DREAM ON, DREAM ON | SCOTUS Stays Out Of DACA Fight For Now | Will Justices Do Away With Unions?
February 26, 2018
DREAM ON, DREAM ON
|The Supreme Court announced today that it won’t be helping PRESIDENT TRUMP speed up the end of DACA. In a blow to the Trump administration, SCOTUS said without any published dissent that it won’t hear an appeal to a ruling that keeps the program in place. Mr. Trump had ended the program back in September but two judges have since ordered the administration maintain major pieces of the program while legal challenges move forward. Today’s decision was somewhat expected as the high court rarely accepts appeals asking them to bypass lower courts, and it will likely relieve some political pressure on lawmakers looking to permanently address the status of Dreamers in this country.
A POLITICAL NIGHTMARE
|In The Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin explains what today’s SCOTUS decision on DACA means for the Trump administration, Congress and the future of immigration policy as it pertains to the nearly 800,000 Dreamers living in this country. She writes, “Trump and the anti-immigrant far right took a victory lap when the president’s veto threat helped quash the only viable bill to provide relief for the dreamers. Now, however, they face a political nightmare. If they do nothing and the court injunctions lift, they’ll be faced with the prospect that the midterms will come amidst poignant scenes of family separation. Just like the teenagers from Parkland, Fla., have demolished the National Rifle Association’s media spin, sympathetic dreamers who have spent virtually their whole lives in the United States will be on TV nonstop describing their contributions to America and their loyalty to this country. It’s one more political nightmare, especially for Republicans running in states such as Nevada, Florida, California and Arizona, where mobilized Hispanic voters can deliver knockout punches to the anti-DACA party.”
LET'S CUT TO THE CHASE
|“You’re basically arguing: Do away with unions.” That was JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR in court today where the justices heard some seriously fiery arguments in a case that could remove revenue from public-sector unions and significantly reduce their political power. The court seemed sharply divided, with the key decision-maker in this case likely to be none other than JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH. The court is revisiting a longstanding, 40-year-old ruling that says public employees who don’t join unions can still be required to pay partial fees to help cover the costs of negotiating and administering the contract that the non-union employees benefit from, too. That precedent has long troubled anti-union, conservative critics and now it might be gone for good.
GORSUCH KEEPS HUSH HUSH
|Despite all the hubbub in today’s arguments over public-sector unions, there was one crucial voice that remained silent. JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH — who will no doubt be the tie-breaking vote in the case — didn’t say a word. Could this mean the conservative majority isn’t ready to rule that forcing workers to support public unions violates their First Amendment rights? Maybe not if you were watching JUSTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY who was coming in real hot this morning. Hostile to the unions’ position, he repeatedly tore into lawyers representing California and a major union defending the “fair share” practice.
TOP-ED — THE UNION'S FIGHT IS NOT MY FIGHT
|In USA Today, Mark Janus — the plaintiff in today’s case against public unions — shares his side of the story. He doesn’t believe he should have to pay for unions to advocate for policies that are counter to his own views. “The union says it is advocating for me, but here is how I see it: At a time when Illinois is drowning in red ink and does not have the money to deliver core services, such as caring for the poor and disadvantaged, the union is wrangling taxpayers for higher wages and pension benefits for state workers — benefits that Illinoisans cannot afford. The union’s fight is not my fight.”
DOUBLE THE TROUBLE
|“The many descriptions bestowed on FANE LOZMAN over the years include political gadfly, relentless opponent of public corruption, and bored rich guy always spoiling for a fight. If every town has a you-can’t-shut-me-up activist who second-guesses council members and dominates the public comments portions of meetings, few have elevated the art like Lozman.” That’s Robert Barnes with The Washington Post reporting on the man who has been the subject of Supreme Court review not once, but twice. Tomorrow, the court will hear arguments in a case that will have nationwide implications for citizens arrested by government officials they criticize.
CAN'T TIE ME DOWN
|FANE LOZMAN returns to SCOTUS because in 2006 he was arrested at a City Council meeting when he refused to stop complaining about political corruption. Tomorrow’s arguments promise to be a showdown over First Amendment protections as Lozman has now earned the support of media organizations and some of the most ardent protectors of free speech rights.
BIG BROTHER AT SCOTUS
|Also tomorrow, justices will hear a case that could have far-reaching implications for law enforcement access to digital data and for U.S. companies that store customer emails in servers overseas. The case — more than five years in the making — pits the U.S. government’s demands for the right to obtain digital data held anywhere in the world against privacy campaigners’ push for limits on that access. It also comes as the U.S. and European Union remain at loggerheads over how to handle people’s sensitive digital information, everything from search queries to corporate payroll data.
OTHER NEWS
Supreme Court Janus Case Is Bigger Than Unions. Upward Mobility Is At Stake.
USA Today“Our nation’s unions have played an indispensable role in providing millions of families with a road to the middle class. If the Supreme Court rules against unions in Janus, it will be ruling against America’s middle class.”
How Today's Big Supreme Court Case On Public-Sector Unions Could Lead To A Fiscal Crisis
The Washington Post“Such a ruling would weaken unions by reducing their revenue and limiting their bargaining power. But here is what has been going on under the radar. Janus could affect an important state government obligation: paying post-employment benefits other than pensions — primarily health-care coverage — to retired public workers.”
At Least 18 States Are Looking Into Changes In The Way They Draw Congressional And Legislative Districts
Los Angeles Times“Responding to complaints about partisan gerrymandering, a significant number of states this year are considering changing the criteria used to draw congressional and state legislative districts or shifting the task from elected officials to citizen commissions. The proposals, being advanced both as ballot initiatives and legislation, are part of a larger battle between the political parties to best position themselves for the aftermath of the 2020 Census, when more than 400 U.S. House districts and nearly 7,400 state legislative districts will be redrawn.”
The Second Amendment Is No Barrier To Stricter Gun Laws
New York Magazine“But Scalia’s own opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller — his greatest originalist achievement, in the view of many — left ample room for the regulation of firearms. In a passage that has become a thorn in the side of gun-rights enthusiasts, Scalia warned that people shouldn’t read too much into the fundamental right that he had just helped announce.”