Supreme Court

  • February 7, 2014
     
    The New York Times editorial board cited an amicus brief in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores authored by Frederick Mark Gedicks, Faculty Advisor for the Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School ACS Student Chapter. The paper calls for the Court to recognize the Establishment Clause’s precedent in the lawsuit against the Obama administration. Gedicks also authored an ACS Issue Brief examining the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception policy and laid out an argument against granting religious exemptions to for-profit corporations on ACSblog.
     
    Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, released a statement praising the Senate Judiciary Committee for its favorable report of Debo Adegbile to be the Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. In the statement, Ifill says Adegbile “has precisely the type of broad civil rights experience that is required at this pivotal moment in our country.”
     
    Last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act that required federal review of voting laws in states with a history of voter discrimination. Adam Ragusea of NPR reports from Macon, Georgia on the repercussions felt by the city’s minority voters.
     
    Human Rights Watch explores the legal and ethical implications of a growing trend among probation companies to “act more like abusive debt collectors than probation officers.”
     
    The Honorable Robert L. Carter is in the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s “Black History Month Spotlight.”
  • February 6, 2014
     
    Writing for The Huffington Post, distinguished George Washington University Law School Prof. Alan B. Morrison and co-author Adam A. Marshall argue in favor of the National Popular Vote (NPV) movement. In his article, Morrison—a faculty advisor to the ACS Student Chapter at GWU—explains why the current state of the Electoral College is a major deficit to American democracy and how the NPV movement would facilitate a more representative voting system.
     
    Writing for SCOTUSblog, Jody Freeman explains why the greenhouse gas cases pending at the U.S. Supreme Court will have little impact on the EPA and the government’s ability to regulate emissions.
     
    The Associated Press reports on the developing case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit that has Utah state attorneys insisting that same-sex marriage will devalue the family structure and lead to economic crisis.
     
    David H. Gans of Slate breaks down Hobby Lobby’s lawsuit against the Obama administration to reveal why, when it comes to the free exercise of religion, most corporations are sitting this one out.
     
    At the blog of Legal Times, Todd Ruger notes the diversity of President Obama’s judicial nominees.

     

  • January 22, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Ann C. Hodges, Professor of Law, University of Richmond School of Law

    This post is part of a series examining Harris v. Quinn, for which the high court heard oral argument on January 21.

    While there are many things one could say about the January 21 oral argument in Harris v. Quinn, three things stood out to this long-time labor lawyer. There was a long exchange between Justice Kennedy and the union’s lawyer about whether the issues about which public employers typically bargain are political issues. This portion of the argument cast doubt on the validity of the distinction that the Supreme Court has made between chargeable expenses, those related to collective bargaining and contract administration, and non-chargeable expenses, which include everything else but most importantly political expenditures. 

    This longstanding distinction has protected objecting employees from being forced to subsidize unions’ political activity. As suggested in the argument, however, anything relating to terms and conditions of employment of public employees involves government expenditures and the way government spends funds can always be characterized as a political issue.  The reach of this argument calls into question not only the model of exclusive representation that has been the basis of labor law in this country since 1935, but also collective bargaining for public employees in general.  If the union must represent all the employees in the bargaining unit, as it is required to do by law, it must negotiate for benefits and working conditions that affect government expenditures; some employees may view these as political positions to which they object. While it seemed that the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation’s argument questioned the constitutionality of public sector bargaining and exclusive representation, the lawyer assured the justices that those issues were not before them in this case. The implications for the American labor law system are clear, however.

    There was also a suggestion that the free rider problem could be solved by abandoning exclusive representation and allowing the union to represent only its members. This ignores two realities.  First, as a practical matter employers do not want to administer different pay plans, benefits and working conditions for similar groups of employees. The nonmembers would likely obtain what the union negotiates even without the requirement of exclusive representation. Second, as suggested by the union’s lawyer, what could be more coercive of associational rights than a system where unionized workers are paid more than nonunion workers doing the same job solely because they are union members? Although the attorney from the National Right to Legal Defense Foundation intimated that such a system would be constitutionally and legally permissible, it would be surprising if no legal challenge to such a disparity were mounted.

  • January 13, 2014

    by Nicholas Alexiou

    The Supreme Court heard an atypically long oral argument this morning in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning et al. The 90-minute argument (as opposed to the standard 60 minutes) focused on the Constitution’s Recess Appointments Clause which states that “[t]he President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”

    Presidents have been making recess appointments since the founding; in fact President George Washington employed a recess appointment to name John Rutledge the Second Chief Justice of the United States, though his nomination was eventually defeated by the Senate. There has long been a political understanding which has governed recess appointments. In a recent ACS conference call, David Strauss, Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law and ACS National Board of Directors member, noted that, for example, since the administration of President James Monroe, it has been understood that a vacancy need not arise during a congressional recess in order for it to be filled via a recess appointment. However, this political consensus may soon collapse as the Court fully examines the clause for the first time.  

    The case before the Court deals with the validity of a 2012 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision rendered by a panel made up of three members of the five-member Board.  President Obama had appointed two of the three members to the Board via a recess appointment. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed with Noel Canning (a division of the Noel Corporation) that the recess appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional. During the recent ACS call, American Enterprise Institute Resident Scholar Norman J. Ornstein called the D.C. Circuit’s decision a “breathtaking exercise of judicial activism.” On appeal, three questions are before the Court: whether a president’s recess appointment power is limited to inter-session recesses, or if it extends to intra-session recesses; whether a recess appointment can fill any vacancy, or if it is limited to those vacancies, which arose during the recess; and whether recess appointments can take place when the Senate is meeting every three days in pro-forma sessions, a practice that has become increasingly frequent in recent years as partisan rancor has escalated.

  • December 20, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Ann C. Hodges, Professor of Law, University of Richmond

    * This post is part of a series examining Harris v. Quinn, for which the high court will hear oral argument on January 21.

    The pending case of Harris v. Quinn may turn out to be a case that proves the axiom “Be careful what you wish for.” Harris has the potential to knock out one of the pillars under the carefully balanced labor law system in the United States. If it does so, the long term impact is uncertain.

    Under long-established private sector law, largely adopted in many public sector labor law regimes as well, unions are selected by a majority of the employees and then required to represent all employees in the bargaining unit regardless of membership. Except in right to work states, employees thus represented can then be required to pay the cost of representation, although not the cost of any political or other activity engaged in by the union. The Supreme Court found this balanced system passed muster under the First Amendment in both the private sector and the public sector.

    The system of exclusive representation serves the interest of labor peace, avoiding competing unions jockeying to outdo one another in obtaining benefits and continual negotiations by employers with a variety of unions each representing their own members. While this system requires some employees to accept and fund representation that they do not prefer, so does our political system in which representatives are also chosen by majority vote.

    In our political system, we can campaign for our preferred representatives for the next election and try to influence our existing representatives. So too can employees try to convince a majority of their fellow employees to remove the union or choose a different union through a statutory election process. They can also try to influence the union by lobbying the union’s officials or campaigning for different leadership in government-mandated internal elections. If they choose to be union members they can vote for the union’s officers or run for union office themselves. Government employees can even communicate to their government employer their views in direct opposition to the union’s collective bargaining positions.