Supreme Court

If a statutes of repose bill comes across your desk your second question (after what is a statute of repose) will be why? You need to look no further than the Supreme Court’s decision in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger.

In this case the Supreme Court held 7-2 that the federal Superfund statute, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), does not preempt state statutes of repose.  So homeowners’ state law claims for water contamination against an electronics manufacturer will be dismissed.  Five states have repose periods (Alabama, Connecticut, Kansas, Oregon, and North Carolina). 

In Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama the Supreme Court will decide whether Alabama’s redistricting plan violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by intentionally packing black voters into districts already containing a majority of black voters. 

The Alabama legislature’s 2010 redistricting plan maintains the number of House and Senate majority-black districts.  But because most of the majority-black districts were underpopulated, the Legislature “redrew the districts by shifting more black voters into the majority-black districts to maintain the same relative percentages of black voters in those districts.” Black voters allege that packing them into super-majority districts limits their potential influence in other jurisdictions.

Are you a state legislator from Florida, Kentucky, Virginia, Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Kansas, North Carolina, and Washington?  If so, keep reading.  Your legislature may need to rewrite its definition of intellectual disability as it applies to the death penalty. 

In Hall v. Florida the Supreme Court held 5-4 that if a capital defendant’s IQ falls within the standard error measurement (SEM) for intellectually disabled, the defendant must be allowed to present additional evidence of intellectual disability.  Hall may require the above 9 states to rewrite their death penalty statutes because they have strict IQ cutoff scores of 70.

Imagine yourself going through a security screening. Annoying, right?  Now imagine yourself getting paid to go through a security screening.  Better, right?  But what if you are a state government with a security screening process that as a result of a court decision must now pay employees to go through security screenings?  Sometime in the next year, the Supreme Court will affirm or reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision to this effect in ...

Taxpayers X and Y live in the same state and have the same income but Taxpayer X earns all of her income in-state while Taxpayer Y earns all of her income out-of-state.  Taxpayer Y pays more in taxes because she pays income taxes out-of-state and pays a county income tax in her home state.  Unfair?  (Not necessarily.  After all, Taxpayer Y receives government services in the county where she resides.)  Unconstitutional?  The Supreme Court will decide.    

In...

Pages