Free Republic

What they’re saying • “The law prohibits us from making such fine utilitarian calculations to balance the smelt’s interests against the interests of the citizens of California. — Federal Judge Jay Bybee • “These regulations have harmed farmers and farmworkers in the Central Valley ... by diverting vast quantities of water away from human use and out to the Pacific Ocean, all to try to improve the habitat of ... a 3-inch fish on the Endangered Species Act list. — James S. Burling, director of litigation for the Pacific Legal Foundation The Supreme Court on Monday steered clear of a...

California farmers struggling with drought say a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued Monday that keeps strict water restrictions in place to protect a tiny, threatened fish has forced them to leave thousands of acres unplanted in the nation’s most fertile agricultural region.The justices rejected appeals from farmers in California's Central Valley and urban water districts who had challenged a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to safeguard the 3-inch-long Delta smelt, a species listed as threatened in 1993 under the federal Endangered Species Act. The smelt only lives in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the largest estuary on the West Coast...

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a 2-year-old legal challenge to a central provision of ObamaCare from a conservative doctors group. The case, which was led by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, sought to strike down the law’s individual mandate, which fines individuals who fail to purchase health insurance.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up another broad challenge to President Barack Obama's signature healthcare law. The court rejected an appeal filed by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the Alliance for Natural Health USA. The groups had challenged various aspects of the law known as Obamacare including the so-called individual mandate that requires people to obtain health insurance or pay a tax. In March 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of the Obama administration. In 2012, a district court judge also ruled against the...

The Supreme Court, returning from its winter recess, decided on Monday not to take on a same-sex marriage case that remains under review in a federal appeals court, but otherwise took no action on that constitutional controversy. The Court made no comment as it turned down a plea by same-sex couples in Louisiana to review that state’s ban, which had been upheld by a federal trial judge in New Orleans (Robicheaux v. George).

On Thursday, the U.S. House passed a bipartisan measure to restore the definition of full-time work to 40 hours instead of 30 under the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is gearing up to consider a legal challenge in King v. Burwell that could eliminate the employer mandate in the majority of states. If passed by the Senate and able to survive a veto threat, Thursday’s measure in the House would directly impact companies across the country subject to the ACA’s employer mandate. The employer mandate, which partially went into effect January 1st for businesses with 100...

By our count at the Galen Institute, more than 46 significant changes already have been made to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: at least 28 that President Obama has made unilaterally, 16 that Congress has passed and the president has signed, and 2 by the Supreme Court. CHANGES BY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION 1. Medicare Advantage patch:

Conservative radio host and Landmark Legal Foundation President Mark Levin has submitted an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in King v. Burwell, the Obamacare legal case that will be heard by the Supreme Court on March 5, 2015. The case addresses whether "the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Essentially, the case looks at whether federal subsidies are legal and available to people living in states that did not set up their...

Group asks High Court to affirm the limits on the executive branch’s ability to disregard federal statutes, reaffirm separation of powers (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on December 24, 2014, it filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the IRS and the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Treasury over a decision by the agencies to ignore a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The lawsuit seeks specifically to prevent the IRS from providing refundable tax credits to individuals who purchase health care coverage through...

In a blow to the constitutional rights of citizens, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Heien v. State of North Carolina that police officers are permitted to violate American citizens' Fourth Amendment rights if the violation results from a "reasonable" mistake about the law on the part of police. Acting contrary to the venerable principle that "ignorance of the law is no excuse," the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police during a traffic stop that was not legally justified can be used to prosecute the person if police were reasonably mistaken that the person had violated the law....

The Supreme Court is poised for a blockbuster year in 2015—and the list of high-profile cases could keep growing. Already, the Court is set to rule in a case that threatens to wreak havoc on Obamacare. The justices are also considering questions of religious freedom, free speech, and limits on political fundraising. That mix of cases poses big risks for liberals, who were caught off guard by the Court's enthusiasm for another high-stakes Obamacare battle. And under Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court has steadily chipped away at campaign-finance limits. But Republican governors and social conservatives also have a lot...

On Monday (December 15, 2014), the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, along with two other entities, asked the US Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision which upheld a California public school’s ban on the display of the American flag because it feared the flag might incite Mexican students to violence. In his minority dissent, Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain criticized the decision as permitting “the will of the mob to rule our schools.”

In a decision issued this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the police in a case arising from an officer’s “mistake of law.” At issue in Heien v. North Carolina was a 2009 traffic stop for a single busted brake light that led to the discovery of illegal drugs inside the vehicle. According to state law at the time, however, motor vehicles were required only to have “a stop lamp,” meaning that the officer did not have a lawful reason for the initial traffic stop because it was not a crime to drive around with a single busted brake...

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday declined to extend a stay sought by Florida officials defending the state's ban on same-sex marriages, allowing gay marriages to proceed in Florida next month. Some weddings would be allowed to start when a stay expires after Jan. 5 following an order by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta earlier this month. "The Supreme Court once again has spoken, opening the door for marriage equality here," said Nadine Smith, chief executive officer of Equality Florida, an advocacy group. Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who asked the high...

The most obvious question to ask about the EEOC’s obsession with the Samantha Elauf case is why is it even a case? Setting aside the entire legal question of whether a store that sells trendy clothing is required to accept an employee wearing a 7th century symbol that says she is her husband’s or father’s property… Elauf’s being a Muslim woman wearing Hijab had nothing to do with why she wasn’t hired. There are two issues in the case 1. Abercrombie and Fitch have a policy against headcoverings for employees 2. Samantha Elauf was not hired by A and F...

The only question is why stop there? Can’t we just appointed a politician, whose only qualification for every job she has gotten in the last two decades has been her last name, Supreme Overlord of the Universe?Mike McCurry, Bill Clinton’s press secretary and a guy you happily forgot even existed until now, returns with a proposal so insane that even Obama might shake his head.What if a vacancy now appeared on our nation’s highest court? Given the bitterness and polarization that exists in Washington today, it is hard to imagine any nominee offered by Barack Obama having a less than...

Less than two weeks after a federal court refused to temporarily block gay marriages from taking place, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intercede... Recent history suggests Bondi's application is headed for rejection. Her request will land on the desk of one of the court's most conservative members — Justice Clarence Thomas, who is responsible for overseeing federal courts in Florida. He could rule on her request for a stay (in which case, the full court could reverse his decision) or he could refer the matter to the entire court.

Although these bans aren't enforceable under federal law, a coalition of atheists are now lobbying to remove language from constitutions in Maryland and six other states that prevent people who do not believe in God from holding public office. Along with Maryland, the constitutions of Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas all bear language prohibiting people who do not believe in God from holding office according to The New York Times. And the Openly Secular coalition wants the language removed. "If it was on the books that Jews couldn't hold public office, or that African-Americans or women...

Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. June, a case that has received little attention, but will have far-reaching implications. The case boils down to this: Can the federal government actively conceal material evidence in order to escape liability? Common sense says no. The Obama administration says yes. June involves the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) and a doctrine called “equitable tolling.” Prior to 1946, the doctrine of sovereign immunity prohibited citizens from filing suit against the government. That all changed in 1946, when a military plane crashed into the Empire State Building, killing and...

f all the Jonathan Gruber videos released so far, this one could be the most damaging. Revealed on Tuesday's Greta Van Susteren program on Fox News, the latest blockbuster has the Obamacare architect explaining if your state doesn't set up an exchange, its residents aren't eligible for tax credits, precisely the opposite of what the Administration is arguing before the Supreme Court. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the language of the Affordable Care Act restricts the premium subsidies (in the form of tax credits) to residents buying insurance from a state-run exchange, and prohibits the credits on...