Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ong - Ngo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Corte Suprema ripristina le limitazioni alle richieste di asilo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-13.

Supreme Court

«Donald Trump incassa una vittoria sull’immigrazione alla corte suprema, a maggioranza repubblicana dopo le sue due nomine: ribaltando la decisione di una corte d’appello, i giudici hanno deciso di far entrare in vigore la nuova normativa governativa che vieta a gran parte degli immigrati centroamericani di chiedere asilo in Usa se durante il loro viaggio hanno attraversato Paesi terzi sicuri dove potevano avanzare la stessa istanza.

Due giudici, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Sonia Sotomayor, si sono dissociati.

“Grande vittoria alla corte suprema degli Stati Uniti per la frontiera sulla questione dell’asilo”: ha commentato Trump.

La nuova normativa entrerà in vigore finché prosegue la battaglia legale nel merito»

* * * * * * *

Questa è la documentazione rilasciata dalla Suprema Corte.

Aug 26 2019      Application (19A230) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Aug 27 2019      Response to application (19A230) requested by Justice Kagan, due Wednesday, September 4, 2019, by 3 p.m.

Sep 03 2019       Motion for leave to file amicus brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Immigration Reform Law Institute.

Sep 03 2019       Motion for leave to file amici brief and motion for leave to file brief in compliance with Rule 33.2 filed by Arizona, et al.

Sep 04 2019       Response to application from respondents East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, et al. filed.

Sep 04 2019       Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Non-Profit Organizations and Law School Clinics.

Sep 06 2019       Reply of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. filed.

Sep 10 2019       Supplemental brief of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. filed.

Sep 11 2019       Letter of applicants William P. Barr, Attorney General, et al. received.

* * * * * * *

Il problema è semplice e può essere visto da due punti di vista differenti.

Nel caso specifico, la Suprema Corte ha dichiarato legale la normativa governativa che preclude dal diritto di asilo i migranti illegali che abbiano transitato in altri stati ai quali avrebbero potuto rivolgersi in piena sicurezza. La Suprema Corte ribalta quindi le sentenze emesse sia dal giudice distrettuale sia da quello federale del Nono Circuito, che erano state emesse con valore applicativo su tutta la nazione.

Dal punto di vista generale, invece, si ripropone il quesito dei limiti entro i quali i giudici di livello inferiore possano emettere sentenze su dispositivi nazionali in materia francamente politica, sentenziando anche con argomentazioni politiche.

Non solo quindi un problema giuridico in sé e per sé, ma anche politico: mentre infatti il Presidente degli Stati Uniti è stato eletto da libere elezioni, i giudici sono semplici funzionari della pubblica amministrazione.

Se per il concetto di divisione dei poteri la politica dovrebbe astenersi dall’immettersi nelle procedure sentenziali, il potere giudiziario dovrebbe astenersi dal voler svolgere ruolo politico.

* * * * * * *

«The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for President Trump and his administration to enforce a ban on nearly all asylum seekers arriving at the southern border.»

«In a one-paragraph order, the justices by a 7-2 vote granted an emergency appeal from Trump administration lawyers and set aside decisions from judges in California who had blocked the president’s new rule from taking effect.»

«While it is not a final ruling on the issue, the decision is nonetheless a major victory for Trump and his effort to restrict immigration because it allows the asylum ban to be enforced at the southern border while the dispute wends its way through the courts. That potentially could last for the remainder of Trump’s current term in office.»

«Wednesday’s order is further evidence that Trump is changing how the Supreme Court works. Prior to 2017, it was rare for federal judges to issue nationwide orders that blocked actions of the federal government. And it was also rare for the high court to intervene in such pending cases with emergency orders, rather than holding oral arguments and releasing written decisions.»

«In late July, the justices cleared the way by a 5-4 vote for Trump to spend $2.5 billion from the military budget to pay for border wall construction. Congress had refused to appropriate the money, and a federal judge in Oakland and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco blocked the transfer.»

«U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar in San Francisco agreed and issued a nationwide injunction that barred enforcement of the new rule. The 9th Circuit Court upheld this order, but restricted its reach to California and Arizona.»

«U.S. Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court in late August in the case of Barr vs. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant. He urged the justices to lift the injunction and allow the new rule to take effect immediately. Doing so would “alleviate a crushing burden on the U.S. asylum system,” he said.»

* * * * * * *


 Barr v. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant (09/11/2019)

«SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No. 19A230.

 The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction andSeptember 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’spetition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the peti­tion, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.»

*


Trump lawyers ask Supreme Court to allow rule limiting asylum claims to go into effect nationwide. [2019-08-26]

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow a rule limiting asylum claims to go into effect nationwide while a lower court ruling blocking it is appealed.

A federal judge had blocked the Trump administration rule, which dramatically limits the ability of Central American migrants to claim asylum if they enter the US by land through Mexico, nationwide. Earlier this month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals dialed back the nationwide injunction, saying that it can only apply to migrants claiming asylum in California and Arizona, states that fall under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

In its filing Monday, the administration laid out its case for the rule, arguing that, among other things, it “alleviates a crushing burden on the US asylum system” and deters migrants from coming to the US.

“The injunction now in effect is deeply flawed and should be stayed pending appeal and pending any further proceedings in this Court,” the filing reads.

The Trump administration has rolled out a slew of policies in recent weeks to try to curb migration to the United States amid high border apprehension numbers. The solicitor general acknowledged the uptick in illegal border crossings in Monday’s filing.

The rule, which was issued from the departments of Justice and Homeland Security in July, would prohibit migrants who have resided in or traveled through a third country from seeking asylum in the US, therefore barring migrants traveling through Mexico from being able to claim asylum. The result would be a severe limiting of who’s eligible for asylum.

Immigrant advocacy groups have claimed the rule is unlawful and leaves migrants in harm’s way.

In his July ruling, US District Judge Jon Tigar, a Barack Obama nominee, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, wrote, “This new rule is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.”

“An injunction,” Tigar added, “would vindicate the public’s interest — which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate — in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors.”

The US District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a hearing in early September.

*


Supreme Court Allows Broad Enforcement of Asylum Limits

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States.

The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.

Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.

The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win.

“BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” Trump tweeted.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order. “Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.

The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.

That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.

The high-court action allows the administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.

Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing immigrant advocacy groups in the case, said: “This is just a temporary step, and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”


Usa: Corte suprema, ok a limiti asilo

Donald Trump incassa una vittoria sull’immigrazione alla corte suprema, a maggioranza repubblicana dopo le sue due nomine: ribaltando la decisione di una corte d’appello, i giudici hanno deciso di far entrare in vigore la nuova normativa governativa che vieta a gran parte degli immigrati centroamericani di chiedere asilo in Usa se durante il loro viaggio hanno attraversato Paesi terzi sicuri dove potevano avanzare la stessa istanza.

Due giudici, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Sonia Sotomayor, si sono dissociati.

“Grande vittoria alla corte suprema degli Stati Uniti per la frontiera sulla questione dell’asilo”: ha commentato Trump.

La nuova normativa entrerà in vigore finche’ prosegue la battaglia legale nel merito.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump e Nationwide Court Injunctions. – Bloomberg.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-02.

Supreme Court

Da un punto di vista strettamente giuridico l’Amministrazione Trump intende porre al giudizio della Suprema Corte il quesito se i giudici federali distrettuali possano o meno sentenziare ingiunzioni con effetto su tutto il territorio americano. L’Amministrazione sostiene che una Corte federale distrettuale dovrebbe avere potere solo nel distretto in cui opera ed in relazione al singolo caso su cui abbia emesso sentenza.

È un quesito giuridicamente di non poco conto, anche tenendo conto di come nel corso di più di due secoli si possano riscontrare sentenze non concordanti.

*

Il problema sarebbe limitati ad una interessante ma circoscritta problematica giuridica, se nel corso degli ultimi decenni, e massimamente negli ultimi due anni, i giudici federali distrettuali non avessero usato con crescente frequenza di questa opzione, prevalentemente per fini politici.

Nel caso dell’Amministrazione Trump, i giudici distrettuali, specie quelli del 9th Circuito, hanno sistematicamente bloccato gli Ordini Esecutivi del Presidente Trump, sicuri che intanto la relativa Corte di Appello era composta da giudici di nomina liberal. Poi il tutto approdava alla Suprema Corte che ristabiliva una certa quale legalità, ma l’azione politica era stata fatta e l’azione di governo bloccata per oltre un anno.

In passato, a dir di molti correttamente, le corti distrettuali si limitavano a rimandare alla Corte Suprema i giudizi di costituzionalità, e ciò non senza sensate ragioni giuridiche: esse non sono infatti corti costituzionali.

*

Adesso i tempi sono mutati.

Trump vs Liberal. Ultima battaglia per la vita o la morte nel generale silenzio.

La Procura Federale incrimina un giudice liberal per ‘conspiracy and obstruction’.

I liberal democratici sarebbero colpiti nella carne viva da un provvedimento del genere. Hanno fatto infatti largo uso delle sentenze politicizzate.

Intanto, almeno per il momento, hanno fatto scendere un ferreo silenzio stampa su questi argomenti, ma a cadenza settimanale pubblicano un editoriale la cui stesura è affidata a parti terze.

Di questi tempi è intervenuto il The New York Times, che riportiamo in extenso per completezza informativa.

Premettiamo che non ne condividiamo nemmeno una virgola.

Nota.

L’articolo riporta che le Nationwide Court Injunctions roiniziato ad essere usate a partire dagli anni sessanta. Vi sono tuttavia sentenze sull’argomento anche nei due secoli precedenti. Vedremo come la Suprema Corte le interpreterà nei Certiorari.

* * * * *

«Vice President Mike Pence says that the Trump administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to bar federal district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — the court orders that make the entire government stop enforcing a law or policy that one district judge finds is likely to be unconstitutional»

*

«But in the long run, nationwide injunctions are a powerful judicial tool to check the president and Congress, regardless of party»

*

«So you can expect the justices to think hard before taking that power away from lower courts — and effectively transferring it to themselves»

*

«Such injunctions didn’t appear in the U.S. until the 1960s, and even then were not widely accepted»

*

«They have become increasingly common in the past decade»

*

«Pence said in his speech that the Trump administration has been blocked by more nationwide injunctions than the previous presidents combined»

*

«The law professors against the injunctions (also sometimes called “universal” injunctions because they bind the government universally) point out that the decisions of individual federal district courts aren’t supposed to be binding on other jurisdictions. It’s anomalous for one judge in one place to issue a ruling that affects the whole country»

*

«The critics add that allowing nationwide injunctions leads litigants to cherry-pick judges whom they expect to be sympathetic to their cause»

*

«The leading legal defense of the injunctions is that there are some policies where it would simply make no sense for the law to be different in areas»

*

«What’s more, sometimes blocking a policy in one place effectively means blocking it everywhere»

*

«Members of Congress are pretty good at remembering that they won’t be the majority party forever»

*

«If the justices were to hold that the lower courts lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions, then there would be only one way for the courts to block a law nationwide: The Supreme Court would have to issue the injunction itself. After all, it’s the only court with a truly national jurisdiction»

* * * * * *

Apprezziamo il fatto che l’editoriale del The New York Times riporti i differenti punti di vista, ma soprattutto valutiamo essere proficuo che si siano usati finalmente toni calmi ed un linguaggio degno della profondità dell’argomento in esame.


Bloomberg. 2019-05-12. Trump Is Stuck With Nationwide Court Injunctions

The Supreme Court is unlikely to step in to stop the use of this powerful judicial tool because that would give the justices more work.

*

Vice President Mike Pence says that the Trump administration will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to bar federal district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions — the court orders that make the entire government stop enforcing a law or policy that one district judge finds is likely to be unconstitutional.

Such injunctions are always bad for the administration that’s in office, so you can understand why this Republican administration might think the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would be sympathetic to its request.

But in the long run, nationwide injunctions are a powerful judicial tool to check the president and Congress, regardless of party. So you can expect the justices to think hard before taking that power away from lower courts — and effectively transferring it to themselves.

Until Pence’s comments on Wednesday in a speech before the Federalist Society, the whole topic of nationwide injunctions was one that only law professors could really love. And love it we did. An important article appeared in the Harvard Law Review in 2017 arguing for reform of the practice. That led to commentary and discussion, including another important 2018 article in the New York University Law Review in defense of nationwide injunctions.

Law professors care about the structure of the whole legal system, and that emphasis shaped the legal analysis on both sides. Such injunctions didn’t appear in the U.S. until the 1960s, and even then were not widely accepted. They have become increasingly common in the past decade. Pence said in his speech that the Trump administration has been blocked by more nationwide injunctions than the previous presidents combined.

The law professors against the injunctions (also sometimes called “universal” injunctions because they bind the government universally) point out that the decisions of individual federal district courts aren’t supposed to be binding on other jurisdictions. It’s anomalous for one judge in one place to issue a ruling that affects the whole country. The critics add that allowing nationwide injunctions leads litigants to cherry-pick judges whom they expect to be sympathetic to their cause. That’s why conservatives went to Texas to get the Affordable Care Act blocked nationwide, and why liberals went to northern California and Washington State to go after President Donald Trump’s Muslim travel ban.

The leading legal defense of the injunctions is that there are some policies where it would simply make no sense for the law to be different in areas that happen to fall under the jurisdiction of different federal courts. Immigration is an obvious one. It would be very strange if different legal standards for admission applied at border crossings in Texas than in California.

What’s more, sometimes blocking a policy in one place effectively means blocking it everywhere. If Trump’s travel ban had been blocked in some places but not others, that presumably would have allowed people covered by the ban to travel to different ports of entry to get into the country.

The thing about this serious and earnest law professor debate is that it has a tendency to downplay the brutal power politics that infuse the question of nationwide injunctions. The real-world political question raised by the injunctions is who will win and who will lose if such injunctions are disallowed.

The answer is a little tricky. For one thing, nationwide injunctions are a tool used to go after the president and Congress. They are attractive to whichever party is out of power — to Republicans who lost the Obamacare fight in Congress to Democrats, and to Democrats who lost the presidential election to Trump.

That’s probably the reason that Congress hasn’t passed proposals to outlaw the injunctions. Members of Congress are pretty good at remembering that they won’t be the majority party forever. It’s a little risky to pass a law prohibiting a legal tool your side might need in the future.

When it comes to the Supreme Court, the conventional wisdom is that the justices are perfectly happy with the injunctions. Admittedly, their use has increased rapidly in recent years. But if the Supreme Court wants to overturn a given nationwide injunction, it can do so, provided there are five votes.

Under the current structure, then, the justices can leave nationwide injunctions in place and avoid taking responsibility for them. But they have a failsafe for injunctions they really don’t like; they can overturn them.

If the justices were to hold that the lower courts lack the power to issue nationwide injunctions, then there would be only one way for the courts to block a law nationwide: The Supreme Court would have to issue the injunction itself. After all, it’s the only court with a truly national jurisdiction.

That wouldn’t give the justices any extra power, because they can already issue nationwide injunctions. But it would give the justices more work.

They would have to field requests constantly for nationwide injunctions in cases that haven’t yet been resolved by the lower courts. (They are now asked to overturn nationwide injunctions when those are issued by lower courts, but aren’t plagued by ceaseless requests to issue such injunctions in the first place.)

The upshot is that, if they prohibit nationwide injunctions by the lower courts, the justices will be agreeing to place themselves more in the spotlight, without the plausible deniability that allows them to leave injunctions in place.

It’s conceivable that the current Supreme Court would be willing to take on that even more prominent role, in the expectation that the five conservative justices will be prepared to grant their own nationwide injunctions against Democratic presidents and deny them when it comes to Republican presidents.

Yet it isn’t totally clear that, from the court’s perspective, this higher profile role actually is worth the effort. Nationwide injunctions may survive the Trump administration’s hopes of getting the Supreme Court to do away with them.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Supreme Court. Gerrymanderings. Bocciate le sentenze dei giudici liberal.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-26.

2019-05-25__Gerrymanders__001

Supreme Court temporarily blocks rulings requiring new voting maps for Ohio and Michigan [Nbc]

«Lower courts had invalidated the GOP-friendly maps as partisan gerrymandering and ordered them redrawn before the 2020 election.»

*

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that invalidated, as partisan gerrymandering, Ohio’s map for congressional districts and Michigan’s maps for congressional and state legislative districts.

The high court’s orders put on hold efforts in both states to redraw their electoral maps ahead of the 2020 elections, a remedy ordered by the lower courts.

In the Ohio case, a three-judge panel ruled unanimously earlier this month that the district map drawn up by the Republican-controlled Legislature unconstitutionally discriminated against Democrats. “We are convinced by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional,” the ruling said.»

* * * * * *

Abbiamo già ampiamente riportato sul problema del gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering. Republicani e democratici si stanno scannando.

Ogni dieci anni, ovvero quando ne emergessero le necessità, gli stati hanno la possibilità di ridisegnare con una apposita legge i confini dei distretti elettorali, equiripartendo al meglio possibile la popolazione nei seggi. Il termine gerrymandering designa una mappa di distretto elettorale artatamente manipolata per ottenere un vantaggio elettorale.

Negli ultimi anni i liberal democratici hanno contestato la mappatura fatta da governi repubblicani, portando il tutto nanti corti federali ove sedessero giudici di eguale dottrina. Queste corti avevano immediatamente bloccato la mappatura, imponendo agli stati il ritorno al pristino.

Orbene, il tutto è finito davanti alla Suprema Corte, che ha cassato le sentenze emesse da quelle corti inferiori.

La faccenda è al momento tutt’altro che conclusa, ma l’orientamento della Suprema Corte sembrerebbe essere oramai definito.

Con la nomina delle loro Giustizie Mr Gorsuch e Mr Kavanaugh, Mr Trump ha ricostituito la Suprema Corte con giudici ligi e rispettosi della costituzione: l’epoca in cui i giudici liberal democratici imponevano la loro ideologia con sentenze tribunizie sembrerebbe andare al termine. È la fine dei processi alle intenzioni, dei processi politici, dell’uso partigiano delle corti di giustizia.

* * * * * * *

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that had ordered Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections after finding that the current districts were designed to illegally diminish the power of Democratic voters»

*

«The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to stay those decisions»

*

«The lower courts found that the electoral maps had been drawn to entrench the majority party in power, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.»

*

«While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case also challenges districts in the state legislature as well»

*

«Two other gerrymandering challenges are already pending at the Supreme Court, with rulings due by the end of June. In one case, Republican legislators in North Carolina are accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances in that state»

* * * * * * *

Entro qualche mese la Suprema Corte dovrà sentenziare su molte questioni che avrebbero dovuto essere oggetto di dibattito politico in sede congressuale. A seconda di come orienteranno il giudizio, il mondo potrebbe subire una mutazione.



Reuters. 2019-05-25. U.S. Supreme Court blocks redrawing of Ohio, Michigan electoral maps

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings ordering Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections, dealing a blow to Democrats who had argued that the electoral districts were intended to unlawfully diminish their political clout.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to put those decisions on hold, halting further action in the cases and the need to rework electoral district boundaries. The justices did not provide any explanation for their brief orders.

The lower courts found that the electoral maps in the two states had been drawn to entrench Republicans in power by manipulating boundaries in a way that reduced the voting clout of Democrats – a practice known as partisan gerrymandering – in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

But the action by the justices was not unexpected as they weigh two other gerrymandering cases – one from North Carolina and the other from Maryland – that could decide definitively whether federal judges have the power to intervene to curb partisan gerrymandering. The rulings in those cases, due by the end of June, are likely to dictate whether the legal challenges against the Ohio and Michigan electoral maps can move forward.

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings ordering Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections, dealing a blow to Democrats who had argued that the electoral districts were intended to unlawfully diminish their political clout.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to put those decisions on hold, halting further action in the cases and the need to rework electoral district boundaries. The justices did not provide any explanation for their brief orders.

The lower courts found that the electoral maps in the two states had been drawn to entrench Republicans in power by manipulating boundaries in a way that reduced the voting clout of Democrats – a practice known as partisan gerrymandering – in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

But the action by the justices was not unexpected as they weigh two other gerrymandering cases – one from North Carolina and the other from Maryland – that could decide definitively whether federal judges have the power to intervene to curb partisan gerrymandering. The rulings in those cases, due by the end of June, are likely to dictate whether the legal challenges against the Ohio and Michigan electoral maps can move forward.

In the North Carolina case, Republican legislators were accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances. In the Maryland, Democratic lawmakers faced similar allegations over one U.S. House district.

The Ohio and Michigan lawsuits accused Republican-controlled legislatures in the two states of discriminating against Democratic voters for their political views in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal treatment under the law and freedom of association.

Critics have said that gerrymandering, a feature of U.S. politics for generations, has become increasingly extreme and effective at advancing the interests of a political party as a result of precise voter data and powerful computer technology, illegally shaping the outcome of elections.

The Supreme Court has previously intervened when legislators impermissibly sought to dilute the voting power of racial minorities, but it has never curbed gerrymandering for purely partisan purposes.

The Michigan and Ohio lawsuits were filed by voting rights groups and individual Democratic voters. Nine U.S. House and 25 state legislative districts were at issue in Michigan, while Ohio’s case involved 16 U.S. House districts.

A three-judge panel in Detroit on April 25 ruled in the Democratic voters’ favor in the Michigan case, calling gerrymandering a “pernicious practice that undermines our democracy,” and ordered state officials to draw new maps by Aug. 1.

A three-judge panel in Cincinnati on May 3 sided with the Democratic voters in the Ohio case, and ordered the state to create a plan to fix the map by June 14.

Electoral districts are typically redrawn once a decade after the U.S. census to reflect population changes. In many states, the party in power controls the map-making.

*


MSN. 2019-05-25. U.S. Supreme Court blocks redrawing of Ohio, Michigan electoral maps

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that had ordered Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections after finding that the current districts were designed to illegally diminish the power of Democratic voters.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to stay those decisions. The lower courts found that the electoral maps had been drawn to entrench the majority party in power, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case also challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

Two other gerrymandering challenges are already pending at the Supreme Court, with rulings due by the end of June. In one case, Republican legislators in North Carolina are accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances in that state. In the other case, Democratic lawmakers in Maryland face similar allegations over one U.S. House district.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Ginsburg. Sua Giustizia non è presente alle discussioni del lunedì.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-01-07.

2018-12-21__Grinzburg__001

«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t attending Monday’s arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court as she recovers from cancer surgery, marking the first time she has missed an argument session since she joined the court in 1993»

*

«Ginsburg, 85, will participate in the cases from home using the briefs and transcripts, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told reporters»

*

«Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, had surgery Dec. 21 to remove two cancerous growths from her left lung»

*

«Ginsburg’s well-being is of intense interest to liberals concerned that President Donald Trump might get the chance to nominate her successor»

*

«That could further entrench the court’s conservative majority.»

* * * * * * * *

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Misses Supreme Court Arguments [New York Times]

«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who underwent cancer surgery last month, was missing from the bench on Monday for the Supreme Court’s first arguments since the court returned from its four-week holiday break»

*

«Justice Ginsburg, 85, is the senior member of the court’s four-member liberal wing. President Trump has appointed two new members to the Supreme Court, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, moving it considerably to the right.»

*

«Should he name Justice Ginsburg’s replacement, Republican appointees would outnumber Democratic ones six to three.»

*

Ruth Bader Ginsburg not on bench for Supreme Court’s first day of arguments in 2019, court says [CNN]

«Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will not be at the Supreme Court Monday morning as it meets for its first day of oral arguments in the new year.

The court’s public information officer said Ginsburg, who is still recovering from surgery last month to remove two cancerous nodules from her lung, would still be able to vote on the cases by reviewing the transcripts of oral arguments»

*

«Ginsburg’s absence came midway through the term as the justices will consider petitions concerning some of President Donald Trump’s most controversial policies, including the phase-out of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and his ban on most transgender individuals from serving in the military.»

* * * * * * * *

Auguriamo a Sua Giustizia Ginsburg di ristabilirsi prontamente,

Notiamo come Bloomberg abbia ben altre preoccupazioni della sua salute:

«Should he name Justice Ginsburg’s replacement, Republican appointees would outnumber Democratic ones six to three.»

Notiamo anche come per Bloomberg fosse di grande importanza la causa della Merck & Co., mentre per la Cnn il punto focale sarebbe stato il programma di ricongiungimento dei minori ed il problema dei transgender nell’esercito.


Bloomberg. 2019-01-07. Ginsburg Missing Arguments for First Time on Supreme Court

– She’ll participate using briefs, transcripts, spokeswoman says

– Ginsburg, 85, still recuperating after Dec. 21 cancer surgery

*

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t attending Monday’s arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court as she recovers from cancer surgery, marking the first time she has missed an argument session since she joined the court in 1993.

Ginsburg, 85, will participate in the cases from home using the briefs and transcripts, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told reporters. The court is hearing two cases today, including a Merck & Co. appeal on patient lawsuits, plus three more cases later in the week.

Ginsburg, the leader of the court’s liberal wing, had surgery Dec. 21 to remove two cancerous growths from her left lung. She had twice before been treated for other types of cancer — colon and pancreatic — but didn’t miss an argument session during either treatment.

Chief Justice John Roberts said at the start of Monday’s session that Ginsburg “is unable to be present today” but will take part in the cases.

Ginsburg’s well-being is of intense interest to liberals concerned that President Donald Trump might get the chance to nominate her successor. That could further entrench the court’s conservative majority.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Trump

Trump ripristina la libertà religiosa negli Stati Uniti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-10-09.

Donald Trump photographed at Trump Tower in NYC
Donald Trump photographed at the Trump Tower on 5th Ave. in Manhattan, NYC on Monday, September 21, 2015. (Damon Winter/ The New York Times)

L’Office of the Attorney General ha rilasciato il sei ottobre il

Memorandum For All Component Heads And United States Attorneys

unitamente al

Memorandum For All Executive Depart Nts And Agencies.

Implementation  of  Memorandum on Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty.

*

«The President has instructed me to issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in federal law. Exec. Order 13798, § 4 (May 4, 2017). Pursuant to that instruction and consistent with my authority to provide advice and opinions on questions of law to the Executive Branch, I have undertaken a review of the primary sources for federal protection of religious liberty in the United States, along with the case law interpreting such sources. I also convened a series of listening sessions, seeking suggestions regarding the areas of federal protection for religious liberty most in need of clarification or guidance from the Attorney General.

Today, I sent out a memorandum to the heads of all executive departments and agencies summarizing twenty principles of religious liberty and providing an appendix with interpretive guidance of federal-law protections for religious liberty to support those principles.»

*

In estrema sintesi, ha ripristinato negli Stati Uniti la libertà religiosa, prima proibita. Adesso ci si può fare il Segno della Croce in pubblico, senza finire in galera. Oppure appendere un Crocefisso alla parete di casa.

*

Immediata la rabbiosa risposta dei liberal democratici. Tutta da leggersi.

«In September, both Trump and Pence tweeted their support for Roy Moore, the newly nominated Republican candidate for senator from Alabama, who said in 2005 that “homosexual conduct should be illegal.”»

*

«One of the administration’s most concerted campaigns, though, is turning out to be against the US’s 10 million lesbian, gay, and transsexual citizens.»

*

«The latest move came this week, when US attorney general Jeff Sessions reversed an Obama-era policy protecting transgender people from workplace discrimination. His Justice Department (DOJ), he said, will no longer treat Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act—which bans discrimination on the basis of sex—as covering transgender people. “Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se,” Sessions wrote to US attorneys across the country in a memo obtained by BuzzFeed.»

*

«It’s not clear what impact this change will have. It means the DOJ won’t take the side of transgender people in Title VII lawsuits—but the government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission still does, and the EEOC website lists a string of cases in which federal courts have agreed. The DOJ’s new stance “conflicts with years of interpretation from both the U.S. Supreme Court and federal circuit courts,” Human Rights Watch’s legal director, Sarah Warbelow, said in a statement.»

*

«With a tweet in July, Trump announced that he’d halt his predecessor’s plan to start recruiting openly transgender troops. (He left the military the choice not to discharge those who are already serving, and so far it seems to be following that policy.) In September, the DOJ sided with a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a marriage between two men, in a court case that civil-rights activists worry could open the door for many businesses not to serve gay customers.»

* * *

E così, mentre la Korea del Nord costruisce missili balistici in grado di colpire gli Stati Uniti, i liberal democratici hanno portato davanti alla Suprema Corte il caso di Mr. Jack Phillips: “Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Di cosa deve occuparsi la Corte Suprema su istanza dei liberal democratici? Spionaggio russo in America? Fusione di holding internazionali? Elusione da parte delle multinazionali? Certamente no.

«Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, in his store in Lakewood, Colo., in 2014, is at the center of a case headed to the Supreme Court over whether he can refuse to make cakes for same-sex couples for religious reasons.»

Mr Jack Phillips, pasticciere, aveva negato la vendita di una torta ad un coppia gay.

Come si vede, questo è il classico caso di cui debba occuparsi la Corte Suprema.

Non ci si lamenti poi se un bel giorno nello studio ovale si siederà Mr Putin a parlare amichevolmente con Mr Xi. Di certo i liberal democratici a quei tempi saranno richiusi in luogo confacente: il manicomio criminale.


The United States Department of Justice. 2017-10-06. Attorney General Sessions Issues Guidance On Federal Law Protections For Religious Liberty

Attorney General Sessions today issued guidance to all administrative agencies and executive departments regarding religious liberty protections in federal law and made the following statement:

“Our freedom as citizens has always been inextricably linked with our religious freedom as a people. It has protected both the freedom to worship and the freedom not to believe. Every American has a right to believe, worship, and exercise their faith. The protections for this right, enshrined in our Constitution and laws, serve to declare and protect this important part of our heritage.

“As President Trump said, ‘Faith is deeply embedded into the history of our country, the spirit of our founding and the soul of our nation . . . [this administration] will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore.’

“The constitutional protection of religious beliefs and the right to exercise those beliefs have served this country well, have made us one of the most tolerant countries in the world, and have also helped make us the freeist and most generous. President Trump promised that this administration would ‘lead by example on religious liberty,’ and he is delivering on that promise.”

The memorandum was issued pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13798 (May 4, 2017), which directed the Attorney General to “issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law” in order “to guide all agencies in complying with relevant Federal law.”

The guidance interprets existing protections for religious liberty in Federal law, identifying 20 high-level principles that administrative agencies and executive departments can put to practical use to ensure the religious freedoms of Americans are lawfully protected. Attorney General Sessions also issued a second memorandum to the Department of Justice, directing implementation of the religious liberty guidance within the Department.

 

Quarz. 2017-10-06. The Trump administration is systematically dismantling the rights of 10 million LGBT Americans

Since Donald Trump took the oath of office on January 20, the White House has taken aim at various groups. It took on Muslims, targeting a travel ban at them as Trump taunted world leaders coping with terrorism. It went after women’s rights, seeking to limit abortions and birth control in the US and worldwide, and weakened rules designed to enforce equal pay by employers.

One of the administration’s most concerted campaigns, though, is turning out to be against the US’s 10 million lesbian, gay, and transsexual citizens.

The latest move came this week, when US attorney general Jeff Sessions reversed an Obama-era policy protecting transgender people from workplace discrimination. His Justice Department (DOJ), he said, will no longer treat Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act—which bans discrimination on the basis of sex—as covering transgender people. “Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity per se,” Sessions wrote to US attorneys across the country in a memo obtained by BuzzFeed.

It’s not clear what impact this change will have. It means the DOJ won’t take the side of transgender people in Title VII lawsuits—but the government’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission still does, and the EEOC website lists a string of cases in which federal courts have agreed. The DOJ’s new stance “conflicts with years of interpretation from both the U.S. Supreme Court and federal circuit courts,” Human Rights Watch’s legal director, Sarah Warbelow, said in a statement.

It’s also not clear where the policy is emanating from. Trump himself hasn’t generally expressed the animus towards LGBT people that he’s shown for Mexicans, Muslims, and women, and sometimes quite the opposite—promising, for instance, to protect the community after a gunman killed 49 people in a Florida nightclub during his election campaign. But Sessions and vice president Mike Pence are strongly conservative Christians, and the administration has taken several anti-LGBT measures.

In March, the department of Health and Human Services stopped including a question about sexual orientation on an annual survey about its services to the elderly, and the Census Bureau appeared to shelve a plan to start including sexual orientation in the upcoming 2020 census. In June, the White House failed to acknowledge Gay Pride month, and nominated an anti-gay lawyer to be a federal judge.

With a tweet in July, Trump announced that he’d halt his predecessor’s plan to start recruiting openly transgender troops. (He left the military the choice not to discharge those who are already serving, and so far it seems to be following that policy.) In September, the DOJ sided with a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a marriage between two men, in a court case that civil-rights activists worry could open the door for many businesses not to serve gay customers.

In September, both Trump and Pence tweeted their support for Roy Moore, the newly nominated Republican candidate for senator from Alabama, who said in 2005 that “homosexual conduct should be illegal.” Moore “sounds like a really great guy,” Trump wrote, while Pence said he was “thrilled” Moore was nominated.

The White House said later that Trump doesn’t agree (paywall) with Moore’s position on homosexuality, but that’s hard to tell from the administration’s actions.