ILNews

SCOTUS rules on FCC case, still no health care decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The highly anticipated decision by the United States Supreme Court on health care will come another day. The justices released four opinions Thursday, which did not include the challenges to the health care law. They did decide the case before them involving the Federal Communications Commission.

The justices were asked to rule on whether the FCC’s standards for indecency on television are too vague to be constitutional. The justices sidestepped the constitutionality issue by deciding the case under the Due Process Clause. They also did not reconsider their decision in FCC. v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726.

The FCC opinion was the last one issued Thursday morning by the SCOTUS. In Federal Communications Commission, et al. v. Fox Television Stations Inc., et al., 10-1293, the majority held that because the Federal Communications Commission didn’t give Fox or ABC fair notice before the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent, the FCC’s standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague.

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court to which all justices but Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined. Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion and Sotomayor didn’t take part in the consideration or decision of the case.

The high court handed down three other decisions Thursday.

In a 6-3 decision authored by Sotomayor, Southern Union Co. v. United States, 11-94, the majority held that the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey applies to the imposition of criminal fines. The Constitution requires that a jury, instead of a judge, must find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that leads to a higher fine for a criminal defendant. The case came to the court from the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Atonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan and Ginsburg joined Sotomayor’s opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented, to which Kennedy and Samuel Alito joined.

In a 7-2 decision authored by Alito, the SCOTUS in Knox, et al. v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000, 10-1121, reversed the 9th Circuit. The high court ruled that under the First Amendment, when a union imposes a special assessment or dues increase to meet expenses that were not disclosed when the regular assessment was set, the union must provide a new notice and may not exact any funds from nonmembers without their affirmative consent.

Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas joined Alito’s opinion. Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg joined. Breyer dissented, in which Kagan joined.

The justices issued their consolidated decision in Dorsey v. United States, 11-5683, and Hill v. United States, 11-5271, both from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 5-4 ruling holds that the Fair Sentencing Act’s new, lower mandatory minimums apply to the post-act sentencing of pre-act crack cocaine offenders. Breyer authored the opinion in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Scalia filed a dissent, to which Roberts, Thomas and Alito joined. 

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT