SE Texas Record

Saturday, October 19, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court

Recent News About U.S. Supreme Court View More

  • Their View

    Getting Over the New Deal with Janus

    Last year’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME (2018) is properly seen as a landmark ruling in the area of compelled speech (e.g., here and here), but it is more than that. By overruling Abood v. Detroit Board of Education(1977), the Supreme Court in Janus acknowledged that its extension of private-sector labor law precedents concerning union-security clauses to the public sector was erroneous. I have previously written about “the road to Abood” (here and here), and explained why the Court’s poorly-reasoned decisions under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) should not govern arrangements involving government employees. Justice Alito, who authored Janus and the decisions leading up to it, scathingly dissected the Court’s NLRA precedents, most of which were issued during the heyday of the Warren Court.

  • Lawsuits

    Paxton files brief with U.S. Supreme Court over religious liberties case involving Oregon bakers

    AUSTIN – Leading a coalition that includes 11 states, Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to review the case of the two Oregon bakers last month.

  • Their View

    A parting thought about this latest judicial nomination

    On July 5th I wrote that conservatives remembered what the left had done to Judge Robert Bork and believed Judge Brett Kavanaugh would be a just appointment to the seat Bork was denied. The extreme efforts to stop his nomination confirm that the left was determined to prevent that from happening. Of course, at the end of the day the ferocity of the opposition to this appointment illustrates the outsized power the court has assumed in our country. The fear of losing the power of the court as their vanguard, of the gavel being in the hand of others, explains the lefts willingness to “do anything” to defeat the nomination. Indeed, some even suggested Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley was not qualified to lead the committee because he is not a lawyer. The fact is Senator Grassley has as many hours in law school as Senator Feinstein, the ranking minority member.

  • Their View

    Replacing Kennedy

    As the President considers a new judge to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy he would do well to remember that the Kennedy seat was supposed to go to Judge Robert Bork, a good man who was unjustly attacked and precluded from sitting on the Supreme Court. Conservatives have long recognized Bork should have had that spot.

  • Lawsuits

    U.S. Supreme Court decision upholds Texas' district maps

    WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court recently released a court opinion to uphold the majority of Texas’ House and Congressional district maps, ending the years-long debate over whether Texas’ legislatures intentionally drew districts to discriminate against minorities.

  • Supreme Court rules feds can get involved in Rio Grande Compact suit

    WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court confirmed federal jurisdiction in Texas’ lawsuit against New Mexico on March 5, ordering the case involving water rights to the Rio Grande River to be remanded back to the Special Master.

  • Paxton challenges ruling over redistricting in U.S. Supreme Court

    AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is challenging a U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas ruling that declared Texas district maps were drawn with the intent to discriminate against minorities.

  • Their View

    Remembering Justice Scalia through his public speeches.

    February 13th was the 2nd anniversary of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. Few can doubt the lasting impact the judge had on the judiciary and the country. His death left a choice for the American electorate they seldom have—the choice of a justice nominated by the departing President Barack Obama with the promise of candidate Donald Trump to nominate justices like Scalia. In perhaps their greatest tribute to the judge, the country chose as President the man who promised judges like Scalia who recognize “…the need for a democratic society not to expect the Constitution to make all its important decisions.”

  • Their View

    Will the Janus Case Strike the Deathblow to Public Sector Unions?

    The Supreme Court will hear oral argument today [February 26] in one of the term’s most important—and highly publicized—cases, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31. As many readers are aware, the case involves the constitutionality of “agency shop” arrangements in public sector collective bargaining agreements, which compel non-member employees to make payments in lieu of union dues as a condition of their employment. Agency shop clauses are commonly used in public-sector labor contracts, enabling powerful unions representing teachers and other government employees to collect large sums of money from workers who never consented to such exactions (and who, for that matter, never voted in favor of union representation).