Today in Supreme Court History: March 25, 2014

3/25/2014: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores argued.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., 572 U.S. 141 (decided March 25, 2014): must withhold FICA from severance pay because it’s “wages” (??)

Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society, 503 U.S. 429 (decided March 25, 1992): statute declaring that new management of timber operations (balancing survival of spotted owl with economic growth) resolves the issues in two named lawsuits did not violate separation of powers by directing judges to reach a certain result; statute is saved because it also sets new legal standards, binding both officials and judges

Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347 (decided March 25, 1992): can’t sue for state agency’s failure to provide services to neglected/abused children; Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act doesn’t provide for private cause of action nor is actionable via §1983

Alaska Airlines v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678 (decided March 25, 1987): subsection in Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 providing for Congress to approve or veto any rule issued by new agency was legislative veto (a no-no since INS v. Chadha, 1983) but can be severed from the rest of the Act, which among other things put in employee protections

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California, 480 U.S. 616 (decided March 25, 1987): county Affirmative Action Plan can allow females to be promoted over males with higher test scores despite Title VII (that’s pretty much what affirmative action means)

Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. — (decided March 25, 2021): bullets hitting suspect’s car as she tried to get away was a Fourth Amendment “seizure” so remanded for determination of whether it was “reasonable” and whether qualified immunity

Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534 (decided March 25, 1986): school board member had no standing to appeal order allowing students to hold nondenominational prayer group on school grounds (the district itself decided not to appeal)

Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (decided March 25, 1986): ordained rabbi was required to take yarmulke off per Air Force regulations while on duty despite First Amendment (Today’s Puzzler: who was the first person in recorded history to be called “rabbi”?)

Pembauer v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (decided March 25, 1986): I learned a new word with this case: capias, an Ohio term for warrant for arrest. County could be sued under §1983 for alleged Fourth Amendment violation because it set policy and ordered the sheriff to enter physician’s office in welfare fraud investigation after physician did not respond to subpoena and barred the door when they tried to serve capiases, forcing them to chop down the door with an axe — I bet that caused the patients in the waiting room to look up from those old magazines)

Orozaco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324 (decided March 25, 1969): confession obtained in defendant’s bedroom at 4 a.m. while under arrest inadmissible because not given Miranda warning; in dissent White and Stewart, who had dissented in Miranda, point out that there was no prolonged or abusive interrogation; Harlan, who had also dissented, sees no way out of applying Miranda in any custodial context

[Michael P]

If severance pay is not "wages" for tax purposes, how many times could my employer fire me and immediately rehire me before it became tax evasion?

(A previous employer of mine instituted a policy that no one who left the company was eligible to be re-hired for something like 18 months. It didn't last long; shortly thereafter, an executive quit, got buyer's remorse at his new job, and my employer decided they really wanted him back. I never understood what he actually did, but he was still there when I quit several years later.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

Typically an employer won’t repeatedly pay someone for time not working.

I did leave a law firm and (when I got sacked by the new one) came crawling back, but there was no severance pay, and it was for less money. But they really did need me and I was soon back at my old pay.

It’s odd your company was apparently in the habit of rehiring people. Was there a chronic revolving door situation that prompted the 18 month rule? Or do executives live in a different world?

[Magister]

That may have been brinkmanship to discourage employees from leaving by forcing them to burn their bridges a little more decisively.

[Michael P]

My hypothetical was more that the company might pay me $X for two weeks of work, "fire" me with $X severance on Friday, and bring me back the next Monday. If the severance was not fully taxable, that would avoid or evade taxes on half of my pay.

That no-re-hire company had some really knee-jerk bad policies. If I remember correctly, the rehiring policy was driven by a single case. There were some other odd/bad policies that were instituted after one-off incidents -- incidents which I think were legitimately firing offenses even without the policies, but management must have thought otherwise. And there was one summer where no vacations were authorized for engineers in order to get a product out the door; that September, deliveries of that product were indefinitely delayed but they never officially rescinded the no-vacation policy. (The founder/president when I started working there had retired by that point, and lots of the new management lived down to stereotypes.)

[Michael P]

Another example policy from there: No parking behind the building or using the back door. It came out that somebody had been taking naps in their car back there and charging the time. This was a US DoD contractor, and mischarging time was (and remains) a huge deal on government contracts -- so they could have done just about anything to address the problem case. They chose to adopt an obnoxious, overbearing policy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And how much productivity did they lose as a result?

[John F. Carr]

For unemployment purposes severance pay is not wages if the severance package includes a release of claims against the company.

A coworker was laid off. He told me that he was over 40 and another coworker who was not laid off was under 40. Prima facie age discrimination. He signed the severance package that included a release of claims including age discrimination. The definite pay now was worth more than the small chance of getting a lawyer, suing, and winning. By the time any lawsuit could have been won the startup went under and its components were bought by two other companies.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Good point. Does not seem to have been an issue in the Quality Stores case. Is there a reported case on that?

[John F. Carr]

I can’t think of any cases where a Congressional attempt to resolve an ongoing environmental dispute was rejected in court. I remember a Ninth Circuit case about a project in Hawaii; it wasn’t a 14th amendment violation or anything else for Congress to change the rules to allow the project. Congress approved the Record of Decision to build part of I-99 in Pennsylvania, terminating any lawsuits against the project. Construction was later delayed by an expensive mass of pyritic rock. I don’t know if the terminated environmental review would have found the problem. Usually complaints against highways look for surface features that can be exploited for delay. That ridge over there is potential habitat for the three-winged striped salamander and I demand you spend three years surveying it to see if any live there. (They already lost the “we don’t really need a bypass” argument years earlier.)

[Dan Schiavetta]

The problem in Robertson was that Congress seemed to be dictating the result in a pending lawsuit. The Court seemed to be working overtime to avoid that conclusion.

[John F. Carr]

After the trip to the Supreme Court Torres lost on summary judgment. The case is back in the 10th Circuit. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6107903/torres-v-madrid/

According to the magistrate, the right not to be shot at unnecessarily, recognized by a divided Supreme Court in 2021, was not clearly established at the time of the shooting in 2014. Additionally, Torres' conviction for aggravated fleeing also barred her claim under Heck v. Humphrey after looking at the facts necessarily found to convict her.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Thanks!

[wolfefan]

I'm resisting the temptation to google the rabbi question - I look forward to learning the answer. When I worked in a large 911 center in Virginia we handled warrant confirmations and the like. Some of our orders to "seize the body" were referred to as warrants and some as a capias. It's been a while but I think that in general capias was used to refer to something obtained by the court to arrest someone for violation of a court order.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That was certainly true here -- the Dr. was in violation of a court order. I had never heard the term before, myself.

A number of states have their own terms and are proud to hold onto them. John F. Carr answered my question yesterday about the "Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts" -- an odd title. In Pennsylvania they have "prothonotaries" instead of "county clerks". Fortunately there haven't been any disastrous interstate misunderstandings, as far as I know.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, our quite corrupt legislature is called the "Great & General Court" and I *think* it has something to do with when the charter got yanked for having supported Oliver Cromwell, which the Puritans likely had. Massachusetts still has British Colonial laws on the books -- https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter269/Section1 was largely unchanged until recently

[not guilty]

According to the opinion of the Court in Hobby Lobby, no one disputed the sincerity of the Plaintiffs' religious beliefs. 573 U.S. 682, 717 (2014). That concession may have been bad lawyering on the part of the government.

Hobby Lobby admitted in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs). The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare/

[not guilty]

In addition, Hobby Lobby's employee 401(k) plan invested in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby made large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k). https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/?sh=e4c638d1b387

[Dan Schiavetta]

The Catholic Church apparently never noticed it either.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/nyregion/new-york-archdiocese-reluctantly-paying-for-birth-control.html

[Krayt]

woke: adj becoming educated there are ongoing wrongs.

[Dan Schiavetta]

No, the Church didn’t suddenly become educated. As the article points out, they knew full well what they were doing and it was an arm’s length deal with the Union.

[Krayt]

So losing one fight over morality suggests they should give up on another? Or that, since they didn’t pull out machine guns to win, they aren’t serious, yo!

Or that give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and to God what is God's, when dealing with unavoidable evil overlordship?

"The church is serious! Their own book says they have to obey us!"

[Mr. Bumble]

woke: black slang for whatever...
https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/woke/

[Frank Drackman]

what's the longest word in Ebonics????

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

How much longer are UCLA and a few other legitimate liberal-libertarian schools going to ignore the misappropriation of their franchises that associates their institutions with Republican racists, superstitious gay-bashers, Federalist Society misogynists, right-wing antisemites, conservatives Islamophobes, and immigrant-hating "traditional values" advocates?

Carry on, clingers. We’ll let you know how far and how long, as always.

[Frank Drackman]

Little slow on the trigger today Jerry? Squat and give me 20!!! (never say that to Jerry S, he'll "Give you 20" all right) Now as your "Bettor" I'm ordering you to comment within an hour of me posting this, or it'll go on your "Permanent Record" (Like anything Jerry S could do would be worse than what he's already done)
Thats right Jerry, I'll let you know if your effort is ausreichend,

Frank

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

When the proprietor sits in a lonely corner during faculty meetings, wondering how his colleagues can be so wrong about him and modernity can be so wrong about everything, does he draw solace from the occasional recollection that "Frank Drackman still thinks I'm great!"?

At least Prof. Bainbridge, who also is relegated to that lonely corner, might bring treats.

[Frank Drackman]

Jerry, we get it, you know Important Peoples!! (part of why you got by for so long) Victim No. 1 – Victim No. 1 knew Sandusky from 2005 through 2008. According to prosecutors, he met him through the Second Mile program when he was about 12. A witness said he saw the victim and Sandusky together on a wrestling mat. The witness described Sandusky as "needy and clingy" when the victim left.

Curious, do Cells at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx have "Corners"??

Frank

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I can’t read Drackman’s remarks, but are we assuming that the people who run this blog, by advocating abortion “rights” and open borders and war with Russia, are going against the trend of modernity?

And in any case, modernity today includes China. They seem to be a fairly successful country (at least in terms of power); so I must presume they’re a paradise for gay rights, trans identity, etc.

Certainly a person’s rights in China go only so far as their betters in the Communist Party permit, and not a step further.

Have you considered relocating there? They seem to be up your alley.

[Frank Drackman]

Race-ist! Homo-Fobist! "The people who run this blog advocating abortion “rights” and open borders and war with Russia, are going against the trend of modernity?"
OK, I think I agree with you, but the "trend of modernity" IS advocating abortion “rights” and open borders and war with Russia,
So what does Senescent J (hopefully knowing what Country he's in) do when 1: Roosh-a 1: Shoots down C-17 bringing supplies to You-Krane, 2: Sinks ship bringing supplies to You-Krane
3: Roosh-A drops Hydrogen Bomb on Kiev?? Oh wow, a strongly worded letter??

[The Margrave of Azilia]

“no one disputed the sincerity of the Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. That concession may have been bad lawyering on the part of the government.”

And the McCullo[c]h of McCulloch v. Maryland was charged with embezzlement. Should we ditch the implied-powers doctrine?

Yes, by all means, let the Supreme Court act as factfinder to investigate whether the Obama administration was too soft on religious dissenters.

[not guilty]

"Yes, by all means, let the Supreme Court act as factfinder to investigate whether the Obama administration was too soft on religious dissenters."

Uh, no. The time to challenge the sincerity of the Plaintiffs' beliefs was while the case was before the trial court.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Have you heard of this thing called sarcasm?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Puzzler:

Who was the first person known to be called "rabbi"?

Answer:

Jesus!

In the Gospel of Mark, ca. 70 C.E.

He's also called that in Matthew and John, written later. Luke, who might not have been Jewish, doesn't use the word. Jewish writings don't mention the title until several centuries later.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

"They ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore, they ain't makin' carpenters who know what nails are for..."

Kinky Friedman

[Frank Drackman]

Reverend Jerry Sandusky "Bitter Klinger" insulting "Comment" coming in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, .......

[JasonT20]

I don't think we need to question the sincerity of the Hobby Lobby owners to disagree with the ruling here. For me, it is more important that courts look at whether the claimant is actually burdened by the government required action.

1) The requirement on Hobby Lobby was to provide health insurance to its full-time employees. The forms of contraception they objected to as abortifacients were required of insurance companies to be included in their plans. That removes the burden a step from Hobby Lobby.
2) Hobby Lobby's claim that they would be paying for something that they find sinful is also removed from them, because it is really no different than if the employees used their wages to purchase the contraceptives. Health insurance is compensation for their labor, not a gift or freebie.
3) Like with wages, not all of Hobby Lobby's employees would even be using that part of their health insurance (probably very few), and Hobby Lobby would likely not know which employees ever did.

The burden on the Hobby Lobby owners is then about them knowing that their employees could use contraceptives that their religious beliefs find objectionable using insurance that they provide as compensation for the employees' labor. All of the choice to act on that possibility is by the employees, a choice they have every right to make, using something that they earned by their own efforts. There simply isn't a significant burden on the Hobby Lobby owners other than their own hang ups. Knowing that someone you employ might be engaging in sin is not a valid reason to get out of complying with the law.