Commentary

Home > Commentary (Page 14)

Posted 10 Dec 2015 in Commentary
Today was a big day for redistricting before the Supreme Court. The Court decided one redistricting case and heard oral argument in two others.    Texas, like all other states, redistricts based on total population data from the census. A number of Texas voters argue that state legislative districts deviate from the ideal by as much as 45 percent when voting population is used. At oral argument today in Evenwel v. Abbott Justices Kennedy, frequently the Court’s “swing” vote in high-profile cases, asked whether both metrics can be used to comply with one-person, one-vote.

Posted 18 Sep 2015 in Case Notes, Commentary
Imagine being sued in a court where there is no appeals process and the legal precedent relevant to your case may not be written down. That is the situation Dollar General has found itself, and state or local governments may find themselves in, if the Supreme Court does not reverse the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

Posted 11 Sep 2015 in Case Notes, Commentary, IMLA Briefs
Some Supreme Court case are epic because they are important. Other cases are epic because they have been litigated for decades. Depending on how the Court rules, Hyatt II may be important for both reasons. Gilbert Hyatt’s dispute with the California Franchise Tax Board began in the early 1990s. The Supreme Court decided one issue in his case in the early 2000s. The stakes in Hyatt II are high not just for Hyatt but for all states.  In 1993 the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) of California audited Gilbert Hyatt following a newspaper article reporting he made a lot of money patenting a computer chip. Hyatt’s 1991 tax return indicated he lived in California for only nine months and relocated to Nevada. FTB concluded that Hyatt moved to Nevada in 1992 and assessed him $10.5 million in taxes and interest.

Posted 24 Aug 2015 in Case Notes, Commentary
It takes only common sense to know that whoever is in charge of redistricting would prefer to gerrymander in their favor as much possible. The irony of the Supreme Court agreeing to decide Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is inescapable. On June 29 in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission the Court held that Arizona’s redistricting commission could be solely responsible for congressional redistricting. In the first sentence of its opinion the Court noted Arizona voters adopted the commission to avoid partisan gerrymandering. The next day the Court agreed to decide Harris where the plaintiffs allege that Arizona’s redistricting commission engaged in partisan gerrymandering in state legislative redistricting that violated one-person, one-vote. 

Posted 21 Aug 2015 in Case Notes, Commentary
Stare decisis may be tossed out the window next Supreme Court term in what promises to be one of the most closely followed cases. The stakes for unionized public employees couldn’t be higher. In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether to overrule a nearly 40-year old precedent requiring public sector employees who don’t join the union to pay their “fair share” of collective bargaining costs. More than 20 States have enacted statutes authorizing fair share.

Posted 29 Jun 2015 in Case Notes, Commentary, IMLA Briefs
Same-sex marriage, Affordable Care Act, raisins. What do these three have in common?  The Supreme Court has recently issued a ruling regarding each of them. In Horne v. Department of Agriculture the Supreme Court held 8-1 that the federal government violated the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause by physically setting aside a percentage of a grower’s raisin crop each year without pay. At least six other agriculture set aside programs are in trouble as a result of this case. But what about its impact on state and local government?

Posted 25 Jun 2015 in Case Notes, Commentary
If you were surprised by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Affordable Care Act Case, you may have even been more surprised by the Court’s ruling in the Fair Housing Act case. In Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. inclusive Communities Project the Supreme Court held 5-4 that disparate-impact claims may be brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA). All Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals had decided this issue ruling that such claims were possible, though they disagreed about the level of proof required. The Supreme Court was expected to come to the opposite conclusion (or else why would they have taken this case?). Having taken up this question twice before, only to have the cases settle, the Court has finally resolved it.