UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT CASES TO LOOK OUT FOR IN 2011-2012

BY FRANK OSEKOWSKY

July 22, 2011

FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION V. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC

 The United States Supreme Court will rule on whether the FCC current indecency enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Court Circuit ruled last year that the FCC’s indecency policy, which places restrictions on profanity and nudity during television broadcasting, is unconstitutionally vague.

Indecency issues have been raised in two separate broadcasts.  One in which a nudity scene appeared in a television crime show during prime-time hours, and the other involving celebrities using expletives during live broadcasting events. 

UNITED STATES V. JONES

The Court will decide whether the warrantless use of a GPS tracking devices on respondent’s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment and whether the government violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent. The federal government sought Supreme Court review after the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled last year that prolonged use of GPS to monitor suspects’ vehicles violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

MESSERSCHMIDT V.,MILLENDER

The Supreme Court will consider whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity where they execute search warrants later determined invalid. The 9^th Circuit Court ruled that the officers in this case were not entitled to qualified immunity.  In United States v. Leon these officers were entitled to qualified immunity, and evidence obtained should not be suppressed, so long as the warrant is not “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.

MARTEL V. CLAIR

The United States Supreme Court will determine whether a condemned state prisoner in federal habeas corpus proceedings is entitled to replace his court appointed counsel with another court-appointed lawyer just because he expresses dissatisfaction and alleges that his counsel was failing to pursue potentially important evidence. The district court denied respondent Kenneth Clair’s position for habeas corpus and refused to allow him to replace his lawyer, but the 9^th circuit court reversed ruling that the district court abused its discretion.

KNOX. SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 100

The Supreme Court will decide whether a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments may condition employment on the payment of a special union assessment intended solely for political and ideological expenditures without first providing notice that includes information about that assessment and provides an opportunity to object to its exaction.  The 9^th Circuit held that no second notice was required under the Supreme Court’s opinion in Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson. The court will also determine whether a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, may condition continued public employment on the payment of union agency fees for purposes of financing political expenditures for ballot measures.

MIMS V. ARROW FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC

The court will consider whether Congress divested the federal district courts of their federal question jurisdiction over private actions brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The US Court of Appeals for the 11^th Circuit held that federal courts lack jurisdiction over private actions under the Act.

U.S. Supreme Court To Review Case on Medi-Cal Payment Cuts

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether health care providers and patients have the right to sue California over cuts to Medi-Cal reimbursements.

The case that the high court will review consolidates three legal challenges to California’s previously proposed reimbursement cuts. The three cases are:

• Maxwell-Jolly v. California Pharmacists;
• Maxwell-Jolly v. Independent Living Center; and
• Maxwell-Jolly v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital (Vesely, Modern Healthcare, 1/18).

Background

In 2008, the California Legislature approved a 10% reduction in Medi-Cal reimbursements for dentists, health clinics, pharmacies, physicians and other medical providers (McClatchy/Sacramento Bee, 1/19).

Health care provider groups filed lawsuits against the state, arguing that the lower payment rates would negatively affect Medi-Cal beneficiaries’ access to care and conflict with the federal Medicaid Act.

After federal courts blocked the Medi-Cal cuts from taking effect, California appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court (Savage/Goldmacher, Los Angeles Times, 1/19).

Attorneys for the state say the proposed Medi-Cal cuts did not violate the law. They also argue that only the federal government has the authority to enforce Medicaid regulations and that health care providers and patients do not have the right to sue a state for allegedly violating federal Medicaid rules (Egelko, San Francisco Chronicle, 1/19).

Implications for California, Other States

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the case could have major implications for efforts to address California’s budget deficit. Last week, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) released a budget proposal that would reduce Medi-Cal payments to health care providers by 10% to cut program spending by about $719 million in fiscal year 2011-2012.

In addition, the case could have implications for other states seeking to address budget deficits by cutting Medicaid payments. Twenty-two states have joined California in appealing the issue to the Supreme Court (Los Angeles Times, 1/19).

Timeline

The court is expected to hear oral arguments in the case next fall. A decision is expected in late 2011 or early 2012 (Robertson, Sacramento Business Journal, 1/18).

 

Supreme Court to weigh churches’ employment rights

The Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a teacher who was fired from a religious school is subject to a “ministerial exception” that can bar suits against religious organizations.

The case involves an employment dispute between a Michigan school and a teacher who is defended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Lawyers for the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in Redford, Mich., argue that courts have long recognized the First Amendment doctrine that often prevents employees who perform religious functions from suing religious organizations.

They asked the court to determine whether it extends to teachers at a religious school who teach a secular curriculum but also teach religion classes and lead students in prayer.

A lower court sided with the school and against fired teacher Cheryl Perich, citing the ministerial exception. But last March, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, saying it did not apply because Perich spends most of her time teaching secular topics.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is representing the school, said federal appeals courts are divided on the limits of the ministerial exception and the Supreme Court’s consideration is groundbreaking.

“If `separation of church and state’ means anything, it means the government doesn’t get to pick religious teachers,” said Luke Goodrich, deputy national litigation director at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

The EEOC has expressed concern that a ruling against Perich could lead to religious organizations being shielded from all suits filed by staffers “simply by characterizing all of their duties as religious.”

Reasons why President Obama has failed as a Leader

July 2, 2011

Frank Osekowsky

Here are just a few example of Obama’ leadership failures:

President Obama has spent the first two year of his presidency on such issues as ObamaCare and has pushed through a government centric solution that the majority of Americans do not want.

Since taking office, Obama has added $5 trillion dollars to the national debt.

Obama’s stimulus program has failed, instead of the stimulus program lowering the unemployment rate it has done nothing but raised it.

Obama follows right behind France and the Arab League into the United Nations-approved military intervention in Libya.  Obama is unable or unwilling to clearly define the mission and criteria for success that will allow the United States to cease its active military involvement.

United States Foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under Obama-Since Obama has become President America’s global power has weakened.  The United States has surrender to Moscow on Missile site defenses, has failed to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear program. And he has decided to side with the ousted Marxists leader in Honduras.

America has lost its greatness under Obama- Since taking office Obama has traveled the world to apologize to world leaders for the actions of the United States in the past for invading other nations. 

So what has Obama done for the past two years.  He has done nothing but bring this county down.  President Obama has been busy taking over the Banking industry, the Insurance industry, the Automobile industry and is busy trying to get illegal immigrants amnesty.

President Obama has always stated that he is for the middle class.  If we look at his record this is far from the truth.  He wants to tax the middle class to death so that we can pay more for his socialist programs.

He wants to control everything.  He wants the citizens of the United States to be dependent on the government for all of their needs.

President Obama has no idea what he is doing.

President Obama was right when he promised changed if he was elected President of the United States.  He has changed the United States of America from a democracy nation to a socialist nation.

In 2012, our voices will be heard loud and clear in Washington and throughout the nation.