Another “landmark” case for the Supreme Court

Today, the United States Supreme Court granted the petition filed by the state of Arizona to hear the case concerning the state’s immigration law passed in April, 2010. (See: page 2, case number 11-182 of the link).  This was an appeal from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision finding many of the provisions of Arizona’s law unenforceable. Read more

Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare

This morning the United States Supreme Court granted the various Petitions for Writ of Certiorari filed by the parties in what has become known as the “Florida case”.  In plain English, that means that the Court will hear oral arguments in each of the cases.  You can find the link to the Order here at page 3. Read more

The Supreme Court and Obamacare

The Supreme Court has what is known as private conferences.  At these meetings the Justices decide what cases they will hear, and what cases they will not hear. Read more

The first Monday in October

Today marks the beginning of the Supreme Court’s 2011-2012 term, and there are several interesting cases on the Court’s docket.  Obviously many are focused on the issue of the constitutionality of Obamacare, but, there are other matters involving constitutional interpretation that should present some lively arguments. Read more

States challenging Obamacare file before the Supreme Court UPDATE

Today, 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the United States Supreme Court.  A “petition for writ of cert” is simply a request by the parties that the Supreme Court hear the case.  This is an appeal from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion, filed August 12, holding that Obamacare’s individual mandate is unconstitutional.

If you recall, Judge Vinson of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Florida declared the entire law to be unconstitutional.  On appeal to the 11th Circuit, that court upheld all parts of the law except the individual mandate.  Consequently, the states are appealing to the Supreme Court and requesting that Judge Vinson’s decision be reinstated.

What is interesting here is that the states “beat the administration to the punch”.  The administration had until November 12 to file its petition for writ of cert, and most expected it to consume every second of that in the hopes of delaying any consideration, and ruling into 2013.  After all, the more of Obamacare that gets implemented, the harder it is to unwind it should the law be found to be unconstitutional.

The other point of interest is that many, if not most lawyers believe it is far better to be the one presenting the claim (the appellant) than the one defending against the claim (the appellee).  If you are presenting the claim, you file your initial appellant’s brief, you opponent files the appellee’s brief, and then the appellant may file a reply brief contesting points made by the appellee.  This is somewhat akin to two bites at the apple.

The government could have been in this position, but, delay apparently was far more important.

I wonder if they realized that the states had appealable issues as well?

Finally, it should be noted that the Supreme Court does not have to accept the case, and can do so by simply denying the petition for writ of cert. 


Yesterday afternoon, the administration filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari before the United States Supreme Court seeking review of that portion of the 11th Circuit opinion finding Obamacare unconstitutional.  Given this, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear the case.


Michigan, Ohio, and Obamacare

This is something that may be overlooked in Friday’s decision, by the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, holding that the individual mandate of Obamacare is unconstitutional. Read more

Supreme Court dismisses class action case against Wal-Mart

On Monday the United States Supreme Court issued it’s decision in the case of Wal-Mart v. Dukes.  If you are not familiar with the facts, let me give you a brief description. Read more

Arizona employment law concerning illegal aliens is constitutional

Thursday, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting.  The Court held that an Arizona law that provides that the state can suspend or revoke the license of any employer who “knowingly or intentionally” employs an unauthorized alien is constitutional.  The Court also upheld that portion of the Arizona law that required all employers to use E-Verify in their employment process. Read more

The Supreme Court and climate change

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the case of American Electric Power v. Connecticut. It is too bad that the Court’s proceedings aren’t televised as the debate here should be lively. First, you need to know the background. Read more

It is your money after all

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in the case of Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn.  The case hinges upon the issue of “standing”, which is a lawyer’s way of saying, do the people who have filed this law suit have the legal right to do so.  But, the answer to that question is not the reason for this post. Read more