Pubblicato in: Senza categoria

Suprema Corte castra la megalomania giuridica del 9° Circuito.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-14.

Supreme Court

I liberal democratici sono persone di innata ed intrinseca modestia e ritengono semplicemente di essere il Dio Creatore del Cielo e della Terra. Fanno eccezione i giudici da loro nominati nel Ninth Circuit, che ritengono di essere qualcosa di più.

Così giudici distrettuali ossia con giurisdizione di pochi kilometri quadrati, si sentono pienamente autorizzati ad affermare nelle sentenze che le leggi dello stato della California sostituiscono quelle federale, e va financo bene quando desistono dall’emettere un ordine esecutivo che estenda simile giudizio a tutti gli Stati Uniti.

Non applicano le leggi della federazione o quelle nazionali: emettono sentenze sulla base della loro propria ideologia.

Il caso Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. V. Newton è un esempio da manuale. Un caso apparentemente banale racchiude in sé un pungiglione velenoso, che può passare inosservato al profano ma certo non sfugge ai Giudici della Suprema Corte.

«The high court said that federal law applies to the workers and doesn’t require them to be paid for nonworking time spent at their work location on the Outer Continental Shelf. The workers had argued that California law, which would require them to be compensated for that time, should apply.»

«Justice Clarence Thomas said in an opinion that “federal law is the only law” that applies on the Outer Continental Shelf and “there has never been any overlapping state and federal jurisdiction there.»

*

Al di là della bega in oggetto, il giudice distrettuale del Nono Circuito aveva sentenziato

«California law …. should apply».

«federal law is the only law»

Questo è il vero nodo giuridico che se fosse passato, avrebbe posto de iure le leggi della California al di sopra di quelle federali. Questa sentenza avrebbe fatto giurisprudenza, costituendo un precedente.

Boccone invero troppo grosso per un pesciolino così piccolo come un giudice distrettuale ma che sotto l’Amministrazione Obama sarebbe stato recepito come trionfo della giustizia.

Ma adesso nella Suprema Corte siedono in maggioranza giudici che applicano le leggi in osservanza della costituzione.

* * * * * * *


2019-06-12__Supreme_Court__001

La Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti ha emesso sentenza sul caso

8-389 Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton (06/10/2019)

*

«Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. V. Newton

Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit

No. 18–389. Argued April 16, 2019—Decided June 10, 2019

Respondent Brian Newton worked for petitioner Parker Drilling Man-agement Services on drilling platforms off the California coast. New-ton was paid for his time on duty but not for his time on standby, during which he could not leave the platform. Newton filed a class action in state court, alleging, as relevant here, that California’s min-imum-wage and overtime laws required Parker to compensate him for his standby time. Parker removed the action to Federal District Court. The parties agreed that Parker’s platforms were subject to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), which provides that all law on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is federal law, adminis-tered by federal officials; denies States any interest in or jurisdiction over the OCS; and deems the adjacent State’s laws to be federal law only “[t]o the extent that they are applicable and not inconsistent with” other federal law, 43 U. S. C. §1333(a)(2)(A). The District Court concluded that the state laws relevant here should not be applied as federal law on the OCS because the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), a comprehensive federal wage-and-hour scheme, left no significant gap in federal law for state law to fill. It thus granted Parker judgment on the pleadings. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. It held that state law is “applicable” under the OCSLA if it pertains to the subject matter at issue, a standard satisfied by California wage-and-hour laws. It also held that those state laws were not “inconsistent” with federal law because they were not incompatible with the federal scheme. ….

It would thus make little sense to treat the OCS as a mere extension of the adjacent State, where state law applies unless it conflicts with federal law. That type of pre-emption analysis applies only where overlapping, dual state and federal jurisdiction makes it necessary to decide which law takes precedence. But federal law is the only law on the OCS and there is no overlapping state and federal jurisdiction, so the reference to “not inconsistent” state laws presents only the question whether federal law has already addressed the relevant is-sue. If so, state law on the issue is inapplicable. Pp. 5–8. ….

Because federal law already addresses this issue, California law does not provide the rule of deci-sion on the OCS. To the extent Newton’s OCS-based claims rely on that law, they necessarily fail. Likewise, to the extent his OCS-based claims rely on the adoption of California’s minimum wage, the FLSA already provides for a minimum wage, so the state minimum wage is not adopted as federal law and does not apply on the OCS. Pp. 14–15. ….

The parties agreed that Parker’s platforms were subject to the OCSLA. Their disagreement centered on whether the relevant California laws were “applicable and not inconsistent” with existing federal law and thus deemed to be the applicable federal law under the OCSLA. §1333(a)(2)(A). ….

The District Court applied Fifth Circuit precedent providing that under the OCSLA, “state law only applies to the extent it is necessary ‘to fill a significant void or gap’ in federal law.” ….

The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded. It first held that state law is “ ‘applicable’ ” under the OCSLA whenever it “pertain[s] to the subject matter at hand.” 881 F. 3d 1078, 1090, amended and reh’g en banc denied, 888 F. 3d 1085 (2018). The court found that California wage-and-hour laws satisfied this standard and turned to “the de-terminative question in Newton’s case” ….

In sum, the standard we adopt today is supported by the statute’s text, structure, and history, as well as our prece-dents. Under that standard, if a federal law addresses the issue at hand, then state law is not adopted as federal law on the OCS.»

* * * * * * *


Cnbc. 2019-06-11. Supreme Court rules against oil drilling platform workers

– The high court said that federal law applies to the workers and doesn’t require them to be paid for nonworking time spent at their work location on the Outer Continental Shelf. The workers had argued that California law, which would require them to be compensated for that time, should apply.

– Justice Clarence Thomas said in an opinion that “federal law is the only law” that applies on the Outer Continental Shelf and “there has never been any overlapping state and federal jurisdiction there.”

– The case before the Supreme Court involved Brian Newton, who worked on drilling platforms off California’s coast near Santa Barbara from 2013 to 2015.

*

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday against workers on oil drilling platforms off California who argued they should be paid for the off-work time they spend on the platform, including sleeping.

The high court said that federal law applies to the workers and doesn’t require them to be paid for nonworking time spent at their work location on the Outer Continental Shelf. The workers had argued that California law, which would require them to be compensated for that time, should apply.

Justice Clarence Thomas said in an opinion that “federal law is the only law” that applies on the Outer Continental Shelf and “there has never been any overlapping state and federal jurisdiction there.” The question, he said, was whether federal law addressed the question of off-work time spent on the oil rig. He said it did and didn’t require the workers to be paid.

The case before the Supreme Court involved Brian Newton, who worked on drilling platforms off California’s coast near Santa Barbara from 2013 to 2015. Like others living and working on the platform, he worked 14-day shifts, spending 12 hours working and 12 hours off work but on standby, where he could not leave the platform.

In 2015, Newton filed a class action lawsuit arguing that his former employer, Parker Drilling, was violating California law by, among other things, failing to pay workers for the time they spent on standby, including the time they spent sleeping.

In making their ruling, the justices had to grapple with a 1953 law called the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. It says federal law applies on the Outer Continental Shelf. But the law also says the laws of the adjacent state are federal law to the extent they are “applicable and not inconsistent” with other federal law. If “federal law applies to a particular issue, state law is inapplicable,” Thomas wrote.

The case is Parker Drilling Mgmt. Services v. Newton, 18-389.

Un pensiero riguardo “Suprema Corte castra la megalomania giuridica del 9° Circuito.

I commenti sono chiusi.