On May 28th, IMLA, the State and Local Legal Center, and the National Conference of State Legislatures will host a free webinar on the Greece decision. Details and registration are here....
ruling that the Town’s prayer practice is not an unconstitutional establishment of religion. This post tracks some commentary on the case:
SCOTUSblog has been providing analysis of the divided decision:
The stark difference between the majority opinion in the Allegheny County case and the Court’s new opinion in the Town of Greece case illustrated the progress made by Justice Kennedy toward the Court’s full embrace — although for differing reasons among five Justices who determined the outcome – of the “coercion” test in determining whether a government practice amounted to an “establishment of religion” in violation of the First Amendment.Eugene Volokh of UCLA School of Law provides his reactions:
the Supreme Court also decided to hear and answer another question impacting local governments: when a city denies a request to place a cell tower, how formally must it act?
The Court granted cert in T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, No. 13-975, which specifically asks what a local government must do to satisfy the Communications Act's "in writing" requirement at 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iii):
Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written recordAs the Eleventh Circuit explained in its decision, some circuit courts have ruled
concluding that the Town's prayer practice has a "permissible ceremonial purpose" and is "not an unconstitutional establishment of religion."
Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy ruled that the Town's prayer practice "fits within the tradition long followed in Congress and the state legislatures."
Some highlights from his opinion:
First Circuit
Justice Scalia erroneously depicted precedent in his dissent in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, which had to be corrected. But don’t let that be the reason you read this blog post. This case is important for local governments.
The Clean Air Act’s Good Neighbor Provision prohibits upwind states from emitting air pollution in amounts that will contribute significantly to downwind states failing to attain air quality standards. In EPA v. EME Homer City Generation the Supreme Court resolved two issues related to the Good Neighbor Provision. Justice Ginsburg wrote the 6-2 opinion.
The Court first considered how responsibility for air pollution should be allocated.
The Seventh Circuit applied those words to a brief that presented “12 issues for review—many with sub-parts, for a total of 21 principal contentions. Posing so many issues ensures that each is superficially argued.” Reed-Union Corp. v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 77 F.3d 909, 911 (7th Cir. 1996). The court in Carpinet v. Mitchell, 853 A.2d 366, 371 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2004), found much to criticize, finding itself “compelled to comment on the state of this appeal.” The court found itself
In Prado Navarette v. California an anonymous 911 caller reported that a vehicle had run her off the road. The Court held 5-4 that a police stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable suspicion that the driver was intoxicated. When police stopped the Navarette brothers they smelled marijuana. A search of the vehicle revealed 30 pounds of marijuana.
The Court’s rationale, in an opinion written by Justice Thomas, is as follows. The tip of dangerous driving was sufficiently reliable because
First Circuit
In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action the Supreme Court held 6-2 that voters may by ballot prohibit affirmative action in public universities admission decisions. While this case was limited to the use of race in public university admission decisions, Michigan’s constitutional amendment also prohibits the use of racial-preference in state and local government employment and contracting. Presumably, these provisions are also constitutional. As NCSL’s Affirmative Action: State Action chart describes, a number of states prohibit the use of affirmative action in local government employment and contracting.
In 2003 in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger,
Notifications
