February. “I anticipate that it’s possible that some type of litigation in regard to fair maps could come before the Supreme Court.”
[ad_2]
#Liberals #Wisconsin #Supreme #Court #major #implications #abortion
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 5, 2023
Liberals take over Wisconsin Supreme Court — with major implications for abortion

[ad_1]

Kelly acknowledged his loss on Tuesday evening, but savaged the now-justice elect in his concession speech. “I wish in circumstances like this, I would be able to concede to a worthy opponent, but I do not have a worthy opponent,” he said, calling Protasiewicz’ campaign “beneath contempt” that launched “rancid slanders.” He said she would damage the integrity of the court.
Protasiewicz struck a more optimistic tone. “It means that our democracy will always prevail,” she said at her victory night party. “Too many have tried to overturn the will of the people. Today’s result shows that Wisconsinites believe in democracy and the democratic process.”
The race was the most expensive state judicial race in American history. As of late last week, over $45 million has been spent on the contest, according to WisPolitics.com.
That is roughly three times the previous record.
The election will have wide-sweeping effects on the state, including, in the nearest-term, access to abortion in Wisconsin. The state has a 1840s law on the books that bans abortion in nearly all instances in the state. State Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, has brought a lawsuit challenging that law in state court that is widely expected to eventually land in front of the state Supreme Court.
But in the interim, abortion providers have stopped performing the procedure in the state.
That was an animating factor for Protasiewicz’s campaign, whose advertising regularly spoke about abortion rights. On the trail, she has repeatedly said “my personal value is that a woman has a right to choose,” while stressing that she is merely speaking about her values and not prejudging any particular court case.
The race court could have a significant impact on election laws in the state, which has regularly ruled on contentious election issues since the 2020 election.

Perhaps most notably, the state Supreme Court turned away then-President Donald Trump’s attempts to throw out the 2020 election results in the state.
Its 4-to-3 vote came only after Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative who sometimes served as a swing vote, joined the liberal bloc to reject the case.
Protasiewicz’s win also makes Democrats much more likely to bring challenges to the state’s congressional and legislative lines.
Republicans have near-supermajorities in both legislative chambers and a 6-2 split of the congressional delegation in a state that routinely votes close to 50-50 on a statewide level.
Similarly to her comments about values on abortion, Protasiewicz has said that it is clear the maps in the state are unfair.“
Wisconsin has probably the most gerrymandered maps in the entire country,” she said in an interview with POLITICO in February. “I anticipate that it’s possible that some type of litigation in regard to fair maps could come before the Supreme Court.”
[ad_2]
#Liberals #Wisconsin #Supreme #Court #major #implications #abortion
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

April 5, 2023