Thread: Supreme Court tie vote would mean Obama loses immigration case

Here Are Six All-Important Cases Now Pretty Much Decided After Scalia's Death

The untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia will likely decide several hot-button cases.

—By Stephanie Mencimer
| Sat Feb. 13, 2016 8:59 PM EST


AP Photo/Jon Elswick

The last time a sitting Supreme Court justice expired on the job was in 2005, when Chief Justice William Rehnquist died of cancer. But Rehnquist's death was somewhat expected, and he died in September, before the start of the October term, and before the court was in full swing with oral arguments and case decisions. Justice Antonin Scalia, unfortunately, has died smack in the middle of a blockbuster court term, with a host of hot-button cases argued, or about to be argued, and all to be decided by the end of June.

Because of the polarized nature of the court, Scalia's death makes it all but certain that in most of those cases, the votes will result in a 4-4 tie, which means that the decision of the lower courts will likely stand unless one of the justices goes off the reservation and votes with the opposite side.

That means we can probably predict the outcome of several key cases without having to wait until June.

The results are a mixed bag. The Obama administration is likely to lose an important fight over immigration. Unions win. Reproductive rights for women could suffer. And challenges to redistricting are likely to founder.

Here's a rundown of how six of those cases are likely to unfold:

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association: Perhaps the biggest beneficiaries of Scalia's death are public sector unions. This case, which produced one of the more contentious oral arguments of the term, was headed towards a 5-4 decision in favor of Rebecca Friedrichs and the other plaintiffs who were challenging the California's teachers' union's right to charge public school employees fees to cover the costs of the collective bargaining it did on their behalf, even though they aren't members of the union. The case was teed up by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, and labor supporters feared a ruling against the union could devastate what's left of labor's power. The lawyers for Friedrichs asked the lower court to rule against them to hasten the case's arrival at the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals complied, and now that decision is likely to stand if the liberal-conservative split on the court delivers a 4-4 vote. Labor wins.

US v Texas: Texas and nearly two dozen other states filed suit to block the implementation of President Barack Obama's orders to the Department of Homeland Security to defer the deportation of about 5.5 million immigrants, especially children brought to the US illegally by their parents. In November, the ultra-conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding a lower court decision,ruled that Obama had exceeded his authority to make such sweeping changes to the immigration system without an act of Congress.

Obama's move was in trouble even with Scalia on the court, but now it seems likely that a tie vote will result in the Fifth Circuit's ruling holding fast. Immigrants lose.

Evenwel v Abbott and Harris v Arizona Independent Redistricting: These cases both involve attacks on the drawing of legislative districts and involve the sorts of political issues that the court has historically avoided, preferring to leave politics and redistricting fights to the politicians. Rulings in favor of the plaintiffs--mostly tea party activists--would likely result in political districts more tilted to favor rural, white Republican voters.

Both cases came to the court on appeal from unusual three-judge courts that are specifically delegated to hear certain sorts of election law and voting rights cases.

Those trial courts are different in that appeals of their decisions go straight to the US Supreme Court, bypassing the traditional federal appellate courts.

Conservatives in recent years have used these courts as a way of fast-tracking their cases to the now-very conservative Supreme Court. The landmark Citizens United case came to the court this way.

Now, though, that fast track is going to grind to a halt, as the plaintiffs in both cases lost in the three-judge courts, whose decisions are likely to now stand. Tea partiers lose.

Women's Whole Health v Hellerstedt and Zubik v Burwell: The court is poised to hear several major challenges involving women's reproductive health rights. In Women's Whole Health, the court will decide whether Texas's restrictive abortion law, which has already resulted in the closure of many clinics and, if fully enforced, would close even more clinics and force women in Texas to travel long distances or leave the state in search of a legal abortion, is constitutional. The conservative Fifth Circuit upheld most of the law, but the Supreme Court blocked parts of it from taking effect until the case could be heard. If there's a tie at the Supreme Court, the abortion clinics are all but doomed.

In Zubik, a host of religious organizations, including the Little Sisters of the Poor,have asked the court to block a requirement by the Obama administration that they sign a form asking for a religious exemption for providing mandatory contraception coverage in their insurance plans for employees that's required by the Affordable Care Act. Virtually all of the lower courts have ruled against the nuns and the other organizations, declaring that signing a piece of paper isn't much of a burden on religious liberty. So a tied Supreme Court vote is likely to result in a victory for the Obama administration. Nuns lose.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-scalias-death

Supreme Court: What happens in case of a tie?

Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
8:14 p.m. EST February 14, 2016


(Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta, AP)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is about to get tied up in knots.

Without the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the bench, the court will muddle through the remainder of its 2015 term — and possibly into the 2016 term starting in October — with eight justices.

Four were appointed by Republican presidents, four by Democratic presidents. And they usually vote that way on divided cases. That raises the specter of frequent 4-4 ties.

What happens then? The high court's ruling is rendered almost meaningless; it leaves the most recent decision intact, usually from a federal appeals court or a top state court. There is no new, national precedent created by the nation's highest court.

USA TODAYHere's how Scalia's death affects Supreme Court rulings this year

USA TODAYUSA TODAY's 2015 Supreme Court Decision Tracker

That could be the case on some of the court's most important cases this term: Texas' restrictions on abortion clinics could remain intact, as could the same appeals court's decision striking down President Obama's immigration plan. Conversely, a voting rights case from Texas and a public employees union case from California could break the way liberals want.

The situation is far from unprecedented. For one thing, the high court is left with just eight justices when one of them is forced to recuse himself or herself from a case.

Several justices do that on occasion: Elena Kagan was involved in some ongoing cases when she was U.S. solicitor general, including the current case involving racial preferences in university admissions. That case now will be decided with only seven justices, most likely in the same way it would have with Scalia and Kagan participating, had they taken opposite sides.

Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito have occasional conflicts involving their financial portfolios, and Breyer has a brother on a federal district court in California. Sonia Sotomayor was involved in some of the court's cases as a federal appeals court judge.

And when previous justices have died in office or retired before their successors could be confirmed, the court has gone forward with eight members — sometimes for months when Senate confirmation hearings drag on or a nominee is rejected.

An example: When Justice Lewis Powell retired from the court in June 1987, it tookPresident Ronald Reagan three tries to confirm a nominee, mostly due to the Senate's rejection of Robert Bork. It wasn't until Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988 that the court returned to having nine justices, a gap of more than seven months.

The last death in office was that of Chief Justice William Rehnquist in September 2005. In that case, the vacancy was extremely brief, because John Roberts had already been nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Connor as an associate justice. Roberts was confirmed as chief justice within weeks.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2...otes/80375846/

Scalia Death: What's Next in Supreme Court's DACA, DAPA Case?

The media can speculate all they want but I say there are too many wild cards in the deck to feel comfortable on the immigration lawsuit. With Scalia on the bench I felt fairly confident, but without him I am extremely nervous!

Technically, Justice Sotomayor should recluse herself since she was a former member of the National Council of La Raza. Will she do it? I'm guessing the answer is no.

Supreme Court deeply divided over religious freedom, reproductive rights

Wed Mar 23, 2016 5:48pm EDT

Supreme Court faces 4-4 split in Obamacare contraception case

WASHINGTON | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY


Nuns with Little Sisters of the Poor wave after Zubik v. Burwell, an appeal brought by Christian groups demanding full exemption from the requirement to provide insurance covering contraception under the Affordable Care Act, was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
REUTERS/JOSHUA ROBERTS

The Supreme Court on Wednesday headed toward a possible 4-4 split over a legal challenge by Christian nonprofit employers who object to providing female workers insurance covering birth control as required by President Barack Obama's healthcare law.

An evenly split ruling, with the court's four liberals backing the Obama administration against the four conservative justices, would leave in place lower-court rulings rejecting challenges brought by the Christian organizations that oppose providing contraception coverage for religious reasons.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the deciding vote in close cases, appeared more aligned with the court's three other conservatives in favoring the challengers, which primarily were Roman Catholic including the archdiocese of Washington.

The Christian employers call contraception immoral and argue that the government should not compel religious believers to choose between following their faith and following the law. They argue they should get the complete exemption from the mandate already given to places of worship such as churches, mosques and temples.

Kennedy said if religious employers were forced to comply with the contraception mandate they would be "in effect, subsidizing the conduct that they deemed immoral."

Only eight justices heard the latest high-profile conservative challenge to the law, considered Obama's signature legislative achievement, following conservative Justice Antonin Scalia's Feb. 13 death.

The court heard 90 minutes of arguments in the case, Zubik v. Burwell, on the sixth anniversary of Obama signing into law the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. The law has expanded medical insurance coverage to millions of previously uninsured Americans.

Conservatives have mounted numerous legal challenges to the law. The Supreme Court in 2012 and 2015 issued high-profile rulings leaving Obamacare intact.

The court heard arguments on seven consolidated cases focusing on whether nonprofit entities that oppose the requirement can object under a 1993 U.S. law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to a compromise measure offered by the government.

A ruling is due by the end of June.

A 4-4 split would set no national legal precedent against such claims, and would allow them in some parts of the country depending on lower-court rulings. The justices also potentially could order the case reargued.

OPTING OUT
The Christian groups object to a 2013 compromise offered by the Obama administration that allowed groups opposed to providing insurance covering birth control to comply with the law without actually paying for the required coverage.

Groups can certify they are opting out of the mandate by signing a form and submitting it to the government. The government then asks insurers to pick up the tab for contraception.

The challengers contend the accommodation violates their religious rights by forcing them to authorize coverage for employees even if they are not paying for it.

One question before the hearing was whether Kennedy would be more sympathetic to the government than he was in a 2014 case concerning the same contraception requirement.

Kennedy was in the majority when the court ruled 5-4 that family-owned companies run on religious principles, including craft retailer Hobby Lobby Stores Inc, could object to the provision for religious reasons.

Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion then saying an accommodation like the one now at issue could be acceptable. Nothing he said during Wednesday's arguments indicated he thinks the accommodation now before the court passes legal muster.

The federal government asserts it has a compelling interest in protecting the health of female workers, and that contraceptive coverage is part of that. The challengers say the government has imposed a substantial burden on their religious rights and that the waiver is not the least restrictive means, as required under the religious freedom law, toward its goal.

Kennedy questioned whether it would be difficult for the government to arrange alternative access to contraception coverage that would not force religious groups to be complicit.

"If it's so easy to provide, if it's so free, why can't they just get it through another (insurance) plan?" Kennedy asked.

Liberal justices raised concerns about giving nonprofit religious organizations the same exemptions churches get. Justice Elena Kagan said Congress might stop giving churches exemptions when it passes laws, posing a "mortal danger" to them.

Liberal Sonia Sotomayor referred to the danger of widespread exemptions from government requirements, asking, "How will we ever have a government that functions?"

Liberal Stephen Breyer said religious groups often contend with government decisions they oppose. He cited Quakers, who opposed the Vietnam War but were still required to pay taxes that funded military spending.

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts said the challengers' contention that the government was seeking to "hijack" their insurance plans in order to provide contraception coverage appeared to be an "accurate description of what the government wants to do."

Among other challengers in the case were: the Little Sisters of the Poor order of Roman Catholic nuns that runs care homes for the elderly; and Bishop David Zubik and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN0WP0A9

3/28/16

Supreme Court brief filed by 26-state Coalition at unlawful immigration scheme

4/4/16

Senate GOP files Supreme Court brief against Obama’s immigration actions

Immigration case arrives Monday at U.S. Supreme Court

Obama Immigration Win at Supreme Court Could Benefit Trump