TODAY IN HISTORY DRED SCOTT DECIDED | Trump Administration Gets Behind Sales Taxes Appeal | Old Legal Theory Finds New Life
March 6, 2018
TODAY IN HISTORY
|On this day in 1857, the United States Supreme Court ruled that all African Americans — slaves and free persons — could never become citizens. The ruling also invalidated the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and permitted slavery in every federal territory. Andrew Glass with POLITICO covers this important moment in our shared history when SCOTUS decided the Dred Scott case.
TRUMP FOR MORE TAXES?
|Yesterday the Trump administration backed an appeal at the Supreme Court from South Dakota and said that states should be able to require online retailers to collect sales taxes. South Dakota wants the justices to overturn a 1922 decision that said companies with no physical presence in a state are not required to collect a state sales tax on purchases. In his brief filed with the high court, SOLICITOR GENERAL NOEL FRANCISCO said, “In light of Internet retailers’ pervasive and continuous virtual presence in the states where their websites are accessible, the states have ample authority to require those retailers to collect state sales taxes owed by their customers.”
ED BOARD OVERTURE
|The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times doesn’t think Americans need to follow a dress code to vote. The Ed Board reacts to last week’s SCOTUS arguments that brought into question whether folks can wear political attire to polling places and the LAT has an idea for how SCOTUS should rule. “A better line to draw would prohibit active electioneering at a polling place — by accosting or intimidating other voters, say, or handing out literature — while allowing the silent advocacy of a shirt bearing a political message (even “Vote for Candidate X”) or a political button. That approach not only would show a greater respect for free speech; it also would recognize that voters are increasingly casting ballots by mail or dropping them off at early-voting centers, making the concerns about political messaging at polling places less meaningful.”
NEW DEAL? NO DEAL
|In his latest, Mark Joseph Stern with Slate writes that the Supreme Court might revive a legal theory that was last used to strike down New Deal laws in 1935. He says it’s something progressives don’t need to worry about just yet, but it’s worth keeping an eye on.
OTHER NEWS
With Supreme Court Challenge, Tech Billionaire Could Dismantle Beach Access Rights — And A Landmark Coastal Law
Los Angeles Times“The California Coastal Act for decades has scaled back mega-hotels, protected wetlands and, above all, declared that access to the beach was a fundamental right guaranteed to everyone. But that very principle could be dismantled in the latest chapter of an all-out legal battle that began as a local dispute over a locked gate. On one side, property owner and Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla wants Martins Beach, a secluded crescent-shaped stretch of sand and bluffs, to himself. On the other, generations of beachgoers demand continued access to a path long used by the public.”
Justices Urged To See Political Impact Of Pennsylvania Voting Case
Constitution Daily“Two prominent leaders in Republican politics have urged the Supreme Court to consider the Pennsylvania redistricting case as a part of this year’s intense political battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives – an issue outside the constitutional issues at stake.”