Supreme Court

Remember Nollan and Dolan?  The U.S. Supreme Court will decide a case which the Florida Supreme Court calls the clearest inconsistency in the interpretation of the scope of Nollan and Dolan in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District.  CSG signed onto an amicus brief filed by State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) in this case.  

Need a Nollan and Dolan refresher?  In these cases the U.S. Supreme Court held that when the government requests the dedication of land as a condition for issuing a permit there must be an “essential nexus” between the dedication of land and denying the permit and “rough proportionality” between the dedication of land and the impact of the development.   

To say the Supreme Court’s October 2011 term was “all about the states” is hardly an overstatement.  The two most prominent cases of the term—the Affordable Care Act case and the Arizona immigration case—were both about states’ rights.  (And if the Court takes a gay marriage case next term it will be states’ rights round two). 

If you did, you may view and listen to a recording of the webinar here:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday announced one of the most anticipated decisions this year - whether Arizona’s controversial S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally pre-empts federal immigration law. In a 5-3 decision, the Court threw out most of the provisions of the law in question.

Specifically, the federal government had challenged four provisions of Arizona’s immigration law. One provision would make the failure to comply with federal immigration requirements a state crime, another would make it a state crime for an undocumented...

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Arizona v. United States where the Court must decide whether federal law preempts four provisions of Arizona’s immigration law. 

Supreme Court reporters and watchers seem to agree the Supreme Court will uphold the portion of Arizona’s law requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested when there is “reasonable suspicion” the person is here unlawfully.  As Justice Roberts pointed out, if the federal government does not want to pursue deporting someone, it does not have to.   But a number of Justices seemed concerned about the amount of time it would take to confirm someone’s immigration status.