Justiciability

14 Jul 19
VotersRule2020. MakingDemocracy WorkSC.blog

On June 27, the last day of the 2018–2019 session, the Supreme Court announced two rulings affecting matters of concern to us: one to do with partisan gerrymandering and the other to do with the proposed citizenship question on the upcoming census. Redistricting In Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004), the Supreme Court split 4-4 on the […]

12 Jul 19
UK Constitutional Law Association

In a recent Times article, Lord Pannick QC – leading Counsel in the Miller litigation – argues that if a Prime Minister were to advise HMQ to prorogue parliament to achieve a No Deal exit, an application could be made to the courts to determine the lawfulness of such advice. Sir John Major said on […]

10 Jul 19
County Sustainability Group

Court decides Netherlands has a duty of care to reduce emissions by at least -25% by 2020 In Urgenda Foundation v. The State of the Netherlands (2015)(Urgenda), the State of Netherlands was found by the court to have an affirmative duty toward its citizens to take action against climate change (see previous posts on the topic here and here). […]

01 Jul 19
Jehtro Lewis - Blog

On July 9, at 1pm Central time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will hear oral argument in Texas v. United States, the latest effort to have the Affordable Care Act struck down in federal court. The panel hearing the case (announced this morning) consists of Senior Judge Carolyn Dineen King, Judge Jennifer […]

01 Jul 19
UK Constitutional Law Association

In the recent case of R (Campaign Against Arms Trade) v Secretary of State for International Trade [2019] (hereinafter CAAT), the Court of Appeal invalidated the UK government’s decision to grant licences for the sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia for possible use in the conflict in Yemen. The court found that the government had […]

01 Jul 19
Jehtro Lewis - Blog

  The Supreme Court. For many decades, the Supreme Court has chosen to avoid addressing some issues by ruling that they are “political questions,” and therefore not fit for resolution. Last week, in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court concluded that political gerrymandering falls within that category. In cases such as Baker v. Carr (1962), […]

30 Jun 19
Deep South Press BLOG

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/john-roberts-gerrymandering-ruling_n_5d153013e4b07f6ca57aa5bd By Sam Levine (6/27/19) The chief justice suggested that voters could turn to politicians, who benefit from gerrymandering, to end the practice. The U.S. Supreme Court shook the core of American democracy on Thursday, saying that federal courts cannot play a role in overseeing excessive partisan gerrymandering. The 5-4 ruling along partisan lines was […]

29 Jun 19
Jehtro Lewis - Blog

As most readers of this blog likely know, yesterday the Supreme Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause that constitutional claims of “partisan gerrymandering” are “nonjusticiable”—i.e., they are not “properly suited for resolution by the federal courts.” The opinion also notes the other potential legal instruments, such as federal legislation and state constitutions, that might […]

28 Jun 19
TrumpWorld for Beginners

Today’s landmark Supreme Court ruling on partisan gerrymandering (Rucho et al v. Common Cause et al) is likely to go down in history as another in a series of key decisions by the Roberts court that poisoned American democracy–like Citizens United (which opened the flood gates for money in politics) and Shelby County v. Holder […]

28 Jun 19
VotersRule2020. MakingDemocracy WorkSC.blog

In a previous post, we discussed the concept of justiciability–the question of whether courts could take any role at all in adjudicating questions of partisan gerrymandering. Today, a 5-4 majority of the court ruled that partisan gerrymandering cases are not justiciable in federal courts. The ruling moves the battleground out of the federal courts and […]

28 Jun 19
On Elections

The toxic virus of political partisanship today infected the United States Supreme Court, with a majority of five judges appointed by Republican presidents voting to declare that federal courts should not interfere with state and national electoral boundary cheating. The US political system is currently based entirely on single-member electoral districts. Gerrymandering – the deliberate distortion […]

27 Jun 19
High School SCOTUS

by Anna Salvatore The Supreme Court decided Rucho v. Common Cause this morning, holding by a 5-4 vote that federal courts can’t hear partisan gerrymandering claims.  It’s well-established that courts can hear legal questions, not political ones. And according to the majority opinion’s author, Chief Justice Roberts, it’s often a political exercise to decide what […]

27 Jun 19
Quartz
The US Supreme Court today decided two cases (pdf) about partisan gerrymandering that the nation’s political buffs had awaited breathlessly. Consolidating the two matters out of Maryland and North Carolina, the majority determined that district rigging is a “nonjusticiable political question.” In other words, it’s not for the high court to decide whether districts were inappropriately rigged to favor representation for a particular political party. Still, chief justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that the decision to send the matters back to the lower courts to be vacated for lack of jurisdiction shouldn’t be confused with court support for partisan gerrymandering. The court simply could not expand its powers, he concluded. But states can and should—and some already are—address gerrymandering through their own constitutions and legislatures. He writes: The conclusion that partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable neither condones excessive partisan gerrymandering nor condemns complaints about districting to echo into a void. Numerous States are actively addressing the issue through state constitutional amendments and legislation placing power to draw electoral districts in the hands of independent commissions, mandating particular districting criteria for their mapmakers, or prohibiting drawing district lines for partisan advantage. The Framers also gave Congress the power to do something about partisan gerrymandering in the Elections Clause. That avenue for reform established by the Framers, and used by Congress in the past, remains open. Roberts was joined by the conservative wing of the court—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. The chief justice noted that there was no appropriate standard for judging partisan gerrymandering cases under constitutional law. He said that turning to racial gerrymandering tests for guidance wouldn’t serve because discrimination based on race is subject to the strictest scrutiny for violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. “Unlike partisan gerrymandering claims, a racial gerrymandering claim does not ask for a fair share of political power and influence, with all the justiciability conundrums that entails,” Roberts wrote.” It asks instead for the elimination of a racial classification. A partisan gerrymandering claim cannot ask for the elimination of partisanship.” Elena Kagan wrote a dissent, joined by the court’s liberal wing, which includes Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Stephen Breyer. Kagan noted in her dissent that the majority’s conclusion simply shirked a duty to rule in her view. She writes: For the first time ever, this Court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And not just any constitutional violation. The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people. Kagan believes that the court can and should address the difficult question of how much partisan gerrymandering is too much. She said the court was abdicating its duty at a crucial time in American politics. Roberts addressed her criticisms in a footnote in the majority opinion. He agreed with Kagan’s assessment that partisanship was viewed as suspect by the Constitution’s framers but not with her proposed remedy of judicial review. He wrote: “The dissent’s observation that the Framers viewed political parties ‘with deep suspicion, as fomenters of factionalism and symptoms of disease in the body politic’ is exactly right. Its inference from that fact is exactly wrong. The Framers would have been amazed at a constitutional theory that guarantees a certain degree of representation to political parties.” Now the matters will go back to state hands for legislators to work out. On this last day of the high court’s term, the justices managed to avoid an uproar about gerrymandering by essentially deciding not to decide.
26 Jun 19
Gronda Morin

I like to read opinions from the left to the right. Recently, I’ve noticed panic levels setting in, by recent ex-GOP and current GOP members who are “Never Trumpers” as they act out in an attempt to school the Democrats on who they should should select as their presidential candidate and how they should act […]

22 Jun 19
Law Axis 360°

It appears to be the extant position of the law that an employee cannot enforce a CBA unless the terms of the agreement sought to be enforced or the entire agreement has been subsumed into his/her contract of employment.