ILNews

SCOTUS issues 3 decisions; opinions on Ball State case, same-sex marriage to come

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Those who hoped to learn how the Supreme Court of the United States will rule on same-sex marriage likely will need to wait until next week. The U.S. justices issued three opinions Thursday, although none were from the highly anticipated cases before them.

The court issued Descamps v. United States, 11-9540; American Express Co., et al. v. Italian Colors Restaurants, et al., 12-133; and Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc., 12-10.

The issue in Descamps is whether, under the Armed Career Criminal Act, when a state crime doesn’t require an element of the federal crime of burglary, the federal court may find the existence of that element by examining the record of a state proceeding under the “modified categorical approach.” Michael Descamps was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and the government sought to enhance his sentence under the ACCA, which included a prior conviction in California for burglary.

The justices held that the modified categorical approach doesn’t apply to statutes like California Penal Code Ann. Section 459 that contain a single, indivisible set of elements, and they found Descamps’ ACCA enhancement was improper. Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

In American Express, the court held the Federal Arbitration Act does not allow courts to invalidate a contractual wavier of class arbitration on the ground that the plaintiff’s cost of individually arbitrating a federal statutory claim exceeds the potential recovery. Scalia delivered the opinion, and  Kagan, Ginsburg and Breyer dissented. Sotomayor did not participate.

American Express users filed a class action, claiming the company violated the Sherman Act, to which American Express sought to compel individual arbitration under the FAA based on the cardholder agreement. The users argued the cost of expert analysis necessary to prove the antitrust claims would exceed the maximum recovery for an individual plaintiff. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that because of the prohibitive costs respondents would face if they had to arbitrate, the class-action waiver is unenforceable.

In Agency for International Development, recipients of United States Leadership Against HIV/AID, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003 funds who wish to remain neutral on prostitution sought a declaratory judgment that the policy requirements of the Act violate their First Amendment rights. The Act requires an organization to have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking to be able to receive federal funding to provide HIV and AIDS programs oversees. The 2nd Circuit affirmed the issuance of a preliminary injunction, holding the policy requirement violated the groups’ freedom of speech.

Roberts delivered the decision. Scalia and Thomas dissented, and Kagan did not participate in the case. The majority held that the policy requirement violates the First Amendment by compelling as a condition of federal funding the affirmation of a belief that by its nature cannot be confined within the scope of the government program.

Also pending before the court is Vance v. Ball State University, et al., 11-556, which was argued in November. Ball State employee Maetta Vance filed her lawsuit claiming she was racially harassed by a co-worker and another employee who had the authority to tell her what to do and how to clock her hours. The case hinges on the definition of “supervisor.” The school claims it can’t be held liable because Vance’s harasser didn’t have the power to fire, hire, demote, promote discipline or transfer her.

The federal court and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled in favor of the university.

Still awaiting ruling are several high-profile cases, including Hollingsworth v. Perry, 12-144 and United States v. Windsor, which deal with same-sex marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act; and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 11-345, which deals with affirmative action. Indiana authored one amicus brief and co-authored another before the court regarding the same-sex marriage issue.

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to release opinions Monday and will likely add extra days next week to hand down decisions. Court watchers expect the same-sex marriage cases to come on the last scheduled day for the court, as has been the case with other controversial cases including last year’s decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT