Subscript Law

Two legal proceedings regarding President Trump’s tax records have reached the Supreme Court. This report clarifies the disputes and their statuses at the Supreme Court. Trump V. Vance Who is requesting the records? New York State prosecutors are requesting Trump’s financial records from Mazars, Trump’s accounting firm.   What do they want the records for? The NY prosecutors want the financial records so they can investigate whether “several individuals and entities have committed criminal violations of New York law.” Court records indicate the prosecutors have not specifically identified Trump as one of the individuals they are criminally investigating.   What are Trump’s arguments against the order to release the records? Trump argues the prosecutors want the financial records to criminally investigate him. Under federal law, the President is immune from state criminal proceedings, so Trump’s accounting firm does not have to obey the request under NY state crimin...

Argument: November 12, 2019 Petitioner Brief : DHS, et al. Respondent Briefs : California, et al. , Regents, et al. , D.C. , New York, et al. , DACA Recipients, et al. Courts below: U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Second Circuit and D.C. Circuit. The legal battle over DACA: A Preview This week the Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments on legal issues related to a highly controversial action by the Trump administration. The federal government declared it will cut the federal DACA program which gives certain undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship in the United States. Three lawsuits challenging the decision to terminate DACA have reached the Supreme Court, and the Justices will address the legal issues together. What is Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals? Deferred action for childhood arrivals (“DACA”) is a program that permits undocumented people to apply for work authorization and protection from deportation in two-year increments. The Obama a...

Argument: November 4, 2019 Petitioner Brief : Kansas Respondent Briefs : Charles Glover Supreme Court of Kansas Did the patrol officer make a fair assumption in pulling Glover over? The Fourth Amendment prohibits patrol officers from stopping just any car on the street. But if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” of a crime however — even a traffic violation — he has the right. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide if Sheriff Deputy Mark Mehrer had “reasonable suspicion” when he pulled over a truck. In the case, Officer Mehrer pulled over a truck even though he hadn’t seen the driver break any rules. Mehrer had run the truck’s license plate, learned that the truck was licensed to Charles Glover, Jr., and then saw that Charles Glover, Jr.’s license had been revoked. So Mehrer assumed Glover was driving and pulled the truck over. The officer did not attempt to confirm the identity of the driver before making the stop. It turned out that Charles Glover, Jr. was driving,...

Arguments: October 8, 2019 Altitude Express v. Zarda (briefs on sexual orientation) ( Second Circuit opinion ) Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (briefs on sexual orientation) ( Eleventh Circuit opinion ) R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC/ Stephens (briefs on gender identity) ( 6th Circuit opinion ) Decisions: TBA Is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity sex discrimination? The Supreme Court is set to hear three cases this term to decide whether Title VII’s protections against sex discrimination include discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Key Terms What is sexual orientation? A person’s sexual orientation refers to the sex or gender of the people that a person is romantically and sexually attracted to.  The most common sexual orientations are heterosexual (an attraction to people of a different sex), homosexual (an attraction to people of the same sex), and bisexual (an attraction t...

Argument: December 2, 2019 Petitioner Brief : New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al Respondent Briefs : City of New York, et al Court below: United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit Supreme Court wants a piece of the NYC gun rights case Up until a couple of months ago, New York City laws prevented licensed gun owners from traveling outside the City with their handguns. A handgun owner who only had a “premises” license only could travel with the gun to one of several authorized shooting ranges in the City. The City allowed a few limited exceptions for taking the gun elsewhere, like to a gunsmith or to hunt just outside of the City, but the licensee would have to get written permission from the Police Department. Generally, though, the laws made clear that handguns are for self-defense in the home, and traveling with the gun is only for training at designated places within the City. NYC had reasons for doing this. For safety, of course. As NYC tells th...

Google and other cool technology companies have set the employee-keep-happy standards in Silicon Valley. Games, yoga, personal time. These fit into the companies’ shareholder obligations, which despite the do-gooder pretense , always come back to profit. That’s what the invisible hand is all about, right? It’s actually in the company’s best interest to treat employees well because then the company attracts good employees and keeps them happy, which increases worker productivity, in turn increasing profitability and sales, and then more sales follow because the company can market its good reputation. But there are a few things that distinguish employees of cool tech companies from, say, those of an auto manufacturer. It’s the skills of the workers, and their choices in employment. Actually, if you want to make a complete list, you can look at the factors that create employer monopsony power : There is only one main employer in a particular region / industry. Workers have no choic...

Argument: March 26, 2019 Final Rule: August 14, 2019 Complaint: August 16, 2019 Plaintiffs: California, et al Defendants: DHS, et al. Court below: Northern District of California Four States and D.C. ask a federal judge to block the government’s “Public Charge Rules” For a long time federal immigration law has allowed the government to disqualify someone from immigration into the United States if that person is likely to be a “public charge.” In essence, the provision allows the government to deny immigration to people who will cost the government too much money. That rule exists in law. The current federal agencies haven’t changed that law, but they have changed how it will be enforced. The Department of Homeland Security has just finalized new rules that will be taking on a new interpretation of “public charge.” And they’ll be defending the new rules in court. California leads a group of states and Washington D.C. in a lawsuit challenging the new rules on a number of ...