Ranking The Federal Courts On Transparency | Take A Wild Guess As To Which Court Comes In Last
November 19, 2019
HOW THEY STACK UP|
Fix the Court today released a comprehensive report analyzing how well the federal courts stack up when it comes to transparency. The report ranked the courts by awarding points for timely broadcast access, prompt release of calendars and opinions, frequency of public communications and implementation of judicial wellness and workplace conduct policies As FTC’s Executive Director GABE ROTH notes, SCOTUS comes in dead last — which should surprise literally no one. Roth says, “As our report demonstrates, other federal appeals courts are making strides across categories of openness and accountability, from wellness to workplace conduct to broadcast. Those lagging behind, including the Supreme Court, should learn from those ahead of the curve.”
WE NEED MORE TIME|
After catch SCOTUS yesterday gave itself a bit more time to make a decision as to whether the House Oversight and Reform Committee can see PRESIDENT TRUMP’S financial records. CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS temporarily put on hold a lower court ruling that would require Trump’s accounting firm to turn over eight years of his business and personal tax returns and financial records. The chief justice also ordered the committee’s lawyers to file papers on whether to grant a longer stay by Thursday. If the justices grant a longer stay, they will next consider whether to hear Mr. Trump’s appeal.
A CHANGE MAY SOON COME|
“Existing law is very bad for Trump in this case. It’s very clear under decades of Supreme Court precedents that the House can enforce this subpoena. So the stakes in Mazars are high. If Trump does prevail before the justices, that decision could inaugurate a new era of presidential immunity from oversight.” That’s Ian Millhiser with Vox explaining how the Supreme Court’s decision over Trump’s financial records could have an enormous impact on presidential immunity.
A CRACK IN THE ARMOR|
Perry Cooper and Adrianne Appel with Bloomberg Law note that the Supreme Court’s decision to allow Sandy Hook families to sue gun manufacturer Remington Arms Co. could inspire more victims of mass shootings to take action against the gun industry. They report, “The greatest effect, say some gun litigation experts interviewed by Bloomberg Law, may be psychological as the gun lobby, until now, has seemed invincible.”
SAY WHAT YOU MEAN, MEAN WHAT YOU SAY|
Lorelei Laird writes in Vox that justices will soon have the ability to uphold their commitment to the First Amendment when they review a case that concerns “a little-used provision of immigration law that forbids ‘encourag[ing] or induc[ing] an alien to…reside in the United States’ when the encourager knows that person has no legal status.” Laird argues that the case doesn’t provide a “national security fig leaf to hide behind, just a dispute about whether the statute means what it says.” Laird concludes, “What the court’s conservatives do about it will say a lot about their commitment to free speech.”