FBA Luncheon at the Hyatt- Amy Howe SCOTUSblog

We were pleased to have Amy Howe of SCOTUSBlog return as a guest speaker for the third year in a row. As she has done in the past, Ms. Howe provided the crowd with an entertaining and informative discussion of cases pending before the Supreme Court of the United States this term. Among the cases highlighted in her discussion were King v. Burwell, Zivotofsky v. Kerry, and Yates v. United States. Links to the pages on SCOTUSBlog that are dedicated to these cases, and other cases discussed by Ms. Howe, are provided below along with the issues presented in these cases as noted on the SCOTUSBlog site. Amy also provided insight into cases that the Supreme Court may soon consider.

King v. Burwell, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/?wpmp_switcher=desktop (Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.)

Zivotofsky v. Kerry, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/zivotofsky-v-kerry/?wpmp_switcher=desktop (Whether a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in “Israel” on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport is unconstitutional on the ground that the statute “impermissibly infringes on the President’s exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him.”)

Yates v. United States, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/yates-v-united-states/?wpmp_switcher=desktop (Whether Mr. Yates was deprived of fair notice that destruction of fish would fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which makes it a crime for anyone who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object” with the intent to impede or obstruct an investigation, where the term “tangible object” is ambiguous and undefined in the statute, and unlike the nouns accompanying “tangible object” in section 1519, possesses no record-keeping, documentary, or informational content or purpose.)

Elonis v. United States, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elonis-v-united-states/?wpmp_switcher=desktop ((1) Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a “reasonable person” would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort; and (2) whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation, conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten.)

Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-democratic-conference-v-alabama/?wpmp_switcher=desktop (Whether Alabama’s effort to redraw the lines of each majority-black district to have the same black population as it would have using 2010 census data as applied to the former district lines, when combined with the state’s new goal of significantly reducing population deviation among districts, amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; and whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring such a constitutional claim.)

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/alabama-legislative-black-caucus-v-alabama/?wpmp_switcher=desktop (Whether Alabama’s legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts.)

Holt v. Hobbs, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/holt-v-hobbs/?wpmp_switcher=desktop (Whether the Arkansas Department of Corrections grooming policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U. S. C. § 2000cc et seq., to the extent that it prohibits petitioner from growing a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.)

2014-11-19 10:02:002014-11-19 10:02:00America/New_YorkFBA Luncheon at the Hyatt- Amy Howe SCOTUSblog_Federal Bar Association South Florida Chapterfederalbar.southflorida@gmail.com
  • Category: Bankers Club Luncheon
  • Date: November 19, 2014