Supreme Court list (partial) updated 10-6-14

[Wisconsin Beth]

As I understand it, the US Supreme Court has released the cases it's going to hear.  Denials come out next week.  I have the impression they're going to add more.  They are NOT looking at gay marriage at this point. 

I pulled this off of Bloomenburg's SCOTUSBLOG site but I think they just published the list released by the Court.

(ORDER LIST: 573 U.S.)
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2014
ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
126, ORIG.
KANSAS V. NEBRASKA AND COLORADO
13-433
INTEGRITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS V. BUSK, JESSE, ET AL.
The motions of the Solicitor General for leave to participate
in oral argument as
amicus curiae
and for divided argument are
granted.
13-435
OMNICARE, INC., ET AL. V. LABORERS DIST. COUNCIL, ET AL.
The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate
in oral argument as
amicus curiae
and for divided argument is
granted. The time is to be divided as follows: 30 minutes
for the petitioners, 20 minutes for the respondents, and 10
minutes for the Solicitor General.
13-517
WARGER, GREGORY P. V. SHAUERS, RANDY D.
The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate
in oral argument as
amicus curiae
and for divided argument is
granted.
13-534
NC BD. OF DENTAL EXAMINERS V. FTC
The motion of American Optometric Association, et al. for
leave to file a brief as
amici curiae
out of time is denied.
13-854
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. SANDOZ, INC., ET AL.
The motion of petitioners for leave to file Volume 4 of the
joint appendix under seal is granted. The motion of the
Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as
amicus curiae
and for divided argument is granted.
1
13-975
T-MOBILE SOUTH V. ROSWELL, GA
The motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate
in oral argument as
amicus curiae
and for divided argument is
granted.
APPEAL - JURISDICTION POSTPONED
13-1314
AZ STATE LEGISLATURE V. AZ INDEP. REDISTRICTING, ET AL.
Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is
postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits limited to
the following questions: 1) Do the Elections Clause of the
United States Constitution and 2 U. S. C. §2a(c) permit
Arizona’s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts?
2) Does the Arizona Legislature have standing to bring this
suit?
CERTIORARI GRANTED
13-550
TIBBLE, GLENN, ET AL. V. EDISON INTERNATIONAL, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
the following question: “Whether a claim that ERISA plan
fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence by offering
higher-cost retail-class mutual funds to plan participants, even
though identical lower-cost institution-class mutual funds were
available, is barred by 29 U. S. C. §1113(1) when fiduciaries
initially chose the higher-cost mutual funds as plan investments
more than six years before the claim was filed."
13-1333
COLEMAN, ANDRE L. V. TOLLEFSON, TODD, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.
13-1352
OHIO V. CLARK, DARIUS
The motion of respondent for leave to proceed
in forma
pauperis
is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is
2
granted.
13-1371
TX DEPT. HOUS. & COM. AFFAIRS V. INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES PROJECT
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
Question 1 presented by the petition.
13-1402
KERRY, SEC. OF STATE, ET AL. V. DIN, FAUZIA
13-1499
WILLIAMS-YULEE, LANELL V. FLORIDA BAR
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.
13-9972
RODRIGUEZ, DENNYS V. UNITED STATES
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed
in forma
pauperis
and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.
14-15
ARMSTRONG, RICHARD, ET AL. V. EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CENTER, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to
Question 1 presented by the petition.
14-86
EEOC V. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, INC.
14-103
BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P., ET AL. V. ASARCO, L.L.C.
The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.

[Tennesseer]

If SCOTUS does not hear any of the same-sex marraige cases, that would mean the states in which federal appeals court decisions are on hold (assuming SCOTUS would hear the case(s) in 2014-2015), 11 more states would be added to those in which same-sex marriage is legal.

[NoNamePerson]

This has nothing to do with the OP but I had the priviledge of sitting in on a session of the Supreme Court while in DC years ago. All the justices gave their rulings and such. It was kinda like being in church with more than one preacher 

[Wisconsin Beth]

One of the suggestions I saw was that the Court wanted a bit more time to review the 7 gay marriage cases to decide which one they wanted to hear.  Anything is possible.  It's be kinda fun if they did all 7 individually though.    I'm sure they won't but can you imagine the media trying to keep all 7 cases straight in the public's mind?  (no pun intended) 

And I think 2 of the cases deal with someone in prison.  There was something about the lawyers flocking to prisons and having to go in person because they wouldn't be on the 'call list' of prisoners. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

Oct 2, 2014 12:23:51 GMT -5 NoNamePerson said:

This has nothing to do with the OP but I had the priviledge fo sitting in on a session of the Supreme Court while in DC years. All the justices gave their rulings and such. It was kinda like being in church with more than one preacher 

That must have been fun.  I wouldn't mind a tour myself. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

The Court denied review of all 7 same sex marriage cases. 

The list of all denied cases is 89 pages long, I'm not copying it over but here's the link if anyone's interested. 

www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100614zor.pdf

I'm not sure what the rest of the denials were/are about.  And don't have the time to go though 89 pages. 

[Tennesseer]

Those 7 same-sex marriages involved federal rulings which involved (directly or indirectly) 11 states.


That means same-sex marriage is now legal in 29 states and the District of Columbia.  The majority of the country.  This is starting to look like what the country looked like (state wise) at the time of the Loving vs, Virginia SCOTUS case.  Just a matter of time before the last holdout states are ordered by SCOTUS to legalize same-sex marriage in their states.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Oct 6, 2014 12:44:12 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Those 7 same-sex marriages involved federal rulings which involved (directly or indirectly) 11 states.


That means same-sex marriage is now legal in 29 states and the District of Columbia.  The majority of the country.  This is starting to look like what the country looked like (state wise) at the time of the Loving vs, Virginia SCOTUS case.  Just a matter of time before the last holdout states are ordered by SCOTUS to legalize same-sex marriage in their states.

I don't think the SCOTUS will have to - I was reading about the "Law of the Circuit" so really all that is needed is for couples to push in the remaining Circuit Courts.  Although if I understand correctly, it's expected that the 6th Circuit Court will uphold a ban soon so I could be wrong. 

ETA - quote from Slate - www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/10/06/the_supreme_court_actually_just_allowed_gay_marriage_in_eleven_11_states.html

But the Supreme Court has now officially refused to step in—and that makes gay marriage the “law of the circuit” in the 4th, 7th, and 10th circuits. Every state within each circuit, in other words, is now bound by a ruling that all gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 6, 2014 12:53:51 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Oct 6, 2014 12:44:12 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Those 7 same-sex marriages involved federal rulings which involved (directly or indirectly) 11 states.


That means same-sex marriage is now legal in 29 states and the District of Columbia.  The majority of the country.  This is starting to look like what the country looked like (state wise) at the time of the Loving vs, Virginia SCOTUS case.  Just a matter of time before the last holdout states are ordered by SCOTUS to legalize same-sex marriage in their states.

I don't think the SCOTUS will have to - I was reading about the "Law of the Circuit" so really all that is needed is for couples to push in the remaining Circuit Courts.  Although if I understand correctly, it's expected that the 6th Circuit Court will uphold a ban soon so I could be wrong. 

ETA - quote from Slate - www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/10/06/the_supreme_court_actually_just_allowed_gay_marriage_in_eleven_11_states.html

But the Supreme Court has now officially refused to step in—and that makes gay marriage the “law of the circuit” in the 4th, 7th, and 10th circuits. Every state within each circuit, in other words, is now bound by a ruling that all gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

The rulings of the 4th, 7th, and 10th circuit court of appeals covered those 11 states. Seven other state appeals are in the process (I believe) of being heard in circuit courts of appeal and the remaining states are in the process of initial court hearings, though those cases could be indirectly ruled against if those cases fall within a circuit court of appeals decision involves another state.

My point is some states, having had circuit courses rule against them, and SCOTUS not hearing their cases, may simply balk at issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. SCOTUS may have to step in at some point to say "Enough is enough-it's over".

[Deleted]

This is awesome news!

(although having them hear a case and then rule in favor of gay marriage would have settled it country-wide... but, given the inability of some of the Justices to put aside their religious beliefs and actually rule based on the Constitution... this is probably better than risking it.)

[jkapp]

I don't understand the whole same-sex marriage lawsuits...government has been telling people who they can and can't marry for decades (many decades, in fact). Polygamy laws have been on the books since the mid 1800s and no one's said shit.  Bigamy laws as well.  Heck, even the UN established a treaty for all member countries on the minimum age of marriage.

How is it the government's business in any of this?  But all of a sudden government shouldn't have a say in marriage, but only concerning same-sex marriages - its ok if they fuck around with everyone else though

[EVT1]

Oct 6, 2014 13:15:20 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 6, 2014 12:53:51 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

 

The rulings of the 4th, 7th, and 10th circuit court of appeals covered those 11 states. Seven other state appeals are in the process (I believe) of being heard in circuit courts of appeal and the remaining states are in the process of initial court hearings, though those cases could be indirectly ruled against if those cases fall within a circuit court of appeals decision involves another state.

My point is some states, having had circuit courses rule against them, and SCOTUS not hearing their cases, may simply balk at issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. SCOTUS may have to step in at some point to say "Enough is enough-it's over".

Our local RW radio folks were all on it today- two talking points came out of it:

1)  That SCOTUS did not act is just proof that they believe it is a state's right issue because states have always had the right to regulate marriage and the Constitution is not relevant.

2)  That GOP governors should grow some balls and refuse to submit to the ruling pointing out that the SCOTUS has no authority over state law

And that is in TN where it is still up in the air.

In the real world judges are not going to issue rulings in spite of precedent only to be reversed.  I say give it up- let people get married- it has zero effect on your life so go find some other bullshit to get outraged by- there is no shortage of that these days.

I do find it strange how pissed off some people are about this- WHY? WTF does it have to do with you? 

[Deleted]

The lawsuits are because the same sex couples want the same rights and privileges that opposite sex couples get with that one piece of paper (marriage license).

Currently there are over 1,100 FEDERAL and between 200-400 STATE (depending on the state) LEGAL benefits to being married. Most of which cannot be "arranged" through any other legal means.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 6, 2014 21:29:57 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oct 6, 2014 13:15:20 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

The rulings of the 4th, 7th, and 10th circuit court of appeals covered those 11 states. Seven other state appeals are in the process (I believe) of being heard in circuit courts of appeal and the remaining states are in the process of initial court hearings, though those cases could be indirectly ruled against if those cases fall within a circuit court of appeals decision involves another state.

My point is some states, having had circuit courses rule against them, and SCOTUS not hearing their cases, may simply balk at issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. SCOTUS may have to step in at some point to say "Enough is enough-it's over".

Our local RW radio folks were all on it today- two talking points came out of it:

1)  That SCOTUS did not act is just proof that they believe it is a state's right issue because states have always had the right to regulate marriage and the Constitution is not relevant.

2)  That GOP governors should grow some balls and refuse to submit to the ruling pointing out that the SCOTUS has no authority over state law

And that is in TN where it is still up in the air.

In the real world judges are not going to issue rulings in spite of precedent only to be reversed.  I say give it up- let people get married- it has zero effect on your life so go find some other bullshit to get outraged by- there is no shortage of that these days.

I do find it strange how pissed off some people are about this- WHY? WTF does it have to do with you? 

Some folks find themselves with fewer and fewer of their fellow citizens to look down upon.

All you folks with blue eyes better watch your backs. You are most likely the next target for those who need to dislike someone just because you were born that way.

[EVT1]

I thought the Mexicans would cover all of this

[Tennesseer]

Oct 6, 2014 12:53:51 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

Oct 6, 2014 12:44:12 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Those 7 same-sex marriages involved federal rulings which involved (directly or indirectly) 11 states.


That means same-sex marriage is now legal in 29 states and the District of Columbia.  The majority of the country.  This is starting to look like what the country looked like (state wise) at the time of the Loving vs, Virginia SCOTUS case.  Just a matter of time before the last holdout states are ordered by SCOTUS to legalize same-sex marriage in their states.

I don't think the SCOTUS will have to - I was reading about the "Law of the Circuit" so really all that is needed is for couples to push in the remaining Circuit Courts.  Although if I understand correctly, it's expected that the 6th Circuit Court will uphold a ban soon so I could be wrong. 

ETA - quote from Slate - www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/10/06/the_supreme_court_actually_just_allowed_gay_marriage_in_eleven_11_states.html

But the Supreme Court has now officially refused to step in—and that makes gay marriage the “law of the circuit” in the 4th, 7th, and 10th circuits. Every state within each circuit, in other words, is now bound by a ruling that all gay marriage bans are unconstitutional.

At least two and possibly 3 more state bans (Arizona, Alaska and Montana)on same-sex marriage fell today.

Gay marriage bans fall in Idaho, Nevada after high court decision

Reuters) - Legal momentum for extending U.S. marriage rights to same-sex couples accelerated on Tuesday as a federal appeals court in San Francisco struck down bans on gay matrimony in Idaho and Nevada a day after the U.S. Supreme Court let stand similar rulings for five other states.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled the bans in Idaho and Nevada violated the constitution and said they cannot be enforced, adding to a mounting list of states where same-sex unions are now legal.

The ruling binds all states in the court's region including three that do not permit gay marriage, Arizona, Montana and Alaska, putting the United States on track for legalized gay marriage in 35 states.

Gay marriage bans fall in Idaho, Nevada after high court decision

[EVT1]

I guess SCOTUS felt no need to get involved as they already knew what was going to happen after the last decision.

I predict the only way they get into it again is just to sweep up if a circuit bucks the trend- and no way would they turn around and invalidate all of the marriages in all of the states that they knew were going to go on after they refused to hear these appeals.

If they were going to support state bans- they would not have punted. 

[mmhmm]

South Carolina, of course, is determined to fight on! LONG LIVE THE CONFEDERACY! (and all that hogwash)

[Tennesseer]

Oct 7, 2014 19:20:54 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I guess SCOTUS felt no need to get involved as they already knew what was going to happen after the last decision.

I predict the only way they get into it again is just to sweep up if a circuit bucks the trend- and no way would they turn around and invalidate all of the marriages in all of the states that they knew were going to go on after they refused to hear these appeals.

If they were going to support state bans- they would not have punted. 

From what I have read, SCOTUS will only 'get involved' if a federal appeals court upholds a state ban. Right now the U.S. 6th court of appeals is about to rule on cases involving Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.  It is thought that court may uphold the bans.  SCOTUS would then take the cases because other courts of appeals have overturned the bans and to once and for all decide the issue.  Just not this SCOTUS session (more than likely).

[Virgil Showlion]

Oct 6, 2014 21:00:02 GMT -5 jkapp said:

I don't understand the whole same-sex marriage lawsuits...government has been telling people who they can and can't marry for decades (many decades, in fact). Polygamy laws have been on the books since the mid 1800s and no one's said shit.  Bigamy laws as well.  Heck, even the UN established a treaty for all member countries on the minimum age of marriage.

How is it the government's business in any of this?  But all of a sudden government shouldn't have a say in marriage, but only concerning same-sex marriages - its ok if they fuck around with everyone else though

"A man will fight harder for his interests than for his rights."
   - Napoleon Bonaparte

Just another circuit around the drain.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 7, 2014 19:28:27 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

South Carolina, of course, is determined to fight on! LONG LIVE THE CONFEDERACY! (and all that hogwash)

Reminds me of school integration from the 60s. 'Hell no' they say. Will the National Guard have to be called in the operate South Carolina marriage license departments?

[mmhmm]

Oct 7, 2014 19:34:54 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 7, 2014 19:28:27 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

South Carolina, of course, is determined to fight on! LONG LIVE THE CONFEDERACY! (and all that hogwash)

Reminds me of school integration from the 60s. 'Hell no' they say. Will the National Guard have to be called in the operate South Carolina marriage license departments?

It should be interesting, Tenn. There is a gay couple living in SC who were married in DC. I'm pretty sure they're going to push for recognition and the state will try to dig in its heels. 

[Tennesseer]

Oct 7, 2014 19:37:23 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Oct 7, 2014 19:34:54 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Reminds me of school integration from the 60s. 'Hell no' they say. Will the National Guard have to be called in the operate South Carolina marriage license departments?

It should be interesting, Tenn. There is a gay couple living in SC who were married in DC. I'm pretty sure they're going to push for recognition and the state will try to dig in its heels. 

I suppose those politicians like in S.C. who are against it have to put up a good front for their constituents. But at some point they must resign themselves to the fact that the issue is over. They have lost battle and it will be the law of the land very shortly. SCOTUS will not allow a patchwork/minority of states to have different marriage laws and rights than the majority of the country.

SCOTUS put an end to the patchwork of states forbidding inter-racial martiage and they will do the same with same-sex marriage.

[EVT1]

Oct 7, 2014 19:48:17 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 7, 2014 19:37:23 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

It should be interesting, Tenn. There is a gay couple living in SC who were married in DC. I'm pretty sure they're going to push for recognition and the state will try to dig in its heels. 

I suppose those politicians like in S.C. who are against it have to put up a good front for their constituents. But at some point they must resign themselves to the fact that the issue is over. They have lost battle and it will be the law of the land very shortly. SCOTUS will not allow a patchwork/minority of states to have different marriage laws and rights than the majority of the country.

SCOTUS put an end to the patchwork of states forbidding inter-racial martiage and they will do the same with same-sex marriage.

Exactly and that is pretty much the end of the issue.  There are so many people hollering about states rights and all- but it is the same exact thing as inter-racial marriages. Doesn't matter what state you are in- you don't get to inflict discrimination on other citizens.

What kills me is the right wing radio nuts that advocate ignoring the law or seceding   I guess they do not realize that the hardcore red states take much more in federal cash than they contribute- and of course they do because they refuse to expand Medicare.  Takes a real idiot to support that.  Get cancer in any other country and you get treated- get cancer in the USA then either fuck you or we take your house and sell your shit.  Liberals do not hate America- they hate the pieces of shit that are turning us into a moneyed aristocracy.

 

[Tennesseer]

Oct 7, 2014 22:04:31 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Oct 7, 2014 19:48:17 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

I suppose those politicians like in S.C. who are against it have to put up a good front for their constituents. But at some point they must resign themselves to the fact that the issue is over. They have lost battle and it will be the law of the land very shortly. SCOTUS will not allow a patchwork/minority of states to have different marriage laws and rights than the majority of the country.

SCOTUS put an end to the patchwork of states forbidding inter-racial martiage and they will do the same with same-sex marriage.

Exactly and that is pretty much the end of the issue.  There are so many people hollering about states rights and all- but it is the same exact thing as inter-racial marriages. Doesn't matter what state you are in- you don't get to inflict discrimination on other citizens.

What kills me is the right wing radio nuts that advocate ignoring the law or seceding   I guess they do not realize that the hardcore red states take much more in federal cash than they contribute- and of course they do because they refuse to expand Medicare.  Takes a real idiot to support that.  Get cancer in any other country and you get treated- get cancer in the USA then either fuck you or we take your house and sell your shit.  Liberals do not hate America- they hate the pieces of shit that are turning us into a moneyed aristocracy.

 

I imagine there were cries for secession when forced to desegregate their schools too.

And if you look at public opinion at the time of the Loving vs. Virginia decision overturning the remaining states' ban on inter-racial marriage, it is far, far lower than the percent of Americans who support same-sex marriage. At the time of the Loving ruling, only 20% of American supported inter-racial marriage. Almost 60% of Americans support same-sex marriage.

[EVT1]

I can't understand why inter-racial marriage was illegal in the first place- was it the churches or the states?

I am going with states. Southern states....

[Icelandic Woman]

Well because of SCOTUS same sex marriage is now legal here in CO. Yesterday the attorney general of the state authorized all counties to start issuing the licenses! More giant steps in the right direction!

[Tennesseer]

Oct 7, 2014 23:08:04 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I can't understand why inter-racial marriage was illegal in the first place- was it the churches or the states?

I am going with states. Southern states....

A long history involving the north and south.


History of Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States

[djAdvocate]

Oct 9, 2014 17:03:01 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Oct 7, 2014 23:08:04 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

I can't understand why inter-racial marriage was illegal in the first place- was it the churches or the states?

I am going with states. Southern states....

A long history involving the north and south.


History of Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States

However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

wow.

[Tennesseer]

Oct 9, 2014 17:07:02 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Oct 9, 2014 17:03:01 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

A long history involving the north and south.


History of Anti-miscegenation laws in the United States

However, the active repeal of the laws was not complete until Alabama did so in 2000 after failing to do so in several earlier plebiscites on the matter.[7] At the time, nearly 526,000 people voted against the repeal. [8]

wow.

It is still not acceptable with a large number (conservatives) in Alabama and Mississippi.