Legal Buzz June 25, 2013: Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS

Supreme Court Strikes Down Part of Voting Rights Act

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

The Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act Tuesday, ruling that the formula used to enforce the nearly 50-year-old civil rights law needs to be updated.

In a 5-4 decision the court said that the coverage formula used by the government to determine which states are required to get federal permission before they make any changes to voting laws is unconstitutional. The ruling effectively puts the issue back in the hands of lawmakers to revise the law. And until then, the ruling effectively renders section five of the Voting Rights Act inoperable….READ MORE

Legal Buzz June 17, 2013: Supreme Court Strikes Down 7-2 Arizona’s Proof of Citizenship Voting Requirement

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS

Supreme Court Strikes Down Ariz. Proof of Citizenship Requirement

Source: ABC News Radio, 6-17-13

Full Text Opinion: 6/17/13 – Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz., Inc.

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of an Arizona law that requires proof of citizenship in order to register to vote in federal elections.

Arizona’s Proposition 200 was passed in 2004 and requires any registrant who does not have a driver’s license issued after 1996 or a non-operating license to provide documents such as a copy of a birth certificate or a passport. The law went further than a federal law that established a nationally uniform voter application form where the registrant is required to check a box indicating U.S. citizenship and to sign the form under penalty of perjury….READ MORE

Legal Buzz June 3, 2013: Supreme Court Upholds ‘Minor Intrusion’ of Arrestee DNA Swabs

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Supreme Court Upholds ‘Minor Intrusion’ of Arrestee DNA Swabs

Source: ABC News Radio, 6-3-13

6/03/13 12-207 Maryland v. King K 569/2

The Supreme Court Monday upheld a Maryland law that allows officials to take DNA without a warrant from those who have been arrested, but not convicted of a serious crime.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, for a 5-4 majority, wrote, “the Court concludes that DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure.”…READ MORE

Full Text Legal Buzz March 27, 2013: Supreme Court of the United States Oral Arguments for Defense of Marriage Act Case United States v. Windsor Audio & Transcript

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

United States v. Windsor Oral Arguments

Source: SCOTUS, 3-27-13

Docket Number: 12-307

Date Argued: 03/27/13
Play Audio:

Media Formats:

mp3  MP3

Download

Play

Windows Media  Windows Media

Download

Play

RealAudio  RealAudio 10

Download

PDF Transcript (PDF)

View

 

Background Information

No. 12-307   
Vide 12-63   
Title:    
United States, Petitioner
v.
Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
Docketed:    September 11, 2012
Lower Ct:    United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  Case Nos.:    (12-2335, 12-2435)
  Decision Date:    October 18, 2012
    Rule 11
Questions Presented …READ MORE

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sep 11 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due October 11, 2012)
Sep 18 2012 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 19, 2012, for all respondents.
Oct 10 2012 Brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer in opposition filed.
Oct 18 2012 Judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Oct 19 2012 Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in opposition filed.
Oct 26 2012 Supplemental brief of petitioner United States filed.
Oct 29 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.
Oct 29 2012 Supplemental brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer filed. (Distributed)
Nov 1 2012 Supplemental brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Nov 8 2012 Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)
Nov 13 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 30, 2012.
Dec 3 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.
Dec 7 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following questions: Whether the Executive Branch�s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.
Dec 11 2012 Vicki C. Jackson, Esq., of Cambridge, Massachusetts, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the positions that the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case, and that the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives lacks Article III standing in this case.
Dec 13 2012 Briefing proposal of the parties and Court-appointed amicus curiae filed.
Dec 14 2012 Upon consideration of the letter of December 13, 2012, from the Solicitor General on behalf of the litigants and the amicus curiae invited to brief and argue this case, the following briefing schedule is adopted. On the merits, the brief of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, not to exceed 15,000 words, is to be filed on or before Tuesday, January 22, 2013. The brief of the Solicitor General, not to exceed 15,000 words, is to be filed on or before Friday, February 22, 2013. The brief of Edith Windsor, not to exceed 15,000 words, is to be filed on or before Tuesday, February 26, 2013. The reply brief of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, not to exceed 6,000 words, is to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3 of the Rules of this Court. On the jurisdictional questions, the brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae, not to exceed 10,000 words, is to be filed on or before January 22, 2013. The briefs of the Solicitor General, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, and Edith Windsor, not to exceed 10,000 words each, are to be filed on or before Wednesday, February 20, 2013. Reply briefs of the litigants and the Court-appointed amicus curiae, not to exceed 4,000 words, are to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3 of the Rules of this Court.
Dec 14 2012 Other amici curiae briefs shall be filed within the time allowed under Rule 37.3(a) of the Rules of this Court, except that amici curiae briefs on the merits in support of the positions of the Solicitor General and/or Edith Windsor shall be filed within 7 days after the brief of the Solicitor General on the merits is filed. The litigants, Court-appointed amicus curiae, and other amici curiae shall indicate on the cover of each brief filed which issue or issues are addressed in that particular brief in addition to the information required by Rule 37.3 of the Rules of this Court.
Jan 2 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Jan 7 2013 SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Jan 8 2013 The time to file the brief, on the jurisdictional questions, of the Court-appointed amicus curiae is extended to and including January 24, 2013.
Jan 8 2013 The time to file the briefs, on the jurisdictional questions, of the Solicitor General, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives, and Edith Windsor, is extended to and including February 22, 2013.
Jan 10 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Jan 22 2013 Joint appendix filed. (Distributed) (Statement of costs received.)
Jan 22 2013 Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2013 CIRCULATED.
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Court-appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Family Research Council (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Paul McHugh (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amici curiae of Law Professors (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of National Organization for Marriage (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Westboro Baptist Church in support of neither party (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amici curiae of Liberty, Life and Law Foundation, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of International jurists and academics (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Manhattan Declaration (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Coalition for the Protection of Marriage (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Robert P. George, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Indiana and 16 other states (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Counsel (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Catholic Answers, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Matthew B. O’Brien (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Dovid Z. Schwartz (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of United States Senators Orrin G. Hatch, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Helen M. Alvare filed. (Merits) VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Social Science Professors (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle filed. ( Merits) (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of The Beverly LaHaye Institute, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 6 2013 Record from U.S.C.A. for 2nd Circuit is electronic.
Feb 13 2013 Record from U.S.D.C. for Southern District of New York is electronic.
Feb 13 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 22 2013 Brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 22 2013 Brief of petitioner United States (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 22 2013 Brief of petitioner United States (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 22 2013 Brief of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 26 2013 Brief of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 26 2013 Motion for enlargement of time and divided argument filed by the parties and Court-appointed amici curiae.
Feb 26 2013 Brief amicus curiae of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LBGT Equality (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association) concerning the immutability of sexual orientation (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of 278 Employers and Organizations Representing Employers (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Utah Pride Center, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Humanist Association and American Atheists, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Professors Nan D. Hunter, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and John Ashcroft in support of neither party (Jurisdiction) out of time.
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Political Science Professors filed. (Distributed).
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars Bruce Ackerman, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Sociological Association (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the States of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Family Equality Council, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Organization of American Historians, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Empire State Pride Agenda, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Jewish Committee (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Former Federal Intelligence Officer (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of OutServe-SLDN Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Women’s Law Center, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Family and Child Welfare Law Professors (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Anti-Defamation League, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Family Law Professors, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Gary J. Gates (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Dr. Donna E. Shalala, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Former Senior Justice Department Officials, et al. (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Former Senators Bill Bradley, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Partnership for New York City (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, et al. (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Therapies filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of 172 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 40 U.S. Senators filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Los Angeles County Bar Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Honorable John K. Olson (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of New York, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Historians, American Historical Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Honorable John K. Olson (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Federalism Scholars (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of Hon. Lawrence J. Korb, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Fair Administration of Taxes (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 1 2013 Brief of Former Federal Election Commission Officials (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 4 2013 Motion for enlargement of time and divided argument GRANTED and the time is to be divided as follows: on the jurisdiction issues, the Court-appointed amicus curiae is allotted 20 minutes, the Solicitor General is allotted 15 minutes, and respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is allotted 15 minutes. On the merits, respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives is allotted 30 minutes, the Solicitor General is allotted 15 minutes, and respondent Windsor is allotted 15 minutes.
Mar 15 2013 Motion for leave to file amici brief out of time filed by former Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and John Ashcroft GRANTED.
Mar 19 2013 Reply of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 19 2013 Reply of respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2013 Reply of Court-appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2013 Reply of respondent Edith Schlain Windsor, in Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2013 Reply of petitioner United States (Jurisdiction) filed. (Distributed)

 

Full Text Legal Buzz March 26, 2013: Supreme Court of the United States Oral Arguments for Proposition 8 Case Hollingsworth v. Perry Audio & Transcript

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Hollingsworth v. Perry Oral Arguments

Source: SCOTUS, 3-26-13

Docket Number: 12-144

Date Argued: 03/26/13
Play Audio:

Media Formats:

mp3  MP3

Download

Play

Windows Media  Windows Media

Download

Play

RealAudio  RealAudio 10

Download

PDF Transcript (PDF)

View

Background Information


Title:    
Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Petitioners
v.
Kristin M. Perry, et al.
Docketed:    August 1, 2012
Linked with 12A688
Lower Ct:    United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  Case Nos.:    (10-16696, 11-16577)
  Decision Date:    February 7, 2012
  Rehearing Denied:    June 5, 2012
Questions Presented  ….READ MORE

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jul 30 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 31, 2012)
Aug 2 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Perry, Stier, Katami, and Zarillo.
Aug 3 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioners Hollingsworth, Knight, Gutierrez, Jansson, and ProtectMarriage.com
Aug 10 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent City and County of San Francisco.
Aug 24 2012 Brief of respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo in opposition filed.
Aug 24 2012 Brief of respondent City and County of San Francisco in opposition filed.
Aug 30 2012 Brief amici curiae of Judge Georg Ress, and The Marriage Law Foundation filed.
Aug 30 2012 Brief amici curiae of William N. Eskridge, Jr., et al. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of Public Advocate of the United States, et al. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals, et al. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc., et al filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed.
Aug 31 2012 Brief amici curiae of Declaration Alliance & United States Justice Foundation filed.
Sep 4 2012 Reply of petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. filed.
Sep 5 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Oct 29 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 20, 2012.
Nov 13 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 30, 2012.
Dec 3 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 7, 2012.
Dec 7 2012 Petition GRANTED. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether petitioners have standing under Article III, �2 of the Constitution in this case.
Dec 12 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners
Dec 12 2012 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent City and County of San Francisco.
Jan 7 2013 SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Jan 7 2013 Application (12A688) for leave to file petitioners’ brief on the merits in excess of the word limit, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Jan 11 2013 Application (12A688) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Jan 18 2013 Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents Perry, Steir, Katami, and Zarillo
Jan 18 2013 Record from U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit is electronic.
Jan 21 2013 Brief amici curiae of Coalition of African American Pastors USA, et al.( 2nd REPRINT) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 22 2013 Joint appendix filed. (2 Volumes and Supplement). (Distributed) (Statement of costs filed)
Jan 22 2013 Brief of petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2013 CIRCULATED.
Jan 23 2013 Brief amici curiae of David Benkof, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Family Research Council filed. (Distributed)
Jan 24 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Paul McHugh (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amici curiae of Scholars of History and Related Disciplines filed. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amici curiae of Liberty, Life and Law Foundation, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Westboro Baptist Church in support of neither party filed. (Distributed)
Jan 25 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Professor Daniel N. Robinson, Ph.D. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of International Jurists and Academics (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Thomas More Law Center and Chuck Storey, Imperial County Clerk (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of thirty-seven scholars of federalism and judicial restraint filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of High Impact Leadership Coalition filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America filed. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Lighted Candle Society filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Record from U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of California. (10 Boxes)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Coalition for the Protection of Marriage (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Citizens United’s National Committee for Family, Faith and Prayer, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Patrick Henry College filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Robert P. George, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed. (Distributed).
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc., et al filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Liberty Counsel, Inc. and Campaign for Children filed.
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Catholic Answers, et al. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Catholics for the Common Good and the Marriage Law Project filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Association of Evangelicals, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Matthew B. O’Brien (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Leon R. Kass, Harvey C. Mansfield and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Michigan filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Ethics and Public Policy Center filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Minnesota for Marriage filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Helen M. Alvare (Merits) (Distributed). filed. VIDED.
Jan 29 2013 Brief amici curiae of Social Science Professors. (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle (Merits) filed. (Distributed)
Jan 29 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union (Merits) filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 18 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Rev. Rick Yramategui, et al. filed.
Feb 21 2013 Brief of respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffrey J. Zarrillo filed. (Distributed)
Feb 21 2013 Brief of respondent City and County of San Francisco filed. (Distributed)
Feb 26 2013 Brief amicus curiae of GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality (Gay Lesbian Medical Association) concerning the immutability of sexual orientation filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Utah Pride Center, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Humanist Association and American Atheists, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Columbia Law School Sexuality & Gender Law Clinic, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Hon. Judith S. Kaye (Ret.), et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Marriage Equality USA filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Beverly Hills Bar Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Edward D. Stein, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amicus curiae of California filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amicus curiae of National Center for Lesbian Rights filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2013 Brief amici curiae of Jonathan Wallace, Meri Wallace, and Duncan Pflaster filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of International Human Rights Advocates filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Kenneth B. Mehlman, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Walter Dellinger filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Dr. Maria Nieto filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute and Constitutional Accountability Center filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Anthropological Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Political Science Professors filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Anti-Defamation League, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Adoptive and Child Welfare Advocates filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Gary J. Gates filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Organization of American Historians and the American Studies Association filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Equality California filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Organization for Women Foundation and the Feminist Majority Foundation filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Southern Poverty Law Center filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Foreign and Comparative Law Experts Harold Hongju Koh, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Massachusetts, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Survivors of Sexual Orientation Change Therapies filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of William N. Eskridge, Jr., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of California Professors of Family Law filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the State of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of California Assembly Speaker John A. Perez, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of California Council of Churches, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of American Companies filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of California Teachers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars Bruce Ackerman, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Sociological Association filed. VIDED (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Family Equality Council, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of National Women’s Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law and Civil Procedure Professors Erwin Chermerinsky and Arthur Miller filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of American Jewish Committee filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 28 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Garden State Equality filed. (Distributed)
Mar 15 2013 Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Mar 19 2013 Reply of petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 26 2013 Argued. For petitioners: Chalres J. Cooper, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D. C.; and Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Full Text Legal Buzz March 25, 2013: Filings & Briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States’s Defense of Marriage Act & California’s Proposition 8 Cases

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Filings in the Defense of Marriage Act  and California’s Proposition 8 cases

Source: SCOTUS

Listed below are live links to the orders, case filings, and other information pertaining to the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8 cases.  Click on each item to access further information.

Orders
12-7-12 Grant Order
12-11-12 Amicus Appointment Order
12-14-12 Briefing Schedule
Case Filings
12-144 Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., v. Kristin M. Perry, et al.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Brief in Opposition filed by Kristin M. Perry
Brief in Opposition filed by City and County of San Francisco
Reply Brief
Brief of Petitioner on the Merits
Brief of Respondents Kristin M. Perry, Sandra B. Stier, Paul T. Katami, and Jeffery J. Zarrillo
Brief of Respondent City and County of San Francisco
Reply Brief of Petitioners Dennis Hollingsworth, et al.
12-307 United States v. Edith Schlain Windsor, In Her Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Thea Clara Spyer, et al.
Petition for Writ of Certiorari
Brief in Opposition of Edith Schlain Windsor
Brief in Opposition of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
Supplemental Brief of United States
Supplemental Brief of Edith Schlain Windsor
Supplemental Brief of Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group
Reply Brief
Brief on the Merits for Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the
United States House of Representatives
Brief for Court Appointed Amicus Curiae Addressing Jurisdiction
Brief of Respondent Edith Windsor (Jurisdiction)
Brief of Petitioner United States (Jurisdiction)
Brief of Petitioner United States (Merits)
Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction)
Brief of Respondent Edith Windsor (Merits)
Reply Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Jurisdiction)
Reply Brief of Respondent Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives (Merits)
Reply Brief of Court appointed amicus curiae (Jurisdiction)
Reply of Respondent Edith Windsor (Jurisdiction)
Reply Brief of Petitioner United States (Jurisdiction)

Legal Buzz March 17, 2013: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Arizona Voter ID Law

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Arizona Voter ID Law

Source: ABC News Radio, 3-17-13

Lawyers for Arizona, a state that has clashed repeatedly with the federal government on the issue of immigration, will be back at the Supreme Court on Monday defending a state law that requires proof of citizenship in order to register to vote in elections.

Critics of the law say that it conflicts with federal law — the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) — which is sometimes referred to as the Motor Voter law. It was enacted in 1993 to establish uniform procedures to vote in federal elections….READ MORE

Legal Buzz February 27, 2013: Supreme Court Seems Likely to Rule Against Parts of Voting Rights Act

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS

Supreme Court Seems Likely to Rule Against Parts of Voting Rights Act

Source: ABC News Radio, 2-27-13

Conservative justices on the Supreme Court continued to express strong reservations Wednesday about Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, suggesting the key provision of the law might be in danger.

That section of the law says that certain states, mostly in the South, must get any changes to voting regulations pre-cleared by federal officials….READ MORE

Inauguration 2013 January 20, 2013: Barack Obama vs. John Roberts, round 2: President Obama is Sworn-in as President for Second Term

POLITICAL HEADLINES

http://politicsbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/inauguration.jpg?w=600

BARACK OBAMA — 57TH INAUGURATION:

THE HEADLINES….

Barack Obama vs. John Roberts, round 2

Source: Politico, 1-20-13

President Barack Obama is officially sworn-in by Chief Justice John Roberts in the Blue Room of the White House. | AP Photo

For much of Obama’s term, he and Roberts seemed to be at loggerheads. | AP Photo

Barack Obama and John Roberts were all smiles when the chief justice swore in the president on Sunday — and they’ll likely repeat the performance on Monday.

But the serene tableau obscures the tumultuous relationship between the two men since their first awkward public interaction during the botched oath of office four years ago.

On Sunday, Roberts read the oath from a piece of paper — and both men seemed relieved when it was over. They exchanged congratulations and thanks, and then Obama turned to his daughter Sasha. “I did it,” he told her….READ MORE

Political Headlines January 4, 2013: Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to Swear in Vice President Joe Biden at Inauguration

POLITICAL HEADLINES

https://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 113TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Justice Sotomayor to Swear in Biden at Inauguration

Source: ABC News Radio, 1-4-13
Jose CABEZAS/AFP/Getty Images

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor will swear in Vice President Joe Biden, becoming the first Hispanic person to administer an inaugural oath of office.

The news was announced Friday by the Presidential Inaugural Committee and is significant, given that only three other women have administered an inaugural oath.  The most recent was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who swore in Vice President Al Gore in 1997.  Sotomayor is also the first Hispanic person to serve on the Supreme Court.

“It’s an incredible honor to have Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor swear me in,” Biden said in a statement.  “I believed strongly that she would make a great Justice, and it was one of the greatest pleasures of my career to be involved in her selection to the Court.  From the first time I met her, I was impressed by Justice Sotomayor’s commitment to justice and opportunity for all Americans, and she continues to exemplify those values today.”…READ MORE

Political Headlines December 19, 2012: Robert Bork: Conservative Trailblazer & Reagan Supreme Court Nominee Dies at 85

POLITICAL HEADLINES

https://historymusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pol_headlines.jpg?w=600

OBAMA PRESIDENCY & THE 112TH CONGRESS:

THE HEADLINES….

Conservative Trailblazer Robert Bork Dies at 85

Source: ABC News Radio, 12-19-12

CNP/Getty Images

Judge Robert H. Bork, one of the chief conservative intellectuals of the law, who forever changed the nature of Supreme Court confirmation hearings, died Tuesday morning of heart disease, according to his son, Robert H. Bork Jr. He was 85 years old.

“Robert Bork was one of the most influential legal scholars of the past 50 years. His impact on legal thinking in the fields of antitrust and constitutional law was profound and lasting. More important for the final accounting, he was a good man and a loyal citizen. May he rest in peace,” Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a statement….READ MORE

Legal Buzz November 9, 2012: Supreme Court Will Take Up Major Voting Rights Case Shelby County v. Holder

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Supreme Court Will Take Up Major Voting Rights Case

Source: ABC News Radio, 11-9-12

Only three days after the contentious 2012 election, the Supreme Court announced Friday that it would take up a major voting rights case; it will be heard in the next few months and decided by June.

At issue is Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which was passed in 1965. It’s a central provision of the law that requires states with a history of voter discrimination, mostly in the South, to clear any changes to their election laws with federal officials in Washington….READ MORE

Legal Buzz October 16, 2012: Supreme Court Rules in Obama Campaign’s Favor Ohio Early Voting Case

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Obama Campaign Scores in Ohio Early Voting Case

Source: ABC News Radio, 10-16-12

The Obama campaign scored a legal victory Tuesday when the Supreme Court declined to step in and allow Ohio’s early in-person voting limitation to take effect.

After two lower federal courts ruled in favor of the Obama campaign and enjoined the law, Ohio’s Republican leaders had appealed their case to the Supreme Court.

But in a one-sentence order Tuesday, the Court declined Ohio’s appeal. There were no noted dissents….READ MORE

Legal Buzz October 10, 2012: Fisher v. University of Texas: Supreme Court Poses Tough Questions in Affirmative Action Case

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Supreme Court Poses Tough Questions in Affirmative Action Case

Source: ABC News Radio., 10-10-12

 At the Supreme Court Wednesday, the conservative justices had questions for a lawyer defending the University of Texas’ plan that takes race into consideration in the admissions process.
One of their main concerns goes to the heart of the case: at what point does the court stop deferring to a university’s judgment that the consideration of race is still necessary?“I understand my job under our precedents is to determine if your use of race is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest,” Chief Justice John Roberts said to Gregory Garre, a lawyer representing the University of Texas. “The compelling interest you identify is attaining a critical mass of minority students at the University of Texas, but you won’t tell what the critical mass is. How am I supposed to do the job that our precedents say I should do?”…READ MORE

Full Text Campaign Buzz June 28, 2012: Mitt Romney’s Speech in Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Health Care the Affordable Care Act — Vows to Repeal Obamacare

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

THE HEADLINES….

TRANSCRIPT: Romney remarks on high court ruling upholding Obama health care law

Source: Fox News, 6-28-12

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made the following statement Thursday following the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Obama administration’s health care law. 

“As you might imagine, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision and I agree with the dissent. What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal ObamaCare.

Let’s make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do. What the court did today was say that ObamaCare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that ObamaCare is good law or that it’s good policy. ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. ObamaCare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.

Let me tell you why I say that. ObamaCare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion. ObamaCare cuts Medicare — cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion. And even with those cuts and tax increases, ObamaCare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations. ObamaCare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep.

ObamaCare is a job-killer. Businesses across the country have been asked what the impact is of ObamaCare.  Three-quarters of those surveyed by the Chamber of Commerce said ObamaCare makes it less likely for them to hire people. And perhaps most troubling of all, ObamaCare puts the federal government between you and your doctor.

For all those reasons, it’s important for us to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

What are some of the things that we’ll keep in place and must be in place in a reform, a real reform of our health care system? One, we have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so.  Having 20 million people —
up to that number of people lose the insurance they want is simply unacceptable.

No. 2, got to make sure that those people who have preexisting conditions know that they will be able to be insured and they will not lose their insurance.

We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their effort to assure that every American has access to
affordable health care.

And something that ObamaCare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. It’s becoming prohibitively expensive.

And so this is now a time for the American people to make a choice. You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor, whether you’re comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we pass on to the coming generations, whether you’re willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like, or whether instead you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make their choices as to what kind of health insurance they want.

This is a time of choice for the American people. Our mission is clear:  If we want to get rid of ObamaCare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that:  that we return to the American people the privilege they’ve always had to live their lives in the way they feel most appropriate, where we don’t pass on to coming generations massive deficits and debt, where we don’t have a setting where jobs are lost.

If we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace ObamaCare. That is my mission, that is our work, and I’m asking the people of America to join me.  If you don’t want the course that President Obama has put us on, if you want, instead, a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort. Help us. Help us defeat ObamaCare. Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and that’s killing jobs across this great country.

Thank you so much.”

Full Text Obama Presidency June 28, 2012: President Barack Obama’s Speech in Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Health Care the Affordable Care Act

POLITICAL SPEECHES & DOCUMENTS

OBAMA PRESIDENCY
& THE 112TH CONGRESS:

Remarks by the President on Supreme Court Ruling on the Affordable Care Act

Source: WH, 6-28-12

East Room

12:15 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act — the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, they’ve reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America — in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.

I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost. That’s how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington. But that discussion completely misses the point. Whatever the politics, today’s decision was a victory for people all over this country whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold it.

And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans, I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you.

First, if you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance — this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. They can no longer drop your coverage if you get sick. They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms — a provision that’s already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance. And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.

There’s more. Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent’s health care plans — a provision that’s already helped 6 million young Americans. And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs — a discount that’s already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

All of this is happening because of the Affordable Care Act. These provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class families, and they enjoy broad popular support. And thanks to today’s decision, all of these benefits and protections will continue for Americans who already have health insurance.

Now, if you’re one of the 30 million Americans who don’t yet have health insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from. Each state will take the lead in designing their own menu of options, and if states can come up with even better ways of covering more people at the same quality and cost, this law allows them to do that, too. And I’ve asked Congress to help speed up that process, and give states this flexibility in year one.

Once states set up these health insurance marketplaces, known as exchanges, insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against any American with a preexisting health condition. They won’t be able to charge you more just because you’re a woman. They won’t be able to bill you into bankruptcy. If you’re sick, you’ll finally have the same chance to get quality, affordable health care as everyone else. And if you can’t afford the premiums, you’ll receive a credit that helps pay for it.

Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance. This is important for two reasons.

First, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums.

And second, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, but don’t require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they’re sick to buy the care they need — which would also drive up everybody else’s premiums.

That’s why, even though I knew it wouldn’t be politically popular, and resisted the idea when I ran for this office, we ultimately included a provision in the Affordable Care Act that people who can afford to buy health insurance should take the responsibility to do so. In fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties, including the current Republican nominee for President.

Still, I know the debate over this law has been divisive. I respect the very real concerns that millions of Americans have shared. And I know a lot of coverage through this health care debate has focused on what it means politically.

Well, it should be pretty clear by now that I didn’t do this because it was good politics. I did it because I believed it was good for the country. I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.

There’s a framed letter that hangs in my office right now. It was sent to me during the health care debate by a woman named Natoma Canfield. For years and years, Natoma did everything right. She bought health insurance. She paid her premiums on time. But 18 years ago, Natoma was diagnosed with cancer. And even though she’d been cancer-free for more than a decade, her insurance company kept jacking up her rates, year after year. And despite her desire to keep her coverage — despite her fears that she would get sick again — she had to surrender her health insurance, and was forced to hang her fortunes on chance.

I carried Natoma’s story with me every day of the fight to pass this law. It reminded me of all the Americans, all across the country, who have had to worry not only about getting sick, but about the cost of getting well.

Natoma is well today. And because of this law, there are other Americans — other sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers — who will not have to hang their fortunes on chance. These are the Americans for whom we passed this law.

The highest Court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law. And we’ll work together to improve on it where we can. But what we won’t do — what the country can’t afford to do — is refight the political battles of two years ago, or go back to the way things were.

With today’s announcement, it’s time for us to move forward — to implement and, where necessary, improve on this law. And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt, and building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work hard, they can get ahead.

But today, I’m as confident as ever that when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years from now, we’ll be better off because we had the courage to pass this law and keep moving forward.

Thank you. God bless you, and God bless America.

END
12:23 P.M. EDT

Legal Buzz June 28, 2012: Supreme Court Upholds Affordable Care Act Mandate as Tax in 5-4 Vote — Health Care Law Largely Stands, Victory for President Obama

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

THE HEADLINES….

IN FOCUS: SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IN 5-4 VOTE

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius — Full Text Opinion — SCOTUS, 6-28-12

Supreme Court Lets Health Law Largely Stand, in Victory for Obama

Source: NYT, 6-28-12
The Supreme Court left standing the basic provisions of the health care overhaul, ruling that the government may use its taxation powers to push people to buy insurance….READ MORE

  • Romney, GOP Pledge to Repeal Health Law: Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans on Thursday pledged a renewed effort to repeal the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul, undeterred by the Supreme Court ruling to uphold the law’s central tenet…. – WSJ, 6-28-12
  • Mitt Romney Can Use Healthcare Against Barack Obama: President Barack Obama’s White House staffers can take pride—his signature legislative achievement passed constitutional muster and they can begin to implement its most controversial provisions…. – US News, World Report, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court upholds Obama health care mandate: The historic 5-4 decision will affect the way Americans receive and pay for their medical care…. – USA Today, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court Health Care Ruling: The Mandate Can Stay: The Supreme Court has announced its long-awaited decision on President Obama’s health care law…. – ABC News, 6-28-12
  • Summary of Supreme Court health care decision: The following is an edited text of the Supreme Court health-care decision…. – MarketWatch, 6-28-12
  • Following Supreme Court health-care ruling, House GOP will again try to repeal law: Now that the health-care law has been largely upheld by the Supreme Court, the GOP-controlled House plans to vote to repeal it–again…. – WaPo, 6-28-12
  • What Supreme Court’s health-care ruling means for you: The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday to uphold the bulk of the health-care law means that some popular provisions — such as requiring insurers to accept people regardless of preexisting conditions and to accept children up to age 26 on parents’ plans…. – MarketWatch, 6-28-12
  • Lawmakers react to Supreme Court decision upholding Obama health care law: The nation’s highest court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of President Obama’s sweeping health care law, which was celebrated as victory among Democrats, while blasted by Republicans who vowed a repeal…. – Fox News, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court health care decision: 10 top tweets on SCOTUS confusion: What was not helpful sorting through the Supreme Court’s health care decision on Thursday morning? Twitter. Politicos tweeted about their growing frustration at the varying accounts coming through their feeds in the minutes after the ruling was issued:1…. – Politico, 6-28-12
  • The Supreme Court will uphold Obamacare. Here’s why: The Supreme Court can’t let the public’s already shaky opinion of it get any worse. If Obamacare isn’t upheld, it’s further evidence that the court decides according to partisan politics, rather than legal principle…. – CS Monitor, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court set to rule on health care reform: The stakes could hardly be higher as the Supreme Court is set to rule on President Obama’s health care law Thursday. The legal challenge highlights two fundamentally different views of the role of government…. – CBS News, 6-28-12
  • Either way Supreme Court rules on ‘Obamacare,’ insurers win: The Supreme Court is shaking up the political chessboard today by ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act – aka “Obamacare” – and there is one player who will win no matter what the decision may be: the insurance industry…. – LAT, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court to rule Thursday on health-care law: The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care legislation Thursday morning, a potentially game-changing decision that would define the power of the national government in a presidential election year…. – WaPo, 6-28-12
  • Supreme Court health care decision has Washington awaiting history: The Supreme Court’s decision on the health-care law is the one thing nearly everyone has an opinion on…. – WaPo, 6-27-12
  • Supreme Court health care ruling expected Thursday: The Supreme Court is due to make a ruling on President Obama’s health care law that could affect the political landscape, the economy and the lives of millions of Americans…. – WaPo, 6-25-12

Legal Buzz June 28, 2012: Supreme Court Strikes Down Stolen Valor Act in United States v. Alvarez

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

THE HEADLINES….

IN FOCUS: SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN STOLEN VALOR ACT

United States v. Alvarez — Full Text Opinion — SCOTUS, 6-28-12

Supreme Court Strikes Down Stolen Valor Act

Source: ABC News Radio, 6-28-12

The Supreme Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act on Thursday, saying that the First Amendment defends a person’s right to lie — even if that person is lying about awards and medals won through military service.

The case started in 2007 when California man Xavier Alvarez was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act of 2006, the federal legislation that made it illegal for people to claim to have won or to wear military medals or ribbons they did not earn.  Alvarez had publicly claimed to have won the country’s highest military award, the Medal of Honor, but was later revealed to have never served in the military at all.

Alvarez was sentenced to three years probation, a $5,000 fine and community service, but he and his lawyer appealed the decision, saying that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional — essentially that it violates a person’s right to lie….READ MORE

Lying About Earning War Medals Is Protected Speech, Justices Rule

Source: NYT, 6-28-12

The justices said that a federal law making it a crime to lie about having earned a military decoration was an unconstitutional infringement on free speech….READ MORE

Full Text Campaign Buzz June 25, 2012: Mitt Romney’s Reaction to the Supreme Court’s Ruling in Arizona vs. United States Upholding Centerpiece of Arizona Immigration Law

CAMPAIGN 2012

CAMPAIGN BUZZ 2012

THE HEADLINES….

Obama Has Failed To Provide Any Leadership On Immigration

Source: Mitt Romney, 6-25-12

romney-2012-blog-oiw-immigr.jpg

Today’s decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration.This represents yet another broken promise by this President.

I believe that each state has the duty–and the right–to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities.

As Candidate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office.  But 4 years later, we are still waiting.

Legal Buzz June 25, 2012: Supreme Court of the United States Rules in Arizona vs. United States — Upholds Centerpiece of Arizona Immigration Law & President Barack Obama’s Reaction Statement

LEGAL BUZZ

By Bonnie K. Goodman

Ms. Goodman is the Editor of History Musings. She has a BA in History & Art History & a Masters in Library and Information Studies from McGill University, and has done graduate work in history at Concordia University. Ms. Goodman has also contributed the overviews, and chronologies in History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2008, 4th edition, edited by Gil Troy, Fred L. Israel, and Arthur Meier Schlesinger published by Facts on File, Inc. in late 2011.

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

IN FOCUS: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES UPHOLDS CONTROVERSIAL PART OF ARIZONA IMMIGRATION REJECTS OTHER PORTIONS — BOTH ARIZONA & PRESIDENT OBAMA CLAIM VICTORY

Arizona v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States, 6-25-12

Supreme Court Upholds Controversial Part of Arizona Immigration Law: Police officers in Arizona are allowed to check the immigration status of every person who is stopped or arrested, the Supreme Court ruled Monday morning. But the court struck down other key parts of the law.
The controversial immigration law passed in Arizona two years ago and has been opposed by President Obama.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the policy could interfere with federal immigration law, but that the court couldn’t assume that it would.
The law — known as SB 1070 — was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer in April 2010, but immediately challenged by the Obama administration. A lower court sided with the administration and agreed to prevent four of the most controversial provisions from going into effect…. – ABC News Radio, 6-25-12

 

  • Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected much of Arizona’s immigration law but permitted the state’s instruction to its police to check the immigration status of people they detain…. – NYT, 6-25-12
  • Obama and Romney React to Court’s Immigration Decision: President Obama and Mitt Romney reacted to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down parts of a tough Arizona immigration law…. – NYT, 6-25-12
  • Romney Silent on Court’s Immigration Ruling: Mitt Romney is ready to talk about health care, but not the Supreme Court’s split decision on Arizona’s immigration law…. – NYT, 6-25-12
  • Court mostly rejects Arizona immigration law: The US Supreme Court on Monday struck down key parts of an Arizona law that…. – CNN, 6-25-12
  • Praise, concern and uncertainty as Mass. reacts to Supreme Court decision on Arizona immigration law: The Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s immigration law today generated praise, concern and a measure of uncertainty in Massachusetts, one of many states where controversy erupted after Arizona passed the law in 2010…. – Boston.com, 6-25-12
  • Dan Stein: Immigration Decision a Victory for Arizona – But it Has its Pitfalls: The Supreme Court today handed the State of Arizona a hard fought victory in upholding the most contentious part of the state’s immigration enforcement bill, section 2(b) of SB 1070. That section requires state and local enforcement officials to verify…. – Fox News, 6-25-12
  • High court rejects part of Arizona immigration law: The Supreme Court threw out key provisions of Arizona’s crackdown on illegal immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion could go forward — that police must check the status of people stopped for … Businessweek, AP, 6-25-12
  • Both Parties Claim Victory in Arizona Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona’s tough immigration law, ruled against life sentences for juveniles and rejected corporate campaign spending limits…. – WSJ, 6-25-12
  • Chief Justice Roberts crucial in Arizona immigration ruling: Helping drive (albeit from the back seat) the Supreme Court toward what amounted to a victory for the Obama administration in the Arizona immigration case was a man often seen as one of Obama’s chief antagonists at the court…. – LAT, 6-25-12
  • Arizona immigration ruling boosts Obama in battle for Hispanic vote: The Supreme Court handed a political victory to President Obama on Monday by vindicating his decision to challenge Arizona’s tough anti-illegal immigration law and, in turn, put Mitt Romney and other Republicans who had endorsed the law in bind as both…. – WaPo, 6-25-12
  • Obama pleased parts of Arizona’s immigration law struck down, concerned about what’s left: Pressing his immigration agenda, President Barack Obama said he is pleased the Supreme Court struck down key parts of Arizona’s immigration law Monday but voiced concern about what the high court left intact. The court allowed a provision … – WaPo, 6-25-12
  • President Barack Obama’s response to ruling on the Arizona immigration law: President Barack Obama’s statement reacting to the US Supreme Court’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law: “I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law. What this decision makes…. – WaPo, 6-25-12
  • Most of Arizona immigration law cannot stand, Supreme Court rules: But the Supreme Court upheld a provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people they have reason to suspect are illegal immigrants – the most controversial part of the Arizona immigration law. By Warren Richey, Staff writer / June … CS Monitor, 6-25-12
  • President Barack Obama’s response to ruling on the Arizona Immigration Law: President Barack Obama’s statement reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law…. – WaPo, 6-25-12
  • Obama ‘pleased’ and ‘concerned’ on Arizona: Obama ‘pleased’ and ‘concerned’ on Arizona … This is an issue where Obama’s desire to win the debate on immigration nationally…. – Politico, 6-25-12
  • Obama ‘pleased’ with Supreme Court ruling on Arizona immigration law: President Obama said he’s “pleased” with the US Supreme Court decision knocking down parts of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, and he quickly used the decision to call for comprehensive immigration reform and to tout his own recent…. – Chicago Tribune, 6-25-12

Statement by the President on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Arizona v. the United States

I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem.

At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court’s decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own.

I will work with anyone in Congress who’s willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it.

Legal Buzz April 18, 2012: US Supreme Court Rules Torture Victim Protection Act Applies Only to Individual, Not Organizations in Azzam Mohamad Rahim v. Palestinian Authority

LEGAL BUZZ


COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Justices Limit Suits Under Law On Torture

Source: NYT, 4-28-12

In the case of an American killed in the West Bank, the Supreme Court found that only “individuals” could be sued….READ MORE

Full Text of Case Opinion: 4/18/12 – Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority

Supreme Court says torture victim law applies only to people, not organizations

Source: WaPo, 4-18-12

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a federal law that allows torture victims to sue their overseas assailants does not permit suits against corporations or political groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The justices said the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 authorized lawsuits only against individuals responsible for torture and killing.

“The text of the TVPA convinces us that Congress did not extend liability to organizations, sovereign or not,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the united court.

“There are no doubt valid arguments for such an extension. But Congress has seen fit to proceed in more modest steps in the act, and it is not the province of this branch to do otherwise.”…READ MORE

IN FOCUS: US SUPREME COURT RULES TORTURE VICTIM ACT APPLIES TO INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE NOT ORGANIZATIONS

Supreme Court says torture victim law applies only to people, not organizations: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a federal law that allows torture victims to sue their overseas assailants does not permit suits against corporations or political groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization…. – WaPo, 4-18-12

  • US top court limits who can be sued under torture law: The US Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a complaint filed against the Palestinian Authority by relatives of an American citizen allegedly tortured in a West Bank prison. The unanimous decision by the nine-member panel effectively…. – AFP, 4-18-12
  • Justices Say Palestinian Authority Can’t Be Sued Over Torture: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that the family of an American citizen killed during a visit to the West Bank may not sue the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization under a 1991 federal law…. – NYT, 4-18-12
  • Torture victim’s family can’t sue PLO for damages, Supreme Court says: US Supreme Court, in a narrow reading of a federal anti-torture law, ruled Wednesday against a son who sought redress from the PLO and Palestinian Authority for the death of his father, a US citizen, during a visit to the West Bank…. – CS Monitor, 4-18-12
  • Supreme Court: PLO, corporations can’t be sued under torture law: Foreign political organizations like the Palestinian Liberation Organization and multinational corporations cannot be sued for the torture or murder of persons abroad, including Americans, under the terms of a 1991 US anti-torture law…. – Chicago Tribune, 4-18-12
  • Organizations Can’t Be Sued For Torture, High Court Rules: The US Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that organizations cannot be sued for the torture under the Torture Victim Protection Act. The decision came in the case of Azzam Mohamad Rahim, who immigrated to the United States in the…. – NPR, 4-18-12
  • High court limits suits under torture victim law: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that organizations may not be sued for claims they aided in torture or killings abroad under a law aimed at helping torture victims. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the court’s opinion…. – BusinessWeek, 4-18-12
  • Supreme Court: torture law applies only to people: The Palestinian Authority and PLO cannot be sued under a 1991 US victim protection law over the alleged torture of an American in a West Bank prison, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, holding that the law only applies to…. – Baltimore Sun, 4-18-12
  • A Supreme Typo: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court reminded us that diction matters, unanimously ruling that by using the word “individual” rather than “person,” a federal statute limited liability for torture committed overseas to individuals…. – WSJ, 4-18-12
  • Supreme Court Says Torture Victim Can’t Sue Palestinian Authority: The family of a Palestinian American killed while in the Palestinian Authority’s custody cannot sue the organization, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday morning. Azzam Rahim, a naturalized American citizen, was visiting the West Bank…. – Huff Post, 4-18-12

Legal Buzz April 2, 2012: US Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Offenses including Minor Offenses

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Supreme Court Ruling Allows Strip-Searches for Any Offense

Source: NYT, 4-2-12

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband…. READ MORE

Full Text Supreme Court Opinion Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington

Full Text Legal Buzz March 28, 2012: Day 3 Supreme Court Hears Arguments on the Health Care Law — National Federation of Independent Business v. Kathleen Sebelius — Argument Transcripts, Audio Mp3 Download

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Day Three: Supreme Court Hearings on Health Care

SCOTUS Day 3

This artist rendering shows Attorney Bartow Farr speaking before the Supreme Court in Washington on Wednesday.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Docket Number: 11-393
Date Argued: 03/28/12
Play Audio:

Media Formats:
mp3  MP3 Download Play
Windows Media  Windows Media Download Play
RealAudio  RealAudio 10 Download
PDF Transcript (PDF) View

Full Text Legal Buzz March 27, 2012: Day 2 Supreme Court Hears Arguments on the Health Care Law — Department of Health and Human Services. v. Florida — Argument Transcripts, Audio Mp3 Download

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Day Two: Updates on the Supreme Court Hearings on the Health Care Law

This artist rendering shows Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. speaking in front of the Supreme Court justices in Washington. | AP Photo

Department of Health and Human Services. v. Florida
Docket Number: 11-398-Tuesday
Date Argued: 03/27/12
Play Audio:

Media Formats:
mp3  MP3 Download Play
Windows Media  Windows Media Download Play
RealAudio  RealAudio 10 Download
PDF Transcript (PDF) View

Full Text Legal Buzz March 26, 2012: Day 1 Supreme Court Hears Arguments on the Health Care Law — Department of Health and Human Services. v. Florida — Argument Transcripts, Audio Mp3 Download

LEGAL BUZZ

COURT AND LEGAL NEWS:

Day One: Updates on the Supreme Court Hearings on the Health Care Law

PHOTO: This artist rendering shows attorney Robert A. Long speaks in front of the Supreme Court Justice in Washington, March 26, 2012, as the court began three days of arguments on the health care law signed by President Barack Obama.
This artist rendering shows attorney Robert A. Long speaks in front of the Supreme Court Justice in Washington, March 26, 2012, as the court began three days of arguments on the health care law signed by President Barack Obama. (Dana Verkouteren/AP Photo)

Department of Health and Human Services. v. Florida
Docket Number: 11-398-Monday
Date Argued: 03/26/12
Play Audio:

Media Formats:
mp3  MP3 Download Play
Windows Media  Windows Media Download Play
RealAudio  RealAudio 10 Download
PDF Transcript (PDF) View
%d bloggers like this: