The U.S. Supreme Court’s October 2015 term is one to watch not only because the court has accepted numerous cases on controversial topics but also because many of the Supreme Court’s decisions this term, including a number of cases affecting the states, are likely to be discussed by the 2016 presidential candidates as the election heats up. Here is a preview of the most significant cases for the states that the court has agreed to decide so far.

While it would be hard to top the Supreme Court’s last term the October 2015 term is one to watch not just because the Court has accepted numerous cases on controversial topics. Adding to the intrigue, many of the Court’s decisions this term are likely to be discussed by the 2016 Presidential candidates as the election heats up, including a number of cases affecting the states. Here is a preview of the most significant cases for the states that the Court has agreed to decide so far. 

Soon after U.S. House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio shook up Capitol Hill by announcing his retirement at the end of October, Congress narrowly avoided a government shutdown by passing a funding bill that will keep the federal government operational until December.

It’s opening day at the Supreme Court!

With at least 20 cases more to accept between now and the end of January, what issues of interest to states is the Court likely to agree to hear in the near future?

Today 10 years ago John Glover Roberts Jr. became the 17th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Roberts Court decisions have affected everyone from average Americans to Guantanamo Bay detainees. But what about states and local governments? This article provides a brief analysis of how the Roberts Court has impacted 10 areas of interest to states and local governments: federalism, preemption, race, free speech, religion, public employment, qualified immunity, Eighth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and gun control.

Ohio and Massachusetts are expected to consider legislation this fall aimed at regulating rideshare services such as Uber and Lyft. CSG has partnered with the Griffith Insurance Education Foundation to provide academic, non-partisan seminars in both states for state policymakers and staff, including one taking place Sept 28 at the Massachusetts State House in Boston.

CSG Midwest
In most states, it doesn’t take long for a bill passed by the legislature to be acted on by the governor. The governors of Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota have only three days to veto a measure once they’ve received it, and in most other state constitutions, the time frame for gubernatorial action is between five and 10 days.
But in Illinois, weeks can, and often do, go by between legislative passage and the governor’s signing or veto of legislation.
“There is lobbying that goes on with the governor’s office for sure,” Rep. Elaine Nekritz says of the waiting period. “The three governors I have served with have taken their time in evaluating and signing the bills. I believe all three took full advantage of the 60-day time frame.”
No state comes close to the 60-day window allotted to Illinois’ governors, but this unique constitutional provision is consistent with the “extraordinary veto power” granted to the executive branch, says former Illinois state senator Rick Winkel.

The issue in Merrill Lynch v. Manning is whether state law claims alleging that the “naked” short selling at issue in this case violated state law must be heard in federal court.

In a short sale, a short seller identifies a security he or she believes will decline in value, borrows some of those securities from a broker and sells them. When the securities decline in value he or she rebuys them and makes a profit.

In a “naked” short sale the seller doesn’t borrow the securities in time to deliver them to the buyer—to manipulate the security’s price or to avoid borrowing costs. While “naked” short selling isn’t per se illegal under federal law, some schemes may violate federal antifraud law and Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules.

The Council of State Governments has been collecting data on governors’ salaries for The Book of the States since 1937. The average governor’s salary grew more slowly during and after the Great Recession, with many states instituting a ban on cost-of-living adjustments; however, as the economic and fiscal health of states has improved, the annual increases normally seen in executive branch pay are returning to a more historically customary level.

May nonmembers of Indian tribes (including state and local governments) be sued in tribal court (as opposed to state or federal court) for tort (civil wrongdoing) claims?

In Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians John Doe, a thirteen-year-old tribe member, alleges that his supervisor sexually molested him while he was working as part of a job training program at a Dollar General located on a reservation. Doe sued Dollar General in tribal court alleging a variety of torts including negligent hiring, training, and supervision.

In Montana v. United States (1981) the Court held that generally nonmembers may not be sued in tribal court except that “tribe[s] may regulate, through taxation, licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the tribe or its members through commercial dealing.”  The question in this case is whether “other means” includes suing nonmembers for civil tort claims in tribal court.