MILegalize files in US Supreme Court over denial of ballot petition in 2016 election

From a press release of the MILegalize office:

The MILegalize United States Supreme Court Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed yesterday. It will be in the docketing system in a week or so after standard security delay and processing.  MILegalize will make an official announcement with more details in the next few days after SCOTUS provides a docket number. Attached is an electronic copy of the filing. 

The state has been served with notice. Once a docketing number is issued third parties seeking to file amicus briefs have 20 days to request permission from the parties. MILegalize welcomes amicus briefs from anyone supporting this important battle to protect both petitioning and voting rights and sensible cannabis law reform. The case may set groundbreaking national precedent for both First Amendment rights and cannabis reform as an early test of the Trump administration and a new Supreme Court bench.

The case raises First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection violations due to the gross injustices perpetrated by the Secretary of State, Board of Canvassers, and Bureau of Elections in refusing to process MILegalize's 354,000 signatures submitted for the 2016 election. The Petition seeks a declaration that both MCL 168.472a, the "rebuttable presumption" law and a 1986 Board of Canvassers policy are unconstitutional for placing undue burdens on the initiative petition process, and asks the Court to remand the case with an order to fairly canvass and qualify MILegalize's petitions for inclusion at the next regular election -- the 2018 gubernatorial race.

In this time of grave threats to the integrity of our democratic republic, MILegalize remains committed to fighting for cannabis reform and for protecting the fundamental rights of all Michiganders-- most importantly herein, our imperiled petition and voting rights, the very essence of government by We the People. The refusal to respect such rights by the State of Michigan requires supervision by the Highest Court in the Land. While the likelihood of the Court granting certiorari on any petition remains low, MILegalize made a commitment to the People of the State of Michigan it will not break-- we will fight as long as it takes for our Freedom. 

We continue to Demand that the Legislature Respect the Will of Michigan voters and enact the MILegalize plan immediately during lame duck, and also repeal all restrictions on the right of the People to petition, most especially PA 142 of 2016. As the likelihood for anything sensible out of this Legislature is slim, MILegalize is also gearing up to launch another petition in spring of 2017, MILegalize2018. Learn more at www.MILegalize.com.

Supreme Court might let immigrants (detained after September 11, 2001) sue US Officials

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to decide whether former Attorney General John Ashcroft and other onetime government officials have immunity in suits by immigrants who say they were rounded up and illegally detained after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The court agreed to hear three consolidated cases brought by mostly Muslim immigrants who were in the country illegally. . . .article here (via abajournal.)

Supreme Court potential nomination:

One potential nominee for the post vacated when Scalia passed away: federal appeals Judge Sri Srinivasan.

Srinivasan, a former clerk for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, would be the first Hindu and the first Asian American on the U.S. Supreme Court if he were nominated and confirmed, the Washington Post reports in a story about the Hindu faith. He was born in India and moved with his family to the United States as a child. He was sworn into the federal appeals court on the Bhagavad-Gita, a Hindu holy book.

Article here (via aba journal).

Finite terms for SCOTUS justices would solve problems, says editorial

The Washington Post’s editorial board sees a connection between life tenure for Supreme Court justices and the “dysfunctional politics of judicial nominations.”

In an editorial published on Sunday, the Washington Post says the Constitution relied on life tenure to strike a balance between democratic accountability and judicial independence. But that mechanism is failing, the editorial says.

Article here (via ABA Journal). 

In case you missed it: Supreme Court Justice Scalia has died

Justice Antonin Scalia, an influential advocate for an originalist view of the Constitution, died on Saturday at the age of 79.

The New York Times describes Scalia as “leader of a conservative intellectual renaissance” due to his “transformative legal theories, vivid writing and outsize personality.” He was nearing his 30th year on the court and was its longest serving current member, the National Law Journal (sub. req.) reports.

Article here (via aba journal). 

The Dignity of Gay marriages was part of SCOTUS decision: Will that bring about "dignity codes" which are against the First Amendment?

A George Washington University professor says "perhaps."

Article here (via aba journal).

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley says the opinion recognizing the dignity of gay marriage could pave the way for dignity codes that trump free-speech rights.
Turley says “the most direct way” the majority could have upheld a right to gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges would be to find that sexual orientation is a protected class under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. That would have made a refusal to issue gay-marriage licenses illegal discrimination, and would have clarified the standard in areas such as employment discrimination and refusal of public accommodations, Turley says.

Just in case: Ottawa County clerk's plan to alter marriage license form if Supreme Court overturns Michigan gay marriage

The Ottawa County clerk will manually update marriage forms to accommodate same-sex couples in the event the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Michigan's gay marriage ban. It's not clear if Kent County's clerk, or some others around the state, will take the same step.

Article here (via mlive). 

The Supreme Court is expected by the end of the month to rule on whether Michigan's 2004 voter-approved gay marriage ban is constitutional.
County clerks say they will comply with the court and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples if the court overturns Michigan's law. But they may not have updated paperwork right away.

4th amendment news: traffic stops can't be prolonged for a dog sniff - because of Ferguson?

The Fourth amendment is intended to protect US citizens from unreasonable searches of person and property, and indicates that a warrant, supported by probable cause, is needed for such searches.

However, for certain exceptions, a warrant isn't absolutely required. These exceptions include, but are not limited to: plain view, incident to arrest,  consent, exigent circumstances (in other words, emergency), and motor vehicle. The motor vehicle exception has been expanded sot hat motorists who are stopped for other reasons might be detained until a dog is available to sniff what else might be in the vehicle. This is because if the motorist were allowed to leave, the evidence might be gone forever.

But is it against the 4th amendment - in other words, is it constitutional -- to allow police to detain a motorist until a dog is available?

The Supreme Court rule this week that the answer, thankfully, is no.

But did a majority of the court rule this way due to the recent events in Ferguson, MO? This article in ABA Journal says "maybe."

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday favoring motorists in some dog-sniff cases had an unusual lineup.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was joined by three of the court’s liberals in her majority opinion, along with Justice Antonin Scalia, who has previously joined with liberals in some Fourth Amendment cases, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

An article in Slate offers a possible reason for Roberts’ vote: the Ferguson effect. “Perhaps the savvy, media-aware Roberts has finally learned the lessons of Ferguson and is trading in his logical abstractions for some much-needed legal realism,” the article says.

Slate article 

Opinion article (via  scotus blog).

What does this mean to the average driver? This means that if you are stopped by the police, and you may have raised a suspicion of the officers that your vehicle contains some illegal article, the traffic stop can't last too long, or be prolonged just in order for a dog to be made available! This is good news for supporters of the 4th amendment.

Will the Affordable Care Act be made ineffective by this case? Supreme Court decides.

Because the complex law depends on three principles—tax help for participants, shared responsibility (meaning the individual coverage mandate) and reforms of the insurance market—to extend health coverage to more Americans, a decision that significantly hobbled one leg of that stool would undermine the entire law, observers believe.

The case “is the most existential threat to the viability of the Affordable Care Act in about three dozen states,” says Ron Pollack, the executive director of Families USA, a Washington, D.C., group that lobbies on behalf of health care consumers and is a strong supporter of the ACA. “The stakes are very high.”

Article here (via ABA journal). 

Does the use of midazolam sedative in executions violate the 8th Amendment? Supreme Court to decide.

States use sedatives when they are executing people. States used to use phenobarbital, which then became harder for states to use. But some states switched to another sedative, midazolam. The question before the Supreme Court is whether midazolam violates the 8th Amendment (barring cruel and unusual punishment) since it has no pain-reducing properties.

Article here (via ABA Journal).

Dissent makes strange companions: Ginsberg, Scalia and Thomas join in dissent

"Cert" or certiorari, is the process whereby  the US Supreme Court decides whether to hear a case. A party  -- who has already had a ruling from a "lower" court -- has to petition the US Supreme to hear the case. This is called a "petition for certiorari." When the justices review a case, but decide not to hear any oral argument, they deny its certiorari (which leads to its being "cert denied").

Justices can, but most often do not, write a dissent against cert being denied. Why? Because the justices would be writing them all the time. The vast majority of cases that are appealed to the US Supremes are denied.

So it's unusual for justices to write a dissent about denial of a cert petition. And it's more rare still when justices Ginsberg, Scalia, and Thomas, who usually have such otherwise- opposing view points, join in that dissent.

Article here.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the dissent (PDF), joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “The present petition presents the nonhypothetical case the court claimed to have been waiting for,” Scalia wrote.

Jurors had convicted three drug defendants in the case for distributing small amounts of crack cocaine, but acquitted the defendants of conspiring to distribute drugs. The sentencing judge nonetheless found that the defendants had engaged in the conspiracy and, relying largely on that finding, calculated guidelines ranges that were much higher than for distribution convictions.
“Petitioners present a strong case that, but for the judge’s finding of fact, their sentences would have been ‘substantively unreasonable’ and therefore illegal,” Scalia wrote. “If so, their constitutional rights were violated.

The upcoming US Supreme Court sessions: What to expect

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a pair of high-stakes discrimination cases that examine religious accommodations for job applicants and the scope of federal fair-housing law.

 The cases were among a new batch of appeals the justices added to their docket for the court’s upcoming 2014-2015 term, which begins on Monday.

Article here (via wsj law blog). 

Capital punishment and IQ: what's in a number?

The US Supreme Court held that states can't assign an IQ score to when an intellectually disabled person can be executed.

The states, the five-to-four majority ruled, cannot use a fixed IQ score as the measure of incapacity to be put to death.  “Intellectual incapacity,” the Court said, “is a condition, not a number.”

Article here (from scotusblog). 

Taser death could get US Supreme Court review

Is taser use by police officers safe or unsafe? The US Supreme Court might decide.

 Article here.

The Supreme Court is being asked to review [ a 21- year -old- victim's] case as part of a civil rights lawsuit filed on behalf of his young son against a former Winnfield police officer. If the justices agree to hear the case, it would be the court's first look at police use of stun guns after turning away appeals from both recipients of the high-voltage shocks and from police officers.

A decision on taking up the issue (in other words, the decision of whether the court will hear the case or not) could come as soon as Monday.

Related article here. 

Affirmative Action and the U of M - the debate continues

A long-time opponent of the use of affirmative action in college admissions is challenging a black Detroit student to a public debate.

Article here. 

Jennifer Gratz, who sued the University of Michigan and helped lead a successful drive to get Michigan voters to ban the use of the affirmative action, in a news release Thursday issued the challenge to University Preparatory Academy senior Brooke Kimbrough.

***

The issue of race is boiling at U-M. It is the centerpiece of a second Supreme Court case looking at the constitutionality of Michigan’s ban on the use of race in admissions. That decision is likely to come this spring. The school’s Black Student Union has been protesting the lack of minority students on campus and has been meeting all winter with administrators about the issue. The two sides recently announced a series of agreements the student group called small victories.

When will the US Supreme Court rule on abortion again? Not this term.

From the SCOTUS blog:

The Court has confronted plenty of hot-button cases in recent Terms, from affirmative action to the Affordable Care Act to federal treatment of same-sex marriages.  The last time the Justices decided an abortion case on the merits, however, was April 2007, when – by a five-to-four vote – they upheld the federal law restricting late-term or so-called “partial birth” abortions.

(edit!) 

Since then, the lower federal courts and state courts have wrestled extensively with the question of precisely how to apply the undue burden test.  

(edit!)

For nearly six years, Justice Kennedy and his colleagues have left us hanging. Has the meaning of “undue burden” changed? Is the Court prepared to scrap the undue burden standard and put something else in its place? Or is the right to abortion itself in doubt?

article here.  Read the whole thing, it's really good!

 

Legislative prayers and history: Can towns begin legislative sessions with prayer?

The US Supreme Court is deciding this matter, in Town of Greece v. Galloway.

Article here.

Rails to Trails programs versus Property Owner Rights: What's more important?

The US Supreme Court will decide this (again!) in a case before the Court this term. Rails to trails programs are about adding value to the community via recreation & tourism. But what do private property owners give up, since their property is sacrificed to the program?

Article here.