Presentation Transcript

1. US Supreme Court Review and Preview October 16, 2012 Ceremonial Courtroom Erie County Hall Buffalo, New York
2. US Supreme Court Review and Preview Download Powerpoint at www.eriebar.org or www.houshlaw.com/philistineatbar
3. The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) promotes the vitality of the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental values it expresses: individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, access to justice, democracy and the rule of law.
4. The American Constitution Society embraces the progress our nation has made toward full embodiment of the Constitution's core values. ACS believes that law can and should be a force for improving the lives of all people. Sign-in Sheet for WNY Lawyers Group
5. William Marshall Bill Marshall is currently the Kenan Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina. Marshall was Deputy White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President of the United States during the Clinton Administration and also served as the Solicitor General of the State of Ohio.
6. Affordable Care Act Upheld As A Tax but not Interstate Commerce Congress May Tax But Interstate Commerce Doesn’t Include Individual Mandate The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.” Whether the mandate can be upheld under the Commerce Clause is a question about the scope of federal authority. Its answer depends on whether Congress can . . . Direct individuals to purchase insurance.
7. States are not Required to Expand Medicaid The decision effectively revised the law to allow states to choose between participating in the expansion while receiving additional payments or forgoing the expansion and retaining the existing payments. The law had called for an all-or-nothing choice.
8. From the Dissent: Justice Ginsburg: THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s novel constraint on Congress’ commerce power gains no force from our precedent and for that reason alone warrants disapprobation. But even assuming, for the moment, that Congress lacks authority under the Commerce Clause to “compel individuals not engaged in commerce to purchase an unwanted product,” ante, at 18, such a limitation would be inapplicable here. Everyone will, at some point, consume health-care products and services. Thus,if THE CHIEF JUSTICE is correct that an insurance purchase requirement can be applied only to those who “actively” consume health care, the minimum coverage provision fits the bill.
9. Yale Law Prof. AkhilAmar: This opinion reinvigorates a stricter understanding of all the powers of government. There’s a renewed interest in limits to federal power. The language about inactivity suggests that any laws that purport to order conduct, including existing laws, have the potential to be challenged. This could become a powerful tool to achieve a more limited federal government.

10. Arizona et al. v. US

    567 U.S. ___
11. Arizona Law Struck Down Three of Four Provisions The provision making it a crime to be present in Arizona without carrying an alien registration document The provision making it a crime for an “unauthorized alien” to look for work or take a job The provision allowing an Arizona law enforcement officer to arrest anyone that the officer believes has committed a crime that would make him deportable.
12. Court held it was Premature to Strike Down Fourth “Show Me Your Papers” Provision Mandatory status check of individuals in custody for unlawful activity unrelated to immigration status not ruled upon; Rather than uphold this provision, the court notes that “the nature and timing of this case counsel caution in evaluating [its] validity” because the law has not gone into effect and there is thus uncertainty about “what the law means and how it will be enforced.” Later civil rights challenges
13. Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. October 14, 2012 The Supreme Court agreed to rule on the constitutionality of a state requirement that voters must prove they are U.S. citizens before they register to vote and cast their ballots.   The Court granted review of an Arizona case in which it previously had refused the state’s request to block a lower court decision that struck down that requirement.  Arizona’s voters adopted that law when they passed “Proposition 200″ in 2004.  The Court will not rule on the case until after this year’s election, so the requirement will not be in effect next month