US Sotomayor to sit out Colorado 'faithless electors' Supreme Court case

01:05  11 march  2020
01:05  11 march  2020 Source:   nbcnews.com

Supreme Court set to hear critical abortion case

  Supreme Court set to hear critical abortion case Four years after striking down a Texas law it said created an "undue burden" on abortion access, the Supreme Court is poised to take up a similar challenge. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.getMedianetNativeAds(true); }); June Medical Services v. Russo (previously v. Gee) is a challenge from Louisiana abortion providers to a 2014 state law that requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor Recuses Herself from Upcoming Electoral College Case . This is a case involving the role of electors in the electoral college. Importantly, Sotomayor will still be involved in another faithless elector -related case , Chiafalo v. Washington .

The case — Colorado Department of State vs. Micheal Baca, et al. — will likely be heard in April and decided before the court ’s term ends in late June. “Unelected, unaccountable presidential electors shouldn’t be allowed to decide the presidential election without regard to voters’ choices and state law

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor will not participate next month when the court hears one of two cases that could change a key element of the system America uses to elect its president — the Electoral College.

Sonia Sotomayor sitting on a table: Portrait of Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor © Brooks Kraft Portrait of Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor

The court disclosed Tuesday that Sotomayor took herself off a case from Colorado involving a challenge to a state law directing how presidential electors must cast their votes because of a personal friendship with one of the challengers. That friend, Polly Baca, was one of three electors who argue that they ought to be able to vote for the candidate of their choice instead of the person who won the popular vote in the state — what's known as a "faithless elector."

Supreme Court to consider rights of asylum seekers

  Supreme Court to consider rights of asylum seekers The Supreme Court on Monday will consider a major case concerning the rights of some asylum seekers to challenge their expedited removal. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.getMedianetNativeAds(true); }); The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to reverse an opinion of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that would allow some individuals who have been denied asylum the opportunity to make a claim in federal court. If the opinion stands, it could open the courthouse doors to more asylum seekers.

The Supreme Court said Friday it will hear a case over whether presidential electors have to vote in accordance with their states ’ popular vote in the In the faithless elector case , advocates for the court 's intervention say the issue needs urgent resolution in an era of intense political polarization and

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a pair of cases on the issue of " faithless electors ," members of the Electoral College who choose not to The court granted the appeals in two cases out of Washington state and Colorado . Those cases challenge laws seeking to keep electors from

In a letter to the lawyers in the case, the Supreme Court's clerk, Scott Harris, said Sotomayor concluded that "her impartiality might reasonably be questioned due to her friendship with respondent Polly Baca." The letter said Sotomayor and her clerks failed to catch the potential conflict when the case was first brought to the court.

Baca, a former state senator, has been Sotomayor's friend for decades. Baca's sister and brother-in-law lived for a time in Sotomayor's New York apartment, and Baca herself had a prominent spot at the justice's Senate confirmation hearing.

However, Sotomayor will participate when the court hears a similar challenge from Washington state involving the same issue. The two cases will be argued April 28 and were originally to be considered in a single one-hour argument. On Tuesday, the court separated the cases and set an hour of argument for each case.

Ex-GOP lawmakers side with NY in Supreme Court case over Trump tax returns

  Ex-GOP lawmakers side with NY in Supreme Court case over Trump tax returns A group of former Republican lawmakers are supporting Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. in a case before the Supreme Court over New York prosecutors' grand-jury subpoena for President Trump's tax returns.In a brief filed Monday, the former Republican lawmakers - along with prominent Trump critics such as John Dean and George Conway - pushed back on the argument made by Trump's lawyers that presidents have sweeping immunity from the criminal process.

Twenty-two states have joined Colorado in requesting that the U.S. Supreme Court decide The case stems from the 2016 election, when three Democratic Party electors wanted to vote for Meanwhile, Washington State ’s top court ruled that its own faithless electors could be fined for not

Last May, the Washington state Supreme Court held that the state could regulate the vote of an elector either directly or indirectly, upholding a ,000 fine for the Clinton defectors. In August, a federal appeals court said a similar Colorado law was unconstitutional. Now, the Supreme Court will have

Sotomayor's recusal is unlikely to make any practical difference. Even if the justices turned out to be divided 5-4 in the Colorado case, her absence would result in a 4-4 tie, meaning the outcome would have no legal significance; her participation in the other case would count, however, and it would be the controlling decision.

More than half the states have laws requiring electors to obey the results of the popular state vote and cast their ballots accordingly. When an elector refuses to follow the results of a state's popular vote, the state usually simply throws the ballot away.

The cases before the Supreme Court involve faithless electors during the 2016 presidential election. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated Colorado's law requiring conformance with the popular vote. But faced with a similar challenge, Washington's Supreme Court upheld that state's similar law.

The nation's highest court ruled in 1952 that states do not violate the Constitution when they require electors to pledge that they will abide by the popular vote. But the justices have never said whether it is constitutional to enforce those pledges.

The court will issue its decision by late June.

Supreme Court says Trump administration may continue ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy for asylum seekers .
Justices overruled appeals court that said policy must be suspended because it is likely unlawfulThe justices reversed a decision of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had ordered the policy be suspended Thursday on parts of the border. Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only noted dissenter.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks
usr: 0
This is interesting!