A challenge to President Obama’s immigration deferral program and (another) challenge that could harpoon the Affordable Care Act (ACA) could make it on the Supreme Court’s docket this term and be decided by the end of June.

For the first time at the Supreme Court’s private conference on January 15 it will consider petitions in United States v. Texas (immigration) and Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services (ACA).

The Court will have three choices: grant the petitions, deny the petitions, or postpone making a decision until a later conference. If it postpones a decision in either case, it must decide at the January 22 conference to accept the cases or they will be heard next term (assuming the petitions are ultimately granted). 

Congress finished 2015 on an unusually productive streak – at least compared to recent years – by passing a variety of legislation important to state governments, including funding the highway trust fund, reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (now called the Every Student Succeeds Act), reauthorizing the highly debated Export-Import Bank, extending a variety of tax incentive provisions, and funding the federal government through September 2016.  Going into a presidential election year, many experts do not expect Congress to act on major policy initiatives before November, and are closely watching what President Obama will do in his final year in office. 

CSG Director of Federal Affairs Andy Karellas outlines the top five issues in federal affairs policy for 2016, including fiscal uncertainty, federal regulations and intergovernmental coordination, unfunded mandates, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. 

This term the Supreme Court has taken two cases from California involving arbitration clauses. One has been decided, the other will be decided later this term. Both cases are of interest to states as they involve preemption of state law by the Federal Arbitration Act.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The Council of State Governments supports efforts by Congress to regulate e-commerce through legislation that allows States to enforce their existing sales and use tax laws, regardless of the method of transaction, and to collect taxes under state law.

Civics education stands at the core of what it takes to equip citizens with the knowledge and willingness to become community, state, national and international leaders. Without such civic fundamentals, the youth of today may not vote or run for public office tomorrow, and the future participation of citizens in America’s grand democratic experiment is called into question. As part of CSG’s ongoing work to explore the challenges of federalism, this session featured experts and policymakers to discuss how states are teaching future generations about the role of state and federal governments and civic engagement.

During a recent CSG eCademy webcast, two judicial experts described how the U.S. state and federal court systems work and how court decisions impact state governments. “Federalism and the U.S. Judicial Branch” was the third and final presentation in a series of webcasts about federalism’s impact across the branches.

The American judicial system is complicated. How does a case get to the United States Supreme Court? Why are some cases heard in federal court and others in state court? Why do courts refuse to decide some issues? This free CSG eCademy webcast features Lisa Soronen, executive director of the State and Local Legal Center, and Paul Clement, partner at Bancroft PLLC and former U.S. solicitor general who has argued more than 75 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. The presenters explain the basics of how our court system works and how the decisions of this complex judicial system impact state governments.

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!).   

Pages