And then there were six – the remaining cases

[Draggingtree]

Scotus

And then there were six – the remaining cases

By Amy Howe on Jun 23, 2017 at 3:30 pm

The justices are expected to take the bench on Monday at 10 a.m. to issue opinions in argued cases. There are six decisions still outstanding, involving everything from cross-border shootings to the death penalty and public funding for playgrounds at religious preschools. To be sure, there is no guarantee that we will actually get opinions on the merits in all six of these cases: Three of the remaining cases were argued before Justice Neil Gorsuch took the bench in April, creating a not-insubstantial possibility that the justices are deadlocked. With Gorsuch now on the bench, the justices could order reargument in those three cases, which would presumably take place next fall. But we will know much more by the end of Monday morning. In any event, here is a brief summary of each of the six cases, organized by the sitting in which they were argued.

Continue reading »  

[Valin]

Draggingtree

 

Quote

The named plaintiff in the class action is Alejandro Rodriguez, who was held for more than three years without a hearing.

 

Regardless of his guilt or innocence, this is just plain Wrong.

 

Thanks for posting this.

[Geee]

Supreme Court Limits Rights Of Property Owners

 

The Supreme Court constrained the rights of property owners Friday, establishing a test that favors government officials in assessing the loss of property value caused by government regulations.
Writing for a 5-3 court, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that state and local officials can combine separate parcels of land in assessing whether local government has effectively seized private property through regulation, requiring compensation. Kennedy’s opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a fiery dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The case concerned a Wisconsin family called the Murrs, who argued that the government has unconstitutionally taken their land by refusing to allow them to sell it.
“This is an unfortunate decision for the Murrs, and all property owners,” said John Groen, general counsel and vice president of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest group that represented the family.  “We are disappointed that the Court did not recognize the fundamental unfairness to the Murrs of having their separate properties combined, simply to avoid the protection of the takings clause.”