Recently, the Supreme Court’s already interesting docket got even more high profile. First, it agreed to decide whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA) birth control mandate violates religious nonprofits rights. Then, it agreed to decide whether a Texas abortion law is unconstitutional.
In its second opinion of the term the Supreme Court ruled that a police officer should have been granted qualified immunity when he shot at a car whose driver had led police on a high speed chase to stop it instead of waiting to see if spike strips worked.
The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) has filed an amicus brief in the Ohio Supreme Court urging it to rule that Ohio’s commercial activity tax (CAT) applies to online vendors who sell in the state. The SLLC argues the holding of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992), that states cannot require retailers with no in-state physical presence to collect use tax, should not be extended to a privilege-of-doing-business tax.
Since the Supreme Court’s term began in early October it has agreed to hear 15 cases—13 at its “long” conference before the term began and two subsequently. Many will have an impact on the states. And a number will only impact specific states (and a territory!).
If someone has spent or hidden their ill-gotten gain but has additional assets untainted by their crime, should the government be able to freeze the untainted assets? The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) amicus brief in Luis v. United States argues yes. State and local governments—police departments in particular—receive criminal asset forfeitures. Any many states statutes also allow freezing of substitute assets.
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.
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.
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.