On Thursday, the Oregon Supreme Court decided in AFSCME v. Lebanon that cities can be held liable for individual councilor statements, even when the councilor has no independent decision-making authority.

In Oregon, it is unlawful for employers to interfere with employees who wish to form a union, retaliate against employees who form or join a union, or encourage employees to disband a union. Although an individual city councilor has no independent authority to act on behalf of a city, the court explained that a city could still be liable for a councilor’s actions if employees reasonably believe that the councilor was acting on behalf of the city.

Because of the potentially far-reaching effects of this case, the League encourages city officials to review the court’s decision with their city attorney in order to make any changes to ensure compliance with state labor laws.

Contact: Sean O’Day, General Counsel, soday@orcities.org  Philip Thoennes, Assistant General Counsel, pthoennes@orcities.org

BIG NEWS 

The Supreme Court in the case of Hurst v. Florida. 

By a 7-1-1 vote-in fact, even overruling two of its own prior rulings-the Supreme Court of the United States has upheld the jury as the sole fact-finding authority in capital sentencing.

Specifically, the Court found that the Florida capital sentencing scheme, in which the judge is the one whose job is "to make the critical findings necessary to impose the death penalty", violates the Sixth Amendment, in light of its own ruling in Ring v. Arizona (2002) requiring that the jury find the aggravating factors if the death penalty is to be imposed. 

Ring, in turn, traces back to the case of Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000). In Apprendi, the Court ruled that the penalty for a crime could not be extended beyond the statutory maximum due to the findings of a judge based on a preponderance of evidence, but instead could only be based on the findings of a jury meeting the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Ring was the application of the Apprendi ruling to capital cases.

Florida seems to have tried to carve out an exception for itself to Ring by arguing that the jury plays an advisory role in sentencing. However, the Court noted in its majority opinion that, 
"In arguing that the jury's recommendation necessarily included an aggravating circumstance finding, Florida fails to appreciate the judge's central and singular role under Florida law, which makes the court's findings necessary to impose death and makes the jury's function advisory only. The State cannot now treat the jury's advisory recommendation as the necessary factual finding required by Ring."

In addition to Florida, two other states have a judicial override provision in place that allows a judge to unilaterally impose the death penalty against the jury's recommendation of a life without parole sentence: Delaware and Alabama. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, "Of the 33 states with the death penalty, Alabama is the only jurisdiction where judges routinely override jury verdicts of life to impose capital punishment. Since 1976, Alabama judges have overridden jury verdicts 111 times. Although judges have authority to override life or death verdicts, in 91 percent of overrides elected judges have overruled jury verdicts of life to impose the death penalty."

I am currently consulting with legal experts to better understand what, if any, implications Hurst holds for judicial override in Delaware and Alabama, in addition to Florida.

It is absolutely unconscionable that in the most serious of all legal cases-those in which the state claims the right to purposely put people to death-government can not only usurp the jury's traditional, legal function in judging the law, but also jurors' well-established and uncontroversial role as the fact-finders in the case. If the jury are neither to judge the law nor the facts, then the next step is the elimination of the jury altogether.

Many jury issues with respect to capital cases still need to be addressed including non-unanimous votes in capital sentencing, the unjust effects of death qualification of jurors during voir dire, and so on. But the Hurst ruling upholding the jury as the final arbiter of facts in capital sentencing is greatly encouraging that the endangered species that is the jury can be brought back from the brink of extinction. 

Together, let us continue our work with a solid hope that the protective role of the jury in safeguarding human rights and liberty can be more fully restored in our legal system.

For Liberty, Justice, and Peace in Our Lifetimes,
Kirsten C. Tynan

Related Posts:
Jury Nullification, or Jury Discretion and The Second Amendment
SCOTUS---Supremes Refused to Hear Legal Challenges to the NDAA 
SCOTUS---Police Must Get a Warrant to Search Information on a Cellphone, Right ON 
OFF---Supreme Court Rules Against the Transfer of Guns Between Approved Buyers
OFF---Supreme Court to Hear "Straw Purchase" Case
SCOTUS---Court Takes up case of Fired Air Marshal for whistle-blowing 
SCOTUS---Court Vacates Police Immunity Ruling
7th Circuit Court Rules Against Gun Activist Using Precedence Set in the Drug War 
OR Supreme Court---LOC Celebrates the Fact the Property Owners lose more rights
SCOTUS---Is it a fish or an incriminating document? 
Former North Bend Resident's Positive Response to Second Amendment Ordinance
Coosville Chooses to Preserve the Second While Rejecting Another Tax
Media Reports on Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance Measures 6-151
OFF ~ Stop the EMERGENCY (clause) ‏~ Sign the Petition ~ Defend the People's Right
The Second Amendment Preservation Ordinance Wins the Election in Coos County

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear NDAA Legal Challenge, Allowing President and Military to Arrest and Detain Americans Indefinitely Without Due Process
April 29, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In refusing to hear a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), the United States Supreme Court has affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. By denying without comment a petition for review in Hedges v. Obama, the high court not only passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, but also let stand a lower court ruling empowering the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to indefinitely detain persons associated with or “suspected” of aiding terrorist organizations. In weighing in on the case before the lower court, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute challenged the Obama administration’s claim that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, arguing that the NDAA’s language is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrests and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.

“Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker. According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists—a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government.”

The NDAA 2012, the mammoth defense bill passed by Congress in 2011 and signed into law by President Obama, contains a provision allowing for the indefinite detention of those who “associate” or “substantially support” enemies of the U.S. such as terrorist groups. These terms, however, are not defined in the statute, and the government itself is unable to say who exactly is subject to indefinite detention based upon these terms, leaving them open to wide ranging interpretations which threaten those engaging in legitimate First Amendment activities. Soon after the NDAA was enacted, a lawsuit was filed by citizens and non-citizen activists and journalists alleging that it violated their constitutional rights by threatening them with indefinite detention for engaging in protected speech, such as protesting American foreign policy or interviewing suspected terrorists for journalistic purposes. On September 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision. However, President Obama appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in July 2013 that the journalists and activists did not have standing to challenge the detention provisions. In rationalizing its decision, the court stressed that there had been no history of enforcement against persons such as these plaintiffs (activists and journalists, but non-combatants), the statute is not aimed at persons like them, and there has been no specific threat by the government to apply the statute to them. Critics of the NDAA had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to hear the case and, in so doing, reverse its 1944 ruling in Korematsu v. United States, which concluded that the government’s need to ensure the safety of the country trumped personal liberties and allowed for the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Legal Action

Click Here to read The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Hedges v. Obama Press Contact

Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
(434) 466-6168 (cell)
nisha@rutherford.org

Get a warrant! Today’s cellphone privacy decision in Plain English
By Amy Howe on Jun 25, 2014 at 5:25 pm

In 1973, the Supreme Court held that police officers did not need a warrant to look inside a pack of cigarettes that they found in the coat pocket of a man who had been arrested.  Those kinds of warrantless searches were allowed, the Court reasoned back then, to protect police officers and to prevent the destruction of evidence.

Forty years later, California and the federal government urged the Supreme Court to adopt the same rule for cellphones.  Once someone is arrested, they contended, police should be able to go through the entire contents of his phone without a warrant because cellphones are just like any other item that you can carry in your hand or pocket.  But today the Supreme Court emphatically rejected that argument.  Therefore, unless it’s an emergency, police need to get a warrant before they can search your cellphone.  Let’s talk about the decision in Riley v. California in Plain English.
Continue reading »

The Ruling:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf

Oregon Firearms Federation

  06.16.14
Supreme Court Rules You Cannot Buy A Gun For Another Approved Person.
Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that if you purchase a firearm and transfer it to another "approved" buyer, you are a "straw purchaser" and may go to prison.
The ruling is in the case US vs Abramski, a case to which Oregon Firearms contributed to an Amicus brief.

The buyer of the gun purchased a gun legally and transferred it to his uncle who was also an approved buyer. The uncle took possession of the gun after passing a background check.  Abramski (a former police officer) was charged with a "straw purchase."

"The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them." 

Clearly this transfer had nothing to do with crimes or people who are ineligible to receive firearms. This ruling will vastly complicate any future transfers of legitimately owned guns. 

SUPREME COURT SLAMS EPA ON GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS
June 23, 2104 - Supreme Court Says EPA "Overreached, Violated Separation of Powers"
http://www.southeasternlegal.org/news/2014/6/23/supreme-court-slams-epa-on-greenhouse-gas-regulations.html

The United States Supreme Court today held that the Obama Administration's Environmental Agency overstepped its authority by rewriting the Clean Air Act to fit its regulatory scheme on greenhouse gas emissions.  The Court struck down the agency's broad assertion of power and held that the EPA must have Congressional authorization to rewrite the Clean Air Act.  "This is a powerful end to the five-year climate change challenge," said Shannon Goessling, SLF executive director and chief legal counsel.


Click here for complete statement

Click here for Supreme Court decision

Related Posts:
SCOTUS---Court Takes up case of Fired Air Marshal for whistle-blowing 
SCOTUS---Court Vacates Police Immunity Ruling
7th Circuit Court Rules Against Gun Activist Using Precedence Set in the Drug War 
OR Supreme Court---LOC Celebrates the Fact the Property Owners lose more rights
SCOTUS---Is it a fish or an incriminating document? 
SCOTUS: Google believes Snagging Data over Unsecured WI-FI Is Not Illegal 
SCOTUS---Oregon Protest Case Heard by the Supreme Court Marsh 26, 2014
SCOTUS---Court Upholds Property Rights in Rails-to-Trails Case
SCOTUS----Amazon workers' suit for paid search waits
SCOTUS---Rejects Appeal of Victim Disarmament Legislation 
SCOTUS---Did EPA Overstep on Global Warming 
SCOTUS---Court grants reprieve to death row inmate over pentobarbital 
SCOTUS---Case on Obama Recess Appointments 

SCOTUS takes up case of fired air marshal
Source: Fox News

"The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider the case of a federal air marshal who was fired after leaking information to the press about aviation security plans. The justices will hear an appeal from the Obama administration, which claims Robert MacLean is not entitled to whistleblower protection for disclosing that the Transportation Security Administration planned to save money by cutting back on overnight trips for undercover air marshals. ... MacLean said he leaked the information after his boss ignored his safety concerns. ... The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled last year that MacLean should be allowed to present a defense under federal whistleblower laws. But the government argues that the law does not protect employees who reveal 'sensitive' security information." (05/19/14)

http://tinyurl.com/n3juoxv

SCOTUS vacates police immunity ruling
Source: Christian Science Monitor

"The US Supreme Court ordered a federal appeals court Monday to reexamine a case involving the alleged use of excessive force by a police officer in Louisiana who deployed an electronic Taser device eight times against a handcuffed arrestee who was lying on the ground. The suspect, who later died, had reportedly refused to obey a police command to stand up and walk to the patrol car. The police officer was fired for using 'unnecessary force,' but was found not guilty of manslaughter. A panel of the New Orleans-based Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently ruled that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity and could not be sued for allegedly violating the rights of the handcuffed prisoner." (05/19/14)

http://tinyurl.com/mglfkzz

Related Posts:
7th Circuit Court Rules Against Gun Activist Using Precedence Set in the Drug War 
OR Supreme Court---LOC Celebrates the Fact the Property Owners lose more rights
SCOTUS---Is it a fish or an incriminating document? 
SCOTUS: Google believes Snagging Data over Unsecured WI-FI Is Not Illegal 
SCOTUS---Oregon Protest Case Heard by the Supreme Court Marsh 26, 2014
SCOTUS---Court Upholds Property Rights in Rails-to-Trails Case
SCOTUS----Amazon workers' suit for paid search waits
SCOTUS---Rejects Appeal of Victim Disarmament Legislation 
SCOTUS---Did EPA Overstep on Global Warming 
SCOTUS---Court grants reprieve to death row inmate over pentobarbital 
SCOTUS---Case on Obama Recess Appointments 

Hey Folks,

The following stories are from two different court cases that have to do with searches and seizures.  The first case, from 2011, has to do with an officer entering the apartment of a drug user.  The reason the officer claimed to make the entry without a warrant was because the officer thought the people inside the apartment was destroying evidence.  The officer created his own exigent circumstances. 

Many Social Conservatives chided me for espousing the idea that this ruling by the Supreme Court will effect everyone, not just lowlife druggies. 

Well, the second story, from 2014, is about a court case in the 7th District involving an officer violating the 4th amendment rights of a gun activists.  The cop, using exigent circumstances as the justification, entered the department of a gun activist and seized guns without a warrant.  The ruling demonstrates that the Drug War and Drug Laws are about eliminating civil liberties, not about stopping drug use.  The destruction of individual rights is an exercise in government egalitarianism......Rob T. 

563 U.S. ___ (2011), is a legal dispute that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011, holding in an 8-1 opinion that warrantless searches conducted in police-created exigent circumstances do not violate the Fourth Amendment so long as the police did not create the exigency by violating or threatening to violate the Fourth Amendment.

The facts of the King case differ from the typical “knock, announce, hear movement behind the door, and enter without a warrant” fact pattern of most exigent circumstances cases.  The situation began when police set up a controlled sale of crack cocaine outside the apartment complex where the defendant, Hollis King, lived.[8]  For clarity, it should be noted that the controlled sale involved a suspect and transaction entirely unrelated to King.  After the sale, an observing officer radioed to other nearby officers to “move in on the suspect.”[9]  He noted that the suspect was “moving quickly toward the breezeway of an apartment building”[10] and told them to hurry.[11]  As the officers arrived at the breezeway, they heard one of the rear apartment doors shut but did not see which door the suspect entered.[12]  They noticed a strong odor of marijuana issuing from the left rear apartment, which led them to believe that the door had recently been opened and shut and that the suspect had entered that apartment.[13]  The officers knocked on this door and identified themselves as police.[14]  After the knock, they heard things being moved around inside.[15]  Believing that the people inside were in the process of destroying evidence, the officers entered the apartment.[16]  The officers found the defendant and two others but not the suspect of their pursuit.[17]  One of the individuals in the apartment with King was smoking marijuana.[18]  While conducting a protective sweep of the apartment, officers found marijuana and cocaine in plain view.[19]

King was charged with trafficking a controlled substance, possession of marijuana, and being a persistent felony offender.[20]  The trial court denied his motion to suppress the evidence found during the warrantless search on the basis that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.[21]  King appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that the search of his apartment was “conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was unsupported by probable cause and an exigent circumstance.”[22]  The state intermediate appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court.[23]

Milwaukee police who forced their way into a gun rights advocate's home without a warrant, took her for an emergency mental evaluation and seized her gun were justified under the circumstances and protected from her civil rights claims, a federal appeals court has ruled.

Krysta Sutterfield, who twice made news because of her practice of openly carrying a handgun — at a Brookfield church and outside a Sherman Park coffee shop — drew police attention in 2011 after her psychiatrist reported a suicidal remark Sutterfield made during a difficult appointment.

Sutterfield, 45, claimed police violated her rights against unreasonable search and seizure and Second Amendment rights to keep a gun, but a district judge dismissed the case.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 75-page opinion analyzing existing law about when police may act without search warrants, upheld the decision but suggested there might be better ways to balance personal privacy rights in the context of emergency mental health evaluations.

"The intrusions upon Sutterfield's privacy were profound," Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for three-judge panel. "At the core of the privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment is the right to be let alone in one's home."

But the court also found, that on the other hand, "There is no suggestion that (police) acted for any reason other than to protect Sutterfield from harm."

In a short concurrence, Judge Daniel Manion said he hoped state legislatures will "provide for a judicially issued civil warrant process that would authorize law enforcement to enter someone's home when there is probable cause to believe that she poses a risk to herself or others because of mental illness."

Hey Folks,

The Oregon League of Cities are celebrating the fact that property owners have lost more of their rights.  The LOC is the organization that is trying to bureaucratize the cities of Oregon, thus eliminate all forms of representative government.  This group advises city councils, like Bandon and Coos Bay, to get them to follow this extreme agenda of socialism.  We have to beware of who is pulling the strings and it explains why the governor wants to regionalize  our area.....Rob T.  

A Win for Cities–Supreme Court Rejects Inverse Condemnation Claim

This week, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the city of Milwaukie did not owe a homeowner damages for a sewer backup that caused damage to the homeowner’s property. The claim arose when the city was hydro-cleaning its sewers and caused a backup, resulting in damage on the homeowner’s property. Because of a delay in filing a claim, the homeowner could not file a negligence action, so instead argued they were entitled to compensation under inverse condemna-tion. Ordinarily, an inverse condemnation case arises when the government takes private property for a public use without going through a condemnation proceeding. In rejecting the homeowner’s legal theory, the court concluded the city’s conduct must be "intentional" for there to be a claim of inverse condemnation. Although the risk of a backup was a known, but relatively rare, conse-quence of the hydro-cleaning process, the court concluded that the city did not intentionally cause the sewer backup and therefore the homeowner could not recover damages from the city for the damage to their home.

Given the importance of this case to cities, the League filed amicus briefs in support of the city. The League is very pleased with the outcome of the case, which appropriately limits the types of cases that can qualify for inverse condemnation claims. To read more about the case, click here.

Fish as incriminating document?
Source: Christian Science Monitor "The US Supreme Court agreed Monday to take up a case posing a riddle: When is a fish like an incriminating financial report? How the high court answers that question is critical to a case involving Florida commercial fisherman John Yates. In 2007, Mr. Yates and his crew were cited for catching undersized red grouper in the Gulf of Mexico. The undersized catch was discovered after a fisheries enforcement officer boarded Yates’s boat, the Miss Katie, and began measuring the size of the fish in the hold." (04/28/14)

http://tinyurl.com/kgvfmh9

Related Posts:
SCOTUS: Google believes Snagging Data over Unsecured WI-FI Is Not Illegal 
SCOTUS---Oregon Protest Case Heard by the Supreme Court Marsh 26, 2014
SCOTUS---Court Upholds Property Rights in Rails-to-Trails Case
SCOTUS----Amazon workers' suit for paid search waits
SCOTUS---Rejects Appeal of Victim Disarmament Legislation 
SCOTUS---Did EPA Overstep on Global Warming 
SCOTUS---Court grants reprieve to death row inmate over pentobarbital 
SCOTUS---Case on Obama Recess Appointments 
SCOTUS---Interstate Pollution Case
SCOTUS---The Supremes decline illegal NSA phone spying case
SCOTUS---The Supreme Court lets Oklahoma abortion law fail 
SCOTUS---Narrow ruling in Michigan affirmative action case expected 
SCOTUS---Anti-prostitution pledge in AIDS law violates free speech
SCOTUS---U.S. top court bars patents on human genes unless synthetic
SCOTUS---Supreme Court Allows Warrantless Collection of DNA by Police/5-4 Ruling
SCOTUS---The American Police State
SCOTUS showdown over Voting Rights Act
SCOTUS---Farmer vs. Monsanto
SCOTUS---Dog's sniff was up to snuff

Google to SCOTUS: Snagging data over unsecured Wi-Fi isn’t illegal
Source: PC World "Google has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by an appeals court that its collection of data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks is not exempt under federal wiretap laws. The company argues that its data collection does not violate the Wiretap Act as it fell under an exemption that makes it lawful to intercept electronic communications that are readily accessible to the general public. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in September that Wi-Fi network data collected by Google was not radio communications that is readily accessible to the public." (04/02/14)

http://tinyurl.com/mupj8b9

Supreme Court Hears Oregon Protest Case March 26, 2014 -

http://aclu-or.org/content/moss-v-secret-service?etname=OR_update_032614&etjid=1341362

Washington D.C. - The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Wood v. Moss, a case brought by us on behalf of a multi-generational group of peaceful protesters, who were forcibly moved on orders of the Secret Service to a place where their protests could no longer be seen or heard by President Bush. The protest took place during a visit to Jacksonville, Oregon in 2004. Demonstrators supporting the President were allowed to remain much closer to him.

The lawsuit claims that the protesters were targeted because of their political views in violation of their free speech rights.

“The Secret Service does not have immunity from the First Amendment,” said Steven M. Wilker, a lawyer with Tonkon Torp LLP in Portland, who argued the case as a cooperating attorney for the ACLU.

Plaintiffs supported their claim of viewpoint discrimination by alleging that they were treated less favorably that Bush supporters, that the decision to move them was not made until after the President sat down to dinner and could hear their chants, and was consistent with at least 12 similar incidents during the first Bush administration. In addition, the decision was also consistent with the Bush White House Advance Manual which instructed the President’s staff to “work with the Secret Service” to ensure that protesters were kept far away from the President’s view and hearing.

Nevertheless, the Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case on the ground that plaintiffs’ claim of viewpoint discrimination is “implausible.” Defendants also argue that Secret Service agents could not have been expected to know in 2004 that their actions in this case violated the First Amendment even if plaintiffs’ allegations are accepted as true.

Both arguments were rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in a 2012 ruling.

“The job of the Secret Service is to shield the president from danger, not from criticism,” said Steven R. Shapiro, the national legal director of the ACLU.

The initial complaint in this case was filed in 2006 and there have been two appeals of lower court decisions to deny the federal government’s motions to dismiss the case. If plaintiffs prevail in the Supreme Court, the case will finally proceed to discovery and trial.

“The right to engage in peaceful political protest lies at the very heart of the First Amendment,” said David Fidanque, executive director of the ACLU of Oregon. “The government essentially is arguing that the courts should trust the Secret Service agents based on faith, rather than evidence. Our clients are entitled to have the case go forward so that they can finally have their day in court.”

March 10, 2014

Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in the “rails-to-trails” property rights case, Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States—a case in which PLF attorneys participated as an amicus curiae. By an 8-1 margin, the Court ruled in favor of the property owner, upholding one of the most important and fundamental policies of our property law system: certainty and predictability in land titles. That is a win for all property owners. We congratulate our friends at Mountain States Legal Foundation, who represented the Brandt family in this case.

SCOTUS to hear Amazon workers’ suit for paid search waits
Source: Reuters "The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a case that could determine whether companies such as Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) must pay workers for the time they spend waiting to clear security checks at the end of their work shifts. The case revolves around workers at Amazon warehouses in Nevada, who had to pass through security checks as part of an anti-theft procedure. The workers, former temporary employees at Amazon contractor Integrity Staffing Solutions, said they spent nearly 30 minutes some days waiting for the checks. In a 2010 lawsuit, they argued they must be compensated for that time under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)." [editor's note: Labor law aside, it just seems pretty obvious: If you're requiring your employees to be somewhere and do something, they're on the clock, right? - TLK] (03/03/14)

http://tinyurl.com/o8nhh4v

SCOTUS rejects appeals of unconstitutional victim disarmament legislation

Source: San Francisco Chronicle "The U.S. Supreme rejected three appeals from gun-rights advocates, leaving intact federal and state laws that place special restrictions on young adults. The justices refused to question a federal law that prohibits licensed dealers from selling handguns to people under age 21. The court also let stand a Texas measure that bars people ages 18 to 20 from getting concealed-carry licenses unless they are current or honorably discharged members of the military. ... In a third case today, the high court refused to permit a suit over a U.S. law that bars dealers from selling a handgun to someone who lives in a different state." (02/24/14)

http://tinyurl.com/k9bsxx8

SCOTUS battle: Did EPA overstep on global warming?
Source: Christian Science Monitor "Under the US system of government, federal agencies are afforded a wide discretion to shape policies that will give force to statutes passed by Congress. But how much discretion is too much discretion? On Monday, the US Supreme Court took up a case examining whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exceeded its regulatory power when it sought to expand the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate the release of greenhouse gases that scientists say are causing global warming." (02/24/14)

http://tinyurl.com/mjz8t75

SCOTUS grants reprieve to death row inmate over pentobarbital
Source: Raw Story

"The US Supreme Court granted a last minute stay to a convicted murderer who is challenging the drugs prison officials had planned to use for his execution on Wednesday. Death Row inmate Herbert Smulls was to be executed overnight Wednesday by the state of Missouri, but Justice Samuel Alito late Tuesday granted him a reprieve, amid ongoing controversy over the use of lethal pentobarbital manufactured by a compounding pharmacy whose identity has not been revealed. Alito, the justice assigned to cases from the region of the United States that includes Missouri, is expected to rule soon on a similar petition from Louisiana inmate Christopher Sepulvado, due to be put to death next week." (01/29/14)

http://tinyurl.com/m4dghpb

SCOTUS to hear case on Obama recess appointments
Source: Christian Science Monitor

"The US Supreme Court on Monday takes up a potential landmark case examining whether President Obama overstepped his authority when he unilaterally declared that the Senate was in recess and appointed three new members to the National Labor Relations Board. The Constitution assigns to the president the power to appoint judges and officers of the United States, but it requires him to act with the 'advice and consent' of the Senate. There is an exception. ... It is this recess appointment power that lies at the center of the historic showdown on Monday at the high court." (01/12/14)

http://tinyurl.com/k2lb5cd

SCOTUS declines illegal NSA phone spying case 
Source: CNN
 
"The U.S. Supreme Court will allow the National Security Agency's surveillance of domestic telephone communication records to continue for now.  The justices without comment Monday rejected an appeal from a privacy rights group, which claimed a secret federal court improperly authorized the government to collect the electronic records. The Electronic Privacy Information Center filed its petition directly with the high court, bypassing the usual step of going to the lower federal courts first." (11/18/13)

http://tinyurl.com/lhylyy6

Source: Christian Science Monitor "The US Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to take up a case examining the constitutionality of an Oklahoma law that required doctors to perform an ultrasound and verbally describe the condition of the fetus to the patient an hour before performing any abortion. The court turned aside the appeal without comment. The action lets stand a December ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court striking down the statute as an undue burden on a woman’s right to decide whether to have an abortion." (11/12/13)

http://tinyurl.com/msumv8n

SCOTUS: Narrow ruling in Michigan affirmative action case expected
Source: Christian Science Monitor "The US Supreme Court took up an unusual -- but important -- civil rights case on Tuesday testing whether a ban on using race-based affirmative action in college admissions in Michigan violates the equal protection rights of minorities. The case arrives at the high court four months after the justices declined to issue a sweeping decision in a case testing the constitutionality of an affirmative action program at the University of Texas. Based on questions asked during the hour-long argument session on Tuesday, it appears that the justices are disinclined to issue a broad ruling in the Michigan case, as well." (10/15/13)

http://tinyurl.com/n3fxvza

SCOTUS to hear Michigan race preferences case
Source: Reuters "The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will delve into a decades-old debate over university admissions policies that favor racial minorities, hearing a Michigan case that picks up where the justices left off last session in a dispute from the University of Texas. Unlike the Texas case that tested a specific affirmative action practice, this new dilemma revolves around a broad state constitutional amendment. In a twist, the two groups in the Michigan case that favor affirmative action to help minorities have put forward divergent views." (10/14/13)

http://tinyurl.com/mk65t4e

Related Posts:
OFF---Supreme Court to Hear "Straw Purchase" Case 
SCOTUS---Narrow ruling in Michigan affirmative action case expected
SCOTUS---Anti-prostitution pledge in AIDS law violates free speech
SCOTUS---U.S. top court bars patents on human genes unless synthetic
SCOTUS---Supreme Court Allows Warrantless Collection of DNA by Police/5-4 Ruling
SCOTUS---The American Police State
SCOTUS showdown over Voting Rights Act
SCOTUS---Farmer vs. Monsanto
SCOTUS---Dog's sniff was up to snuff
Oregon Supreme Court decided to erode more of the 4th Amendment
SCOTUS refuses to hear “piracy” arguments 
SCOTUS declines death penalty case
SCOTUS revives challenge to ObamaCare & rejects appeal of congressman
SCOTUS denies Ohio request to curtail early voting