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.”

NEW LAWS THAT WILL TAKE EFFECT IN CALIFORNIA IN 2011.

HERE IS A LIST OF JUST SOME OF THE NEW LAWS THAT WILL BE GOING INTO EFFECT IN CALIFORNIA IN 2011.

 Possession of up to one once of marijuana becomes an infraction. No more serious than a speeding ticket.  Reducing the crime from a misdeameanor to an infraction means you can no longer worry about being arrested, have a criminal record or having to appear in court.

The Amber Alert notification system can be used when there is an attack on a law enforcement officer and the suspect has fled.

 Anyone under 21 who wants to drive a motorcycle must complete a safety course before being issued an instruction permit.

 Impersonating someone online through fake social network pages, texting, or emails becomes a misdemeanor punishable by fine of up to $1,000.00 and a year in jail.

 Automakers and owners can place video recording devices on their vehicles which will monitor when there is a crash or unusual vehicle motion.

 Courts can seize property used in human trafficking and traffickers can face civil penalties up to $25,000

 State prison inmates who are incapacitated by health problems can shift some of their cost of care to the federal government.

 Plaintiff/Defendants can agree to one-day expediate jury trials.

 Foster youths are eligible to state service until they are 21.

 Restaurants/Vendors can again sell Asian rice noodles at room temp.

 Landlords will not be allowed to evict tenants who are victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking.

 California’s “Chelsea’s Law” authored by Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego increases penalties for forcible sex acts against minors, creates a penalty of life without the possibility of parole for specific sex acts against minors, creates safe zones around parks, and mandates lifetime parole for certain sex offenders.

 Anti Paparazzi law will provide for liability under the civil invasion of privacy statute along with other damages and remedies. It’s suppose purpose is to crack down on those who falsely imprison celebrities by driving recklessly or blocking sidewalks in order to take photographs or make recordings of the “stars”.

  Under California’s new truancy law, parents of K-8 children who miss more than 10 percent of the school year without a valid excuse can be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,000 fine.  The bill also authorizes local districts to require whatever family services are needed to get the children back to school.

 These are just some of the laws that will be taken into effect in California in 2011.