Tag Archives: Federal courts

Early Monday roundup 8/4

I took an early weekend, so I have a couple of things to catch up on. Most legally important news happens before Friday, but things do still happen. I might make it a regular habit to dump the stuff that slips through the cracks over the weekend on Monday morning.

First, same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs aren’t going to be given a lot of time in the Indiana/Wisconsin consolidated case to make their arguments. Meanwhile, a county clerk in Virginia is filing for cert with the Supreme Court on the marriage ban there.

With the Seventh Circuit case moving so quickly, it seems likely that the issue of same-sex marriage is going to be decided once and for all during the next Supreme Court term.

Next, health care. The issue of health subsidies for states using the federal exchange is also being pushed forward as fast as possible. Nothing new here, but I expect the Court to take this up right away, as well.

Looking ahead. Nothing much on the SCOTUS front, as the new term doesn’t start until the very end of September.  The Indiana Supreme Court starts hearing cases again just after Labor day.

However, there will be some interesting legal topics in the news this week. Definitely pay attention to the Toledo water crisis. As of this writing, the water was officially down to safe toxin levels(!), but mayor Collins wasn’t ready to lift the advisory on account of two “too close for comfort” results. We’re going to be talking a lot about the cause of the algal bloom, which is almost certainly directly related to farm fertilizer runoff (thanks to a heavy rain season). I suspect the end result on the legal front will be either 1) Ohio enacting new regulations and farmers suing or 2) Ohio not enacting many new regulations and environmental groups suing (or 3) both).

There is also one execution to watch for this week. There were three scheduled, but two have already been stayed. Michael Worthington is set to die Wednesday in Missouri. Worthington broke into his neighbor’s house while drunk and high, strangled her unconscious, raped her, and then beat her and strangled her to death when she woke up and tried to fight him off. Interestingly, he was sentenced to death despite pleading guilty, which is not something you see every day. After Joseph Wood appeared to suffer tremendously in a prolonged death in Arizona last month, all eyes will be on Missouri. I don’t think either the public or the Supreme Court has the political desire to ban executions outright, but if states prove that they are unable to kill people without torturing them (whether or not you blame it on the European Union), that sentiment might begin to shift in both cases.

Interesting note on abortions and admitting privileges

A doctor who had previously lost his ability to perform abortions in an Allen County clinic has now been informed he can no longer practice them in his Gary clinic, either. Although reasonable people may disagree whether admitting privilege laws are medically helpful or not, the real debate isn’t about the medical necessity of these types of regulations. In a News-Sentinel article from December, Cathie Humbarger, Executive Director for Allen County Right to Life, made it clear what the real goal of these types of regulations is: “Our goal has been to make Allen County abortion-free.” In other words, support for abortion restrictions is part of a broader strategy of outlawing them without really outlawing them, so to speak.

This strategy may not work, according to the Fifth Circuit. In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel has affirmed a decision of the district court to issue a preliminary injunction preventing Mississippi’s last abortion clinic from shutting down. The clinic had argued that closing the doors of the only clinic in the state would put an undue burden on women in the state. Mississippi argued that they could just go to another state, as there are a number of clinics within a short drive from Mississippi’s borders.

The district court ruled that the clinic had a substantial likelihood of winning that argument, and therefore a preliminary injunction – preventing the law from being enforced temporarily while the court case moves forward – was appropriate. The panel of appellate judges agreed.

This doesn’t mean the clinic will win in the end, but it does signal that states hoping to stop abortion within their own borders may not be able to rely on the availability of abortions in neighboring states to defend restrictions. If that’s the case, then the entire strategy of keeping abortion legal, but simply making it too burdensome to perform, is fatally flawed.

Another marraige ban dumped

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban, becoming the second circuit to do so (along with the Tenth).

It’s starting to look more and more like the Indiana/Wisconsin appeal (along with ten other states who joined) is set to be a potential game-breaker. If the Seventh Circuit determines the bans are unconstitutional, it’s going to be near impossible – if it’s not already – for states to justify the expense of arguing positions that have been repeatedly rejected in different courts.

That still leaves the Supreme Court, of course, and I’m sure Virginia, Indiana, et al., will file for certiorari in due time, but smart states will sit on the sideline and watch what happens on another state’s dime.

New health care decisisions and Hoosiers

Yesterday, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the language of the Affordable Care Act clearly states the IRS may only allow tax credits for those who sign up for “state-run” exchanges. In other words, if you are unlucky enough to live in one of the thirty-six states who decided to let the federal government run the exchange for them, you won’t be eligible for the tax subsidies. It also means, however, that you are less likely to be penalized for not being insured.

Just two hours later, however, the Fourth Circuit issued a contradictory ruling, virtually guaranteeing that this will eventually make it to the Supreme Court.

Indiana is one of those unlucky thirty-six. Under the D.C. ruling, then, Hoosiers would not be eligible for any subsidies. However, it will likely take a while for that to be determined. The ruling came from a three-judge panel, and the federal government has the opportunity to ask for an en banc review from the entire D.C. Court of Appeals before requesting review from the Supreme Court.

The wording of the D.C. panel’s order seems to suggest that our tax returns will be affected this very year. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling only controls Maryland, both Virginias and both Carolinas. We’ll have to see how the administration and IRS respond, but Hoosiers would be smart to keep an eye on this.