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

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

[John F. Carr]

Eight years after filing suit Roxanne Torres is still awaiting a decision on defendants' second renewed motion for summary judgment.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6107903/torres-v-madrid/

[Dan Schiavetta]

thanks -- good grief!

[SMP0328]

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)

Probably would be overruled by current Court if same type of plan came before it (see SFFA v. Harvard (2023)).

[Dan Schiavetta]

yes

[Brett Bellmore]

"that’s pretty much what affirmative action means"

That's pretty much what affirmative action means today. It's occasionally worth harking back to Kennedy's EO 10925, which actually directed that government contractors "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." That's where the original good will towards affirmative action derives, from it's origin as a determination to, as Roberts would have it, stop discrimination by simply stopping discriminating.

Just a few years later, Johnson issued EO 11246, which replaced Kennedy's ban on racial preferences of any sort with a system of numerical goals and timetables that could only be achieved by resorting to racial discrimination. The exact opposite of Kennedy's "affirmative action", under the same name.

These days the original meaning of affirmative action usually only appears as the motte in a motte and bailey defense of racial preferences.

[Magister]

Severance pay is treated the same as bonuses would be for withholding. Otherwise it would seem that taxes (on employee and employer) could be evaded for temporary employees by paying them only minimum wage and paying the rest due them as severance pay.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Seems unlikely that an employer would plan that strategy at the time of hire.

[Magister]

For a temporary employee? Maybe.