Archives

Supreme Court Rejects Judge Gorsuch’s View of Special Education Law

Posted in Case Notes Commentary Monday Morning Review on By Lann McIntyre

The Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District was bad timing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch.

The Supreme Court held unanimously that public school districts must offer students with disabilities an individual education plan (IEP) “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”

The Court rejected the Tenth Circuit’s holding that an IEP must merely confer “some educational benefit” that is “more than de minimis.”

This ruling came down while Judge Gorsuch was testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Gorsuch was the author of a 2008 opinion Continue reading →

 

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Internet Sales Tax Case

Posted in Case Notes IMLA Briefs on By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving the question of whether a Colorado law requiring remote sellers to inform Colorado purchasers annually of their purchases and send the same information to the Colorado Department of Revenue is unconstitutional. As is always the case, the Supreme Court gave no reason for denying the petition.

In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, decided in 1992, the Supreme Court held that states cannot require retailers with no in-state physical presence to collect sales tax. In 2010 the Colorado legislature passed the law described above to improve sales tax collection. The Direct Marketing Association sued Colorado claiming the law unconstitutionally discriminates against interstate commerce and is unconstitutional under Quill.    Continue reading →

 
 

State and Local Legal Center Files First Supreme Court Amicus Certiorari Petition

Posted in IMLA Briefs on By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) has made history and IMLA has been a part of it. For the first time ever, SLLC has asked the Supreme Court to accept and decide a case. IMLA joined the SLLC brief. The SLLC is asking the Court to hear United Student Aid Funds v. Bible and overturn Auer deference to federal agencies.   Continue reading →

 

SCOTUS to Decide Immigration Deferred Action Case

Posted in Case Notes Commentary on By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

In an already action packed term the Supreme Court has definitively secured this term’s place in history but agreeing to decide whether the President’s deferred action immigration program violates federal law or is unconstitutional. The Court will issue an opinion in United States v. Texas by the end of June 2016.

 The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program allows certain undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years and either came here as children or already have children who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents to lawfully stay and work temporarily in the United States. About 5 million people are affected.

 Twenty six states sued the United States and won before the Fifth Circuit.

 The Court will decide four legal issues in this case. Continue reading →

 

Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Gun Case

Posted in Case Notes Commentary on By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

Every year the Supreme Court refuses to hear thousands of cases. A denial of certiorari does not mean the Court agrees with the lower court decision. So most cert denials go unnoticed. 

 That said, many eyebrows were raised for many reasons when the Court denied cert in Friedman v. City of Highland Park. The issue in the case was whether the City of Highland Park could ban assault weapons and large capacity magazines.  Continue reading →

 

Supreme Court to Decide How Far Asset Forfeitures May Go

Posted in Case Notes Commentary on By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

Sila Luis was indicted on charges related to $45 million in Medicare fraud. Unsurprisingly, her personal assets amounted to much less than $45 million. The federal government sought to freeze the use of her assets not traceable to the fraud. She wanted to use them to hire an attorney.

The question in Luis v. United States is whether not allowing a criminal defendant to use assets not traceable to a criminal offense to hire counsel of choice violates the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel.

This case is relevant to state and local government for a few reasons. First, while the asset forfeiture in this case likely went to reimburse the federal government for the Medicaid fraud, generally, law enforcement involved receive asset forfeitures. Second, some state asset forfeiture laws, like the federal statute in this case, allow untainted assets to be substituted. Third, in some instances state and local governments, like the federal government in this case, are the victim of a fraud and seek to recoup as much of their losses as possible.      Continue reading →

 

Supreme Court to Decide Another Redistricting Case

Posted in Case Notes Commentary on By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

While the Supreme Court’s recent grant of certiorari in Evenwel v. Abbott asks one of the biggest questions about redistricting (who exactly is counted to determine one-person-one-vote), the question the Supreme Court will decide in Shapiro v. Mack is much more modest.

Federal law (the Three-Judge Act) requires three-judge panels to decide constitutional challenges to congressional and legislative redistricting. But the single judge to whom the request for a three-judge panel is made may determine that three judges are not required to decide the case.   Continue reading →

 

Supreme Court to Decide Race Discrimination Jury Selection Case

Posted in Case Notes on By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

It has been a while since the Supreme Court has taken a case that could impact city prosecutors. But in Foster v. Humphries the Supreme Court will decide such a case.  In Foster, the Court will consider whether potential black jurors were purposely excluded in violation of Batson v. Kentucky.

In 1987 Timothy Tyrone Foster, who is black, was sentenced to death for murdering an elderly white woman. The jury was all-white; the prosecutor peremptorily struck all four prospective black jurors.  Prosecutors may strike a number of jurors for any unstated reason except because of race and sex, the Supreme Court has held. Continue reading →

 

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Congress May Legislate Standing for a Federal Court Case

Posted in Commentary on By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

To bring a lawsuit in federal court a plaintiff must have “standing” per Article III of the U.S. Constitution. An undisputed element of standing is that the plaintiff has suffered an injury. But what if Congress allows plaintiffs who have suffered no concrete harm to sue based upon a mere violation of statute? The Supreme Court will decide whether such plaintiffs have Article III standing in Spokeo v. Robins.

While the impact of this case on state and local governments may not be obvious, there are a finite number of statutes in which Congress has created a private right of action and a plaintiff may be unharmed by a violation of the statute. Most are consumer protection statutes like the Truth in Lending Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which don’t apply to state and local governments. But a few such statutes do apply—the Fair Housing Act (FHA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).

Continue reading →

 

Supreme Court to Hear Case Affecting Peak-demand Energy Prices

Posted in Commentary on By Lisa Soronen, Executive Director, SLLC

As our country prepares for the upcoming brown out and black out season, the Supreme Court has accepted a case involving our nation’s electricity grid. Local governments who participate in demand response programs have a direct stake in the outcome of this case.

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether FERC may regulate “demand response” payments offered to electric utility customers to reduce their electricity use during periods of high demand. State and local governments may save money through participating in demand response programs. But the Electric Power Supply Association argued, and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, that FERC’s Order 745 encroaches on states’ regulatory authority. Continue reading →

 

Supreme Court To Hear Sign-Ordinance Case

Posted in Case Notes on By Kira Klatchko

This morning, the Supreme Court granted cert in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, a case in which the Ninth Circuit upheld the Town of Gilbert’s sign ordinance against a First-Amendment challenge.SupremeCourt2 The case could directly impact local governments nationwide, particularly those that have adopted sign ordinances with exemptions.

The Court could use this case to clarify when a local ordinance is “content-based” or “content-neutral,” a key inquiry under the First-Amendment analysis. A number of law professors filed an amicus brief authored by Professor Eugene Volokh arguing that the Ninth Circuit erred by treating the Town’s ordinance as content-neutral. In their view, the ordinance is content-based because it expressly distinguishes the following classes of signs: Continue reading →

 

Supreme Court To Decide If Local Government’s Decision Is “In Writing”

Posted in Case Notes on By Kira Klatchko

In addition to addressing local-government prayer this morning,CellTower the Supreme Court also decided to hear and answer another question impacting local governments: when a city denies a request to place a cell tower, how formally must it act?

The Court granted cert in T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, No. 13-975, which specifically asks what a local government must do to satisfy the Communications Act’s “in writing” requirement at 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iii):

Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record

As the Eleventh Circuit explained in its decision, some circuit courts have ruled Continue reading →

 

Newport Beach To Seek Supreme Court Review in Group-Home Case

Posted in Case Notes on By Kira Klatchko

We have tracked the Ninth Circuit case of Pacific Shore Properties, LLC v. City of Newport Beach, No. 11-55460 — see previous posts here and here. Supreme CourtThe City has now announced that it will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case:

“In our opinion, the panel came up with a new theory of liability under the anti-discrimination laws that has never been recognized before, Continue reading →

 

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Immigration Case

Posted in Uncategorized on By Kira Klatchko

This morning, SupremeCourt2the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Frederick County v. Santos, No. 13-706, a case involving whether local officials may arrest persons for immigration violations that we discussed here. See additional coverage from The Frederick News-Post here.

(Photo courtesy of Flickr by Mark Fischer, creative-commons license, no changes made).

 

Can State and Local Police Arrest for Immigration Violations?

Posted in Case Notes on By Kira Klatchko

That is the question presented in SCOTUSblog’s Petition of the Day.Supreme Court3 The Fourth Circuit ruled in Santos v. Frederick County Bd. of Comm’rs, 725 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013), that

absent express direction or authorization by federal statute or federal officials, state and local law enforcement officers may not detain or arrest an individual solely based on known or suspected civil violations of federal immigration law.

Frederick County’s cert petition argues that this creates a circuit split that the Court should resolve: Continue reading →

 

Supreme Court Refuses To Review Immigration Housing Cases

Posted in Case Notes on By Kira Klatchko

Last year, this blog discussed three recent courts of appeals decisions involving local-housing regulations aimed at a person’s immigration status. DSC_0132

This morning, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in two of the cases,  Farmers Branch v. Villas at Parkside and Hazleton v. Lozano.

Both decisions had preempted local ordinances.

Image courtesy of Flickr by prathap ramamurthy (creative-commons license, no changes made).

 

Does the Dormant Commerce Clause Prohibit a State from Taxing All of Its Residents’ Income?

Posted in IMLA Briefs on By Kira Klatchko

A recent cert petition raises an important question about how the federal Constitution limits State and local taxing authority.

In Maryland State Comptroller of the Treasury v. Wynne, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that the dormant Commerce Clause requires every state and subdivision to give its residents a full tax credit for all income taxes that they pay in another state or subdivision. The U.S. Supreme Court has never applied the dormant Commerce Clause to reach that result, and it appears to conflict with cases in other states. Not surprisngly then, the Maryland State Comptroller of the Treasury has asked the Supreme Court to take the case.

This week, IMLA joined the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the International City/County Management Association, and the Maryland Association of Counties in filing an amicus brief supporting the petition. The brief argues that the decision violates basic principles of federalism, and is inconsistent with the State’s sovereign powers to tax its residents.

We’ll continue to monitor the case and will bring you any updates.