The Tenth Circuit held that 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 constitutional.
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 use tax. To improve tax collection, in 2010 the Colorado legislature began requiring remote sellers to inform Colorado purchasers annually of their purchases and send the same information to the Colorado Department of Revenue. The Direct Marketing Association sued Colorado in federal court claiming the law was unconstitutional under Quill.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death on Feb. 13 came at an uncertain time in our nation’s history, as we are quickly approaching a presidential election. Unsurprisingly, while some of the news coverage has focused on the substance of his nearly 30-year career as a Supreme Court justice, much of it has focused on the challenges of replacing him. The public knew Justice Scalia as a conservative, particularly on social issues like abortion, the death penalty and same-sex marriage. Attorneys will remember Justice Scalia as an “originalist,” who believed that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted as the founders intended, and a “textualist,” who interpreted laws by looking only at the words on the page. Court watchers admired Justice Scalia’s beautifully written, clear and often colorful opinions. But what was Justice Scalia’s impact on state and local governments?
So the million dollar question (other than who will fill Justice Scalia’s seat) is what will happen to undecided Supreme Court cases heard or to be heard this term.
The short answer is it depends and in all instances isn’t entirely clear.
If a case isn’t 4-4 it will be decided as usual with only eight Justices.
If a case is going to be decided 4-4 the Court has two choices: wait for the ninth Justice to join the Court and rehear the case or issue a non-precedential 4-4 decision that affirms the lower court decision.
Justice Scalia’s death this weekend comes at an uncertain time in our Nation’s history as we are quickly approaching a Presidential election. Unsurprisingly, while some of the news coverage has focused on the substance of his nearly 30 year career as a Supreme Court Justice, much of it has focused on the challenges of replacing him.
The public knew Justice Scalia as a conservative, particularly on social issues like abortion, the death penalty, and same-sex marriage. Attorneys will remember Justice Scalia as an “originalist” who believed that the Constitution should be interpreted as the founders intended and a “textualist” who interpreted laws by looking only at the words on the page. Court watchers admired Justice Scalia’s beautifully written, clear, and often colorful, opinions.
But what was Justice Scalia’s impact on state and local government?
What happened when land on an Indian reservation was opened to settlers? Did the land lose its reservation status? What if an Indian tribe tries to regulate a city now located on that land?
In Solem v. Bartlett (1984) the Supreme Court articulated a three-part test to determine if a reservation has been diminished. Courts must look at “statutory language used to open the Indian lands,” “events surrounding the passage of a surplus land Act,” and “events that occurred after the passage of a surplus land Act.”
In Nebraska v. Parker when the Omaha Tribe tried to enforce its new alcoholic beverages tax in the Village of Pender, Nebraska, the village objected. It claimed it is not located on the Omaha Indian Reservation because Congress diminished the reservation in 1882. The 1882 Act allotted less than 1,000 out of 50,000 acres of the western portion of the reservation to tribe members; the remaining acres were sold to non-Indians.
Imagine yourself (if you can) on an Alaska moose hunting trip riding along in your hovercraft. Oh no your hovercraft has just broken down! While you are repairing it, three National Park Service (NPS) law enforcement officers inform you that you cannot operate it here because of an NPS regulation banning hovercrafts.
You are shocked because you know that while the portion of the Nation River you are on is contained in a national park, Alaska owns (at least) the land under the Nation River.
The Supreme Court has issued a stay preventing the Clean Power Plan regulations from going into effect until the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court if it chooses to, rules on the regulations.
The Clean Power Plan requires power plants to reduce carbon emissions and establishes state-by-state targets to accomplish this goal.
The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) for the first time ever has asked the Supreme Court to accept and decide a case. The SLLC is asking the Court to hear United Student Aid Funds v. Bible and overturn Auer deference to federal agencies.
In Auer v. Robbins (1997) the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. (1945) that courts must defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations (even if that interpretation is articulated for the first time in an amicus brief during litigation).
In an 6-2 decision in FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has the authority to regulate wholesale “demand response” and that demand response bidders may receive the same compensation as electricity producers.
“Demand response” is a practice in which operators in wholesale markets pay electricity consumers to not use power at certain times.
Energy is more expensive and inefficient to produce at certain times (like hot days). Nonetheless retail electricity rates remain stable providing no incentive for electric consumers to reduce their demand at these times. So, FERC blessed wholesale market operators using demand response to reduce energy use during peak times and to lower wholesale electricity prices.
The Supreme Court held 6-3 in Montgomery v. Louisiana that juvenile offenders sentenced to life in prison without parole before Miller v. Alabama (2012) was decided may have their sentences reviewed. In Miller v. Alabama the Court held that a juvenile may not be sentenced to life in prison without parole “absent consideration of the juvenile’s special circumstances in light of the principles and purposes of juvenile sentencing.” The Court suggested that rather than relitigating sentences states may allow relevant juvenile offenders to be eligible for parole.