Various U.S. Supreme Court Rulings [Cur. Same Sex Marriage]

[Metsfanmax]

The Soviets, and every other government in the history of humanity.

That's not true, but keep telling yourself that and you'll always get the government you deserve.

Counterexample, please?

[Woodruff]

I find it interesting that you haven't pointed out where the Constitution needs to be overhauled and updated for today's age.

Most likely, the only thing he'd actually strike from the Constitution is the 2nd amendment.

I could probably be convinced to do away with the Third Amendment. Certainly it would be my first choice amongst the Bill of Rights, if one had to go.

[AndyDufresne]

Supreme Court Rules Human Genes May Not Be Patented

NY Times reporting:

[spoiler]

Human genes may not be patented, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.

“A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for a unanimous court. But manipulating a gene to create something not found in nature is an invention eligible for patent protection.

The case concerned patents held by Myriad Genetics, a Utah company, on genes that correlate with increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

The central question for the justices in the case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, No. 12-398, was whether isolated genes are “products of nature” that may not be patented or “human-made inventions” eligible for patent protection.

The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors who said their research and ability to help patients had been frustrated.

The court’s ruling will shape the course of scientific research and medical testing, and it may alter the willingness of businesses to invest in the expensive work of isolating and understanding genetic material.

[/spoiler]

SCOTUS Blog reporting:
[spoiler]

The Court held that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but manmade cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring. The case involved the well-known BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which can involve mutations that increase the likelihood of breast cancer. The ruling is significant for a variety of companies (including Myriad) that hold important DNA patents. But for the industry as a whole, it offers the prospect of significant patent protection for cDNA, as well as other inventions derived from human DNA. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

[/spoiler]

Full (.pdf) Supreme Court Opinion

Usual suspects, please line up and tell us what it means: TGD, Metsfanmax, BBS, Haggis, Woodruff, PS, Lootifer, NS, et al.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Makes legal sense to me. Makes sense to me outside of the legal room too.

[Woodruff]

Supreme Court Rules Human Genes May Not Be Patented

Well...I really don't know much about this issue at all. However, from what I've seen on it, it seems pretty obvious to me that this would be the case.

[warmonger1981]

I heard it only applies to human genes not animal.

[/]

It's about time. This has been going on for decades, I had heard last that around 20% of the genome had already been patented.

When this is done, the patent holder can prevent other people from even looking at the patented section of genes, something that may be essential in order to conduct proper medical and scientific research. I think that in the long run even the medical corporations who owned the patents will benefit; as less restrictions on scientific research will make way for bigger and better breakthroughs.

[ooge]

I am going to spit ball this one,which is to say I am going of off my memory,So expect some errors.Before the 1980's if you worked for a government funded research lab you could not own your discovery's.The Reagan administration changed the law so they could own the discovery's, patent it and sell it to the highest bidder.This eventually resulted in all new discovery's being patented and somehow this included the human genome.Dr. salk(I think) upon creating the polio vaccine was asked if he was going to patent it,his response"you can not patent the sun" My belief with all these patents leads to less discovery's not more.Say there is a promising new technique that may lead to the cure of cancer but one company owns what this technique is based on.Other company's will not do research in that technique because they will never be able to benefit from it financially.....have a nice day! edit. as far as the ruling I am surprised they manage to even get Clarence Thomas to vote for this,he rarely likes to be in agreement with logical rulings or constitutional ones either for that matter.

[thegreekdog]

I am surprised they manage to even get Clarence Thomas to vote for this,he rarely likes to be in agreement with logical rulings or constitutional ones either for that matter.

Apparently you don't read US Supreme Court decisions or know anything at all about Clarence Thomas. Or you could be a partisan shill. I think all of the above. Or I suppose you could be a racist.

[AndyDufresne]

Justices Block Law Requiring Voters to Prove Citizenship

NY Times Reporting:

[spoiler]

Arizona may not require documentary proof of citizenship from prospective voters, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-to-2 decision on Monday.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, No. 12-71, said a federal law requiring states to “accept and use” a federal form displaced an Arizona law.

The federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters must check a box for yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing under the penalty of perjury that they are citizens.

The state law, by contrast, required prospective voters to prove that they were citizens by providing copies of or information concerning various documents, including birth certificates, passports, naturalization papers or Arizona driver’s licenses, which are available only to people who are in the state lawfully.

A divided 10-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had ruled that the two sets of requirements “do not operate harmoniously” and “are seriously out of tune with each other in several ways.”

The decision from that panel effectively affirmed a 2010 ruling from a three-judge panel that included Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired from the Supreme Court in 2006 but occasionally acts as a visiting appeals court judge. She joined the majority in ruling that the state law was inconsistent with the federal one and so could not survive.

Justice O’Connor was in the Supreme Court’s courtroom on Monday to see the announcement of the decision that affirmed the decision of the panel on which she had sat.

[/spoiler]

SCOTUS Blog reporting:

[spoiler]

In 2004, Arizona voters approved a law that requires election officials in that state to refuse to register any would-be voter who cannot prove that he is in fact a citizen. Arizona residents, along with voting and civil rights groups, challenged the state law, arguing that it could not stand because it conflicted with, and was trumped by, the NVRA (National Voter Registration Act).

The Court held, in a seven-to-two decision by Justice Scalia, that Arizona’s law cannot stand in the face of the NVRA. The Court first recognized that under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to dictate when, where, and how elections are held, and state election laws that conflict with federal ones are therefore preempted and without effect. The Court thus held that by requiring states to “accept and use” the federal form, the NVRA effectively required the states to treat the federal form as sufficient evidence of citizenship without any additional proof, so that Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement was contrary to the NVRA, and therefore invalid. The Court recognized that the words “accept and use” do not necessarily carry such a broad meaning – they could mean only that the state was required to consider the federal form – but based on the context and the other provisions in the NVRA, the Court concluded that the requirement to “accept and use” the federal form has the stronger effect of requiring states to treat the federal form as sufficient. On the question of which legal test to apply, the Court made it clear that while preemption under the Supremacy Clause (which provides that federal law generally trumps contrary state law) requires Congress to clearly state its intent to preempt state requirements, preemption under the Elections Clause is more easily found because federal elections law will always displace state law.

Finally, the Court held that in the future, Arizona can ask the federal Election Assistance Commission, which creates the federal form, to include a requirement of additional proof of citizenship in the form, and to bring different legal challenges if the EAC refuses to do so.

Justice Kennedy drafted a separate opinion concurring in part and in the judgment; Justices Thomas and Alito each filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that Arizona’s requirement should not have been held preempted.

[/spoiler]

Full (.pdf) Supreme Court Decision

Usual suspects, please line up and tell us what it means: TGD, Metsfanmax, BBS, Haggis, Woodruff, PS, Lootifer, NS, et al.


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

I concur with the SCOTUS blog comment that the appropriate way to get a federal law to be changed is to ask the federal government to change it, and not to pass a blatantly invalid law to force an expensive legal battle that ends up doing nothing but creating further partisan divide.

[Woodruff]

Justices Block Law Requiring Voters to Prove Citizenship

NY Times Reporting:

[spoiler]

Arizona may not require documentary proof of citizenship from prospective voters, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-to-2 decision on Monday.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, No. 12-71, said a federal law requiring states to “accept and use” a federal form displaced an Arizona law.

The federal law, the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, allows voters to register using a federal form that asks, “Are you a citizen of the United States?” Prospective voters must check a box for yes or no, and they must sign the form, swearing under the penalty of perjury that they are citizens.

The state law, by contrast, required prospective voters to prove that they were citizens by providing copies of or information concerning various documents, including birth certificates, passports, naturalization papers or Arizona driver’s licenses, which are available only to people who are in the state lawfully.

A divided 10-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had ruled that the two sets of requirements “do not operate harmoniously” and “are seriously out of tune with each other in several ways.”

The decision from that panel effectively affirmed a 2010 ruling from a three-judge panel that included Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who retired from the Supreme Court in 2006 but occasionally acts as a visiting appeals court judge. She joined the majority in ruling that the state law was inconsistent with the federal one and so could not survive.

Justice O’Connor was in the Supreme Court’s courtroom on Monday to see the announcement of the decision that affirmed the decision of the panel on which she had sat.

[/spoiler]

SCOTUS Blog reporting:

[spoiler]

In 2004, Arizona voters approved a law that requires election officials in that state to refuse to register any would-be voter who cannot prove that he is in fact a citizen. Arizona residents, along with voting and civil rights groups, challenged the state law, arguing that it could not stand because it conflicted with, and was trumped by, the NVRA (National Voter Registration Act).

The Court held, in a seven-to-two decision by Justice Scalia, that Arizona’s law cannot stand in the face of the NVRA. The Court first recognized that under the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the power to dictate when, where, and how elections are held, and state election laws that conflict with federal ones are therefore preempted and without effect. The Court thus held that by requiring states to “accept and use” the federal form, the NVRA effectively required the states to treat the federal form as sufficient evidence of citizenship without any additional proof, so that Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement was contrary to the NVRA, and therefore invalid. The Court recognized that the words “accept and use” do not necessarily carry such a broad meaning – they could mean only that the state was required to consider the federal form – but based on the context and the other provisions in the NVRA, the Court concluded that the requirement to “accept and use” the federal form has the stronger effect of requiring states to treat the federal form as sufficient. On the question of which legal test to apply, the Court made it clear that while preemption under the Supremacy Clause (which provides that federal law generally trumps contrary state law) requires Congress to clearly state its intent to preempt state requirements, preemption under the Elections Clause is more easily found because federal elections law will always displace state law.

Finally, the Court held that in the future, Arizona can ask the federal Election Assistance Commission, which creates the federal form, to include a requirement of additional proof of citizenship in the form, and to bring different legal challenges if the EAC refuses to do so.

Justice Kennedy drafted a separate opinion concurring in part and in the judgment; Justices Thomas and Alito each filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that Arizona’s requirement should not have been held preempted.

[/spoiler]

Full (.pdf) Supreme Court Decision

Usual suspects, please line up and tell us what it means: TGD, Metsfanmax, BBS, Haggis, Woodruff, PS, Lootifer, NS, et al.
--Andy

We kinda beat this one to death in the run-up to the eleciton, didn't we?

[AndyDufresne]

You can now give your final summation.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

I concur with the SCOTUS blog comment that the appropriate way to get a federal law to be changed is to ask the federal government to change it, and not to pass a blatantly invalid law to force an expensive legal battle that ends up doing nothing but creating further partisan divide.

And had Arizona not thrown a hissy-fit, I do not think the following would have been mentioned:

Finally, the Court held that in the future, Arizona can ask the federal Election Assistance Commission, which creates the federal form, to include a requirement of additional proof of citizenship in the form, and to bring different legal challenges if the EAC refuses to do so.

Have they acquiesced because of that AZ law?

[ooge]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

[Night Strike]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

Actually, DOMA IS a states' rights law. It allows for each state to decide how to define marriage while protecting the rights of other states to decide differently. It also sets forth the federal definition of marriage.

[Woodruff]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

Actually, DOMA IS a states' rights law. It allows for each state to decide how to define marriage while protecting the rights of other states to decide differently. It also sets forth the federal definition of marriage.

How can it be a states' rights law if it also sets out the definition Federally? It seems to me that for this to be completely a states' rights issue, the Federal government should have no hand in it at all.

[Night Strike]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

Actually, DOMA IS a states' rights law. It allows for each state to decide how to define marriage while protecting the rights of other states to decide differently. It also sets forth the federal definition of marriage.

How can it be a states' rights law if it also sets out the definition Federally? It seems to me that for this to be completely a states' rights issue, the Federal government should have no hand in it at all.

Because the federal government has its own tax system, which means it has to have its own definitions to define who qualifies under what provision. There can't be a piecemeal approach to who is defined as what based on where you live under federal law because that would be a violation of the 14th amendment. Under DOMA, the federal government has its definitions and then allows states to set their own definitions for policies only within that state.

And that's fine if we're going to get the federal government out of all marriage definitions.....however that's going to require a much simpler tax code, otherwise there will be violations of the 14th amendment.

[ooge]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

Actually, DOMA IS a states' rights law. It allows for each state to decide how to define marriage while protecting the rights of other states to decide differently. It also sets forth the federal definition of marriage.

how is the voting ruling different from states rights? I guess what I am trying to do is set up Clarence Thomas to give a partisan ruling on DOMA. if he is consistent he should vote against DOMA. I think.

[Night Strike]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

Actually, DOMA IS a states' rights law. It allows for each state to decide how to define marriage while protecting the rights of other states to decide differently. It also sets forth the federal definition of marriage.

how is the voting ruling different from states rights? I guess what I am trying to do is set up Clarence Thomas to give a partisan ruling on DOMA. if he is consistent he should vote against DOMA. I think.

And I'm saying that it would still be consistent to vote to keep DOMA for the reasons I've mentioned.

[ooge]

It will be interesting to see were Clarence Thomas decides on DOMA.This ruling he chose to decide with the state of Arizona over federal law.will he decide with the states in the case of DOMA or federal law?

Actually, DOMA IS a states' rights law. It allows for each state to decide how to define marriage while protecting the rights of other states to decide differently. It also sets forth the federal definition of marriage.

How can it be a states' rights law if it also sets out the definition Federally? It seems to me that for this to be completely a states' rights issue, the Federal government should have no hand in it at all.

Because the federal government has its own tax system, which means it has to have its own definitions to define who qualifies under what provision. There can't be a piecemeal approach to who is defined as what based on where you live under federal law because that would be a violation of the 14th amendment. Under DOMA, the federal government has its definitions and then allows states to set their own definitions for policies only within that state.

And that's fine if we're going to get the federal government out of all marriage definitions.....however that's going to require a much simpler tax code, otherwise there will be violations of the 14th amendment.

I am confused,the 14 amendment is what will be cited as the reason for DOMA being unconstitutional and you seem to be saying the opposite. Oh well we will see how it turns out,my guess is bye bye DOMA with the usual suspects dissenting.

[AndyDufresne]

Key Part of Voting Rights Act Invalidated

NY Times Reporting:

[spoiler]

The Supreme Court struck down a central portion of the Voting Rights Act on Tuesday, effectively ending the practice in which some states with a history of racial discrimination must receive clearance from the federal government before changing voting laws.

The vote was 5 to 4, with the five conservative-leaning justices in the majority and the four liberal-leaning justices in the minority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the decision.

The majority held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and since updated by Congress, was unconstitutional. The section includes a formula that determines which states must receive pre-approval.

The court did not strike down Section 5, which allows the federal government to require pre-approval. But without Section 4, which determines which states would need to receive clearance, Section 5 is largely without significance — unless Congress chooses to pass a new bill for determining which states would be covered.

Given the current partisan nature of Congress, reaching agreement on a new formula may be difficult.

“Section 5 of the act required states to obtain federal permission before enacting any law related to voting — a drastic departure from basic principles of federalism,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the decision. “And Section 4 of the act applied that requirement only to some states — an equally dramatic departure from the principle that all states enjoy equal sovereignty.”

“There is no denying, however, that the conditions that originally justified these measures no longer characterize voting in the covered jurisdictions,” he added.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the towering legislative achievements of the civil rights movement. Its central provision, Section 5, requires many state and local governments, mostly in the South, to obtain permission from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before making changes in laws that affect voting.

That means jurisdictions covered by Section 5 must get federal approval before they make minor changes to voting procedures, like relocating a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts.

The Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the law, saying that Section 5’s “preclearance requirement” was an effective tool to combat the legacy of lawless conduct by Southern officials bent on denying voting rights to blacks.

Critics of Section 5 say it is a unique federal intrusion on state sovereignty and a badge of shame for the affected jurisdictions that is no longer justified. They point to high voter registration rates among blacks and the re-election of a black president as proof that the provision is no longer needed.

Civil rights leaders, on the other hand, say the law played an important role in the 2012 election, with courts relying on it to block voter identification requirements and cutbacks on early voting.

Section 5 was originally set to expire in five years. Congress repeatedly extended it: for five years in 1970, seven years in 1975, and 25 years in 1982. Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at the polls, again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years.

In 2012, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge to the law filed by Shelby County, Ala. Judge David S. Tatel, writing for the majority, acknowledged that “the extraordinary federalism costs imposed by Section 5 raise substantial constitutional concerns,” and he added that the record compiled by Congress to justify the law’s renewal was “by no means unambiguous.”

“But Congress drew reasonable conclusions from the extensive evidence it gathered,” he went on. The constitutional amendments ratified after the Civil War, he said, “entrust Congress with ensuring that the right to vote — surely among the most important guarantees of political liberty in the Constitution — is not abridged on account of race. In this context, we owe much deference to the considered judgment of the people’s elected representatives.”

The dissenting member of the panel, Judge Stephen F. Williams, surveyed recent evidence concerning registration and turnout, the election of black officials, the use of federal election observers and suits under another part of the law.

Some of that evidence, he said, “suggests that the coverage formula completely lacks any rational connection to current levels of voter discrimination,” while other evidence indicates that the formula, “though not completely perverse, is a remarkably bad fit with Congress’s concerns.”

“Given the drastic remedy imposed on covered jurisdictions by Section 5,” he wrote, “I do not believe that such equivocal evidence can sustain the scheme.”

The Supreme Court had once before considered the constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the law in a 2009 decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. But it avoided answering the central question, and it seemed to give Congress an opportunity to make adjustments. Congress did not respond.

[/spoiler]

SCOTUS Blog is doing live blogging, so not much to link to or include here, but you can check out things at: http://www.scotusblog.com/

Usual suspects, please line up and tell us what it means: TGD, Metsfanmax, BBS, Haggis, Woodruff, PS, Lootifer, NS, et al.


--Andy

[Night Strike]

The idea that states must get permission from the feds to carry out their Constitutional duty of ensuring proportional representation and putting in place election laws and procedures is absurd. At least they overturned the unequal treatment of the states.

[thegreekdog]

I skimmed Roberts' opinion in this one. It seems grounded in both jurisprudence (e.g. state sovereignty and federalism) and common sense. Frankly, my experience with gerrymandering makes me distrust any Congressional oversight with respect to issues like this. I'm honestly surprised by the dissents. I look with fondness on the pre-politicizing days of the Supreme Courth (i.e. pre-Bork).

[AndyDufresne]

Supreme Court Strikes Down Defense of Marriage Act

‘DOMA’s principal effect is to identify and make unequal a subset of state-sanctioned marriages.’ — JUSTICE ANTHONY M. KENNEDY

NY Times Reporting:

[spoiler=DOMA][quoteThe Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a 1996 law denying federal benefits to legally married same-sex couples is unconstitutional, in a sign of how rapidly the national debate over gay rights has shifted.

The decision was 5 to 4, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy writing the majority opinion, which the four liberal-leaning justices joined. (Read the decision.)

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts was in the minority, as were Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The ruling overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed with bipartisan support and President Bill Clinton signed.

The decision will immediately extend some federal benefits to same-sex couples, but it will also raise a series of major decisions for the Obama administration about how aggressively to overhaul references to marriage throughout the many volumes that lay out the laws of the United States.

The court is still expected to rule Wednesday on a second case involving same-sex marriage: whether California’s ban on it is unconstitutional.

The decision on the Defense of Marriage Act does not alter any state laws governing whether same-sex couples can marry. It instead determines whether same-sex couples that are legally married in one state receive federal benefits that apply to heterosexual married couples.[/quote]

The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 on Wednesday that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstituional.

From SCOTUSblog

Roberts dissents. Scalia dissents. DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment. The opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

From the decision: “DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty.”

SCOTUSblog quotes from the decision:

“The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others.”

[/spoiler]
Supreme Court Opinion


Justices Hold That California Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Do Not Have Standing to Sue

SCOTUS Blog Reporting:

[spoiler=Prop 8]

Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry:

The challenge to the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case.

[/spoiler]
Supreme Court Opinion

Usual suspects, please line up and tell us what it means: TGD, Metsfanmax, BBS, Haggis, Woodruff, PS, Lootifer, NS, et al.


--Andy