Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court ruled for a criminal defendant on what counts as a “crime of violence,” in a decision that affects federal gun cases with ...

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch said no element of attempted Hobbs Act robbery requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force. In separate dissents, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito said they would have reversed the Fourth Circuit’s decision. “Mr. Taylor may be lawfully subject to up to 20 years in federal prison for his Hobbs Act conviction. Breaking with other circuits, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated Taylor’s 924(c) conviction. The Hobbs Act punishes robbery or extortion affecting interstate or foreign commerce. In a 7-2 decision, the court held an attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a “crime of violence” because no element of the offense requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force.

With just 13 decisions left on the docket, the Supreme Court still has yet to weigh in on major cases about abortion, climate law and gun control.

You may click on “Your Choices” below to learn about and use cookie management tools to limit use of cookies when you visit NPR’s sites. If you click “Agree and Continue” below, you acknowledge that your cookie choices in those tools will be respected and that you otherwise agree to the use of cookies on NPR’s sites. NPR’s sites use cookies, similar tracking and storage technologies, and information about the device you use to access our sites (together, “cookies”) to enhance your viewing, listening and user experience, personalize content, personalize messages from NPR’s sponsors, provide social media features, and analyze NPR’s traffic.

The 6-3 ruling is the latest move by the conservative court to expand religious liberty rights and bring more religion into public life.

"We are thrilled that the Court affirmed once again that religious discrimination will not be tolerated in this country," Shackleford said in a statement. It is a loss for critics who say the decision will amount to a further erosion of the separation between church and state. "Maine's 'nonsectarian' requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Virginia man who is seeking to challenge one of his convictions for using a firearm in an attempted robbery.

The Supreme Court subsequently decided cases that narrowed the definition of a "crime of violence" under the law. So called "crime of violence" charges trigger increased sentences under federal law. The unnamed co-conspirator, armed with a semiautomatic pistol, shot and killed Sylvester.

The Supreme Court decides in favor of an insurer in a case focused on reimbursement rates for kidney dialysis.

And so a plan singling out dialysis for disfavored coverage ‘differentiates in the benefits it provides between individuals having end stage renal disease and other individuals,’” they wrote. "Dialysis patients deserve better, and we’ll continue to advocate for patient choice in care and coverage.” “And neither the statute nor DaVita supplies an objective benchmark or comparator against which to measure a plan’s coverage for outpatient dialysis.” “Group health plans cover services for many different health issues at varied rates. DaVita argued the plan violated that statute. Congressional intent was to keep health plans from forcing kidney disease patients into Medicare.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled an employer health plan didn't violate Medicare secondary payer rules by requiring patients to pay high out-of-pocket costs for ...

And so a plan singling out dialysis for disfavored coverage 'differentiate[s] in the benefits it provides between individuals having end stage renal disease and other individuals' " in a way that is not permitted under the MSPA. As for other relevant federal statutes, Heptig said that differences in coverage specific to a disability such as ESRD are permissible under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) if "based on risk factors determined by actuarial calculations or experience." DaVita, part of UnitedHealth Group's Optum division, argued that the employee health benefits plan at Marietta Memorial Hospital in Marietta, Ohio, violated the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA) by treating all dialysis providers as out-of-network and reimbursing them at the lowest-level rate. DaVita Inc., rejecting a claim from DaVita Inc., one of the nation's largest dialysis providers, that the health plan's low reimbursement rates violated federal law. Kavanaugh wrote, "Because the Marietta plan provides the same outpatient dialysis benefits to all plan participants, whether or not a participant is entitled to or eligible for Medicare, the plan cannot be said to 'take into account' whether its participants are entitled to or eligible for Medicare" in a way that the MSPA doesn't allow. The MSPA requires private health plans that cover dialysis to be the primary payer of those treatments for at least 30 months after a patient is diagnosed with kidney failure, with Medicare as a secondary payer for Medicare-enrolled patients.

In another “religious liberty” decision eroding church-state separation, the Supreme Court's conservative majority requires Maine to extend funds designed ...

Indeed, the conservative evangelicals who were once the most adamant defenders of the “wall of separation” (it was on the behalf of Baptists that Thomas Jefferson first deployed that metaphor in 1802) now routinely dismiss it and interpret the Establishment Clause as simply prohibiting favoritism toward particular faith communities. Roberts argued that a “neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” The principle that the First Amendment’s prohibition on making any law “respecting an establishment of religion” applies only to the most blatant government favoritism toward religion led the Court to rule in two recent cases (one involving a Missouri law regulating state subsidies for playground equipment and another concerning a Montana private-school voucher program) that religious schools could not be excluded from public benefits extended to secular private schools. Today, the Court leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation.

The case involves an unusual program in a small state that affects only a few thousand students. But it could have greater implications as the more ...

The program operates only in places where the school districts have not contracted with a public school to provide services. “In the majority’s view, the fact that private individuals, not Maine itself, choose to spend the State’s money on religious education saves Maine’s program from Establishment Clause condemnation,” he wrote. If Maine does not want tuition payments to go to private schools, it “retains a number of options: it could expand the reach of its public school system, increase the availability of transportation, provide some combination of tutoring, remote learning, and partial attendance, or even operate boarding schools of its own.” A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, which included retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter, said Maine was within its rights not to spend public funds on schools with a religious mission. That decision was narrow enough to draw support from liberal Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan. In a footnote, it said the ruling addressed only “express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing,” and not “religious uses of funding.” “Parents have a constitutional right to choose such schools for their children, and the Court today held that a state cannot deny them that choice in programs that allow for other private options.” It does not require Maine to spend its money in that way.” The case involved two families who lived in a rural part of Maine that did not offer public secondary schools. Breyer acknowledged that the court in the past has agreed states may provide assistance to private religious schools. The decision was not unexpected, but is the latest in what has been a remarkable string of victories for religious interests in the Roberts court. But those schools must be nonsectarian, meaning they cannot promote a faith or belief system or teach “through the lens of this faith,” in the words of the state’s department of education. The case involves an unusual program in a small state that affects only a few thousand students.

Here are the consequences of the ruling that says the state of Maine cannot deny tuition aid to religious schools.

If states can require them to run the charter schools as public, adhering to existing rules prohibiting the infusion of religion, then the state is arguably infringing on religious practices; if allowed to run them as private schools, then states’ charter-school laws have effectively been converted into voucher laws. In a footnote, the chief justice wrote: “Both dissents articulate a number of other reasons not to extend the tuition assistance program to BCS and Temple Academy [the two private schools], based on the schools’ particular policies and practices. For instance: “Members of minority religions, with too few adherents to establish schools, may see injustice in the fact that only those belonging to more popular religions can use state money for religious education.” Also, in the context of religious teaching, Saiger (2013) points to the core question of whether the specific agent (the charter-school teacher) is employed by or controlled by the state — with the answer generally being “no.” [internal endnote citations omitted] If courts side with a church-run charter school, finding that state attempts to restrict religiously infused teachings and practices at the school are an infringement on the church’s free-exercise rights, then the circle is complete: Charter school laws have become voucher laws. Put another way, must this hypothetical church run the charter school as a public school, or can it be run as a religious private school? As I’d noted, there are exceptions to the general rule that charter schoolteachers are not public employees, and North Carolina is one of those exceptions. The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday took the nation closer to converting its charter school laws into voucher laws, including for “the outsourcing of discrimination.” As I explained in a piece on The Answer Sheet last month, the Carson v. Moreover, Roberts points out that Maine, if it does not want to fund the religious private schools, “retains a number of options: it could expand the reach of its public school system, increase the availability of transportation, provide some combination of tutoring, remote learning, and partial attendance, or even operate boarding schools of its own.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent suggests the additional option of public schools contracting directly with private schools that agree to provide a public (nonsectarian) education, rather than setting up a school-choice program — thereby distinguishing the process from the 2002 Zelman v. While the private school can be run by a religious organization, the education provided must be religiously neutral, without teaching through the lens of any particular faith and without proselytizing or inculcating children with a religious faith. As my colleague Robert Barnes reported, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down that program with a 6-to-3 vote, saying it must allow tuition given by the state to go to religious schools as well as nonsectarian private schools. Less than a month ago, attorney and education policy scholar Kevin Welner wrote on this blog that the Supreme Court would probably further erode the separation of church and state in a case known as Carson v.

Ohio's five largest business organizations are endorsing the Republican nominees in all three Ohio Supreme Court races this fall.

These groups typically have backed Republican candidates, who have prioritized issues such as changing rules on mandatory overtime. "The court races that are on the ballot this year have three incumbent judicial restraint judges, and there are three judges that are much more activists running against them," said Steve Stivers, Ohio Chamber of Commerce president and CEO, at a press conference announcing the endorsements. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, joined the Ohio Business Roundtable, the National Federation of Independent Business Ohio, the Ohio Farm Bureau, and the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association in endorsing the three Republican Supreme Court justices this fall — the first time judicial nominees will have their political party affiliation alongside their names on the ballot.

Roberts noted that Maine “pays tuition for certain students at private schools— so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against ...

Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty Institute, a law firm focused on religious freedom, commented: “We are thrilled that the Court affirmed once again that religious discrimination will not be tolerated in this country. Religious families, and even families that aren’t religious but see the value in faith-based schools, should not be cut out from programs that help parents make the best educational choice for their kids. And, unlike the circumstances present in Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza, it is religious activity, not religious labels, that lies at the heart of this case,” Breyer maintained. And in 2017, the court found in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. A State’s antiestablishment interest does not justify enactments that exclude some members of the community from an otherwise generally available public benefit because of their religious exercise.” Montana Department of Revenue, the court struck down as a violation of the free exercise clause a state scholarship program that excluded religious schools.

How the court is ruling with a 6-to-3 conservative supermajority, including three justices appointed by President Donald J. Trump.

The Biden administration should not be able to end the "Remain in Mexico" program Some people think the school district was right to suspend the coach because of the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. The school district was not right to suspend the coach Requiring a person to show a need for self-protection to carry a concealed firearm does not violate the Second Amendment Other people think this is a reasonable use of the agency’s authority to ensure the safety of patients. Other people think that a former president does not have the authority to block the release of such records. The government has declassified some information, but it claims it has a right to protect state secrets in the name of national security and is not compelled to provide evidence connected to the investigation. The government must provide evidence in such situations Barring religious clergy from touching death row inmates in the execution chamber does not violate the First Amendment An elected body censuring the speech of a member does not violate the First Amendment Maine prohibits students from using this public money to attend schools that are religious (or "sectarian"). Some people think that this is a violation of the First Amendment protections of the free exercise of religion. The leak in May of a draft opinion that would overrule Roe v.

With just 13 decisions left on the docket, the Supreme Court still has yet to weigh in on major cases about abortion, climate law and gun control.

Environmental Protection Agency is all about the federal government's ability to create environmental regulations. Rather, it should be Congress to do so, they say. In the nearly 50 years since the landmark Supreme Court ruling Roe v. But there's no guarantee that the draft is the court's final opinion. West Virginia v. In total, there are 13 decisions yet to be announced this term.

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON #1: Please join me in welcoming Leonard Leo. (APPLAUSE). CHANG: Leonard Leo - he leads the Federalist Society. It's a conservative legal ...

Jackson Women's Health Organization. And if that ruling overturns a federal right to abortion, three of the justices expected to join in that opinion appeared on the list that Leonard Leo personally curated. But no matter how Leo feels about this moment, it will have lasting consequences for the rest of the country. He has opposed each of the Trump nominees Leo has promoted. CHANG: The likely overturning of Roe v. MARCUS: He has transformed himself, and especially during Republican administrations, into the power broker, the judge-maker. MARCUS: His Catholicism, in addition to his conservatism, is the other really animating strain. CHANG: An individual right not expressly stated in the Constitution - the right to abortion. And all of them sided with Justice Samuel Alito in that leaked draft opinion overturning Roe v. CHANG: This list began with 11 names but continued to expand throughout Trump's campaign and his term in office. CHANG: By May 2016, Donald Trump had become the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, but he still needed to win over skeptical conservatives. Wade, this moment the country finds itself in, staring quite possibly at the last remaining days of a constitutional right to abortion - this is the culmination of a decades-long effort by conservative activists around the country. CHANG: Leonard Leo - he leads the Federalist Society. It's a conservative legal organization.

Justices unanimously ruled that Washington state discriminated against the U.S. government when it expanded benefits to federal contractors who fell ill.

After DOE filed its Supreme Court petition, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, signed S.B. 5890, which extended the benefits to federal contract workers at all nuclear waste sites in the state. Breyer agreed with DOE’s argument that the law would impose costs on the federal government and violated constitutional protections shielding the U.S. government from being subject to state laws. Washington reads the statute’s language broadly to completely waive intergovernmental immunity for workers’ compensation on federal lands and projects, Breyer said. The Supreme Court ruling reverses a 2020 decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had upheld Washington’s law. As long as I’m Attorney General, I will fight for Hanford workers.” “The federal government has not challenged this new law. Cleanup of the site’s radioactive and chemically hazardous waste — including beryllium and dimethyl mercury — is expected to continue for the next six decades, according to DOE ( Energywire, March 22). Breyer had suggested during oral arguments in April that the two state laws might not fully overlap, since the 2018 measure had defined its scope based on a geographical area spanning hundreds of miles, while the new law said it applied to workers at structures and lands of the nuclear waste sites. Writing the opinion in United States v. The Supreme Court also rejected a bid by Washington to have the case thrown out entirely following the passage of a broader state workers’ compensation law this year. Washington’s law explicitly treated federal workers differently than state or private workers and imposed costs on the U.S. government that it did not on state and private entities, in violation of the Constitution’s supremacy clause, Breyer said. He also rejected Washington officials’ argument that a decades-old waiver of federal immunity passed by Congress allowed the state to require the U.S. government to provide compensation.

"The state pays tuition for certain students at private schools, so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion." Marcia, can ...

If a state cannot offer subsidies to its citizens without being required to fund religious exercise, any state that values its historic anti-establishment interests more than this court does, will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens." And that was the case in this Maine school case. It says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The court left open, well, what about if the money is used for religious purposes by a school, not just because it's a religious school? In the most recent case involving schools, it was a scholarship program that religious parents and schools were excluded from. Marcia Coyle, chief Washington correspondent for The National Law Journal, joins John Yang to discuss.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Jabin Botsford/Getty Images. It's that time of year again, when six conservative lawyers ...

If you’ve made it this far in the article, you probably know what to expect with each of these cases — the coach will win, the remain in Mexico policy will be reinstated, and the EPA will be blocked. After oral argument, there was no doubt that the court was going to require New York to allow people in the state to have concealed-carry permits. Bruen. In that case, the court is reviewing a New York law that prohibits most people from obtaining a concealed-carry permit for self-defense. The only thing we do know for sure at this point is that the next decision day is Thursday of this week. This decision, being one of the most significant in the court’s history, is likely to come on the last day of the term (whenever that is). Theoretically, that could change, and the court might moderate in its ultimate decision, but most people expect the final opinion to do exactly what the draft opinion did. It is also considering whether the Biden administration properly rescinded President Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy, which forced immigrants to go back to Mexico while their immigrations proceedings happened. However, what these Justices are doing is reading one part of the First Amendment to the exclusion of another. If Maine is funding allows tuition assistance to go to any private school, it has to allow the funding to go to religious schools as well, even ones with discriminatory policies. In super-close second place for the most watched decision of the court’s term is the New York gun case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Parents could use the tuition assistance to send their children to private school, but Maine prohibited parents from using the money to attend a religious school. It’s that time of year again, when six conservative lawyers impose a retrograde view of the world on unsuspecting people everywhere.

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Maine cannot prohibit parents from using a state tuition program to send their children to religious private schools.

To this end, let’s make John Baillie’s prayer our own: “Do not let me rest content with an ideal of humanity that is less than what was shown to us in Jesus. Give me the mind of Christ. May I not rest until I am like him in all his fullness. A W. Tozer explained our relationship with the omnipresent and immanent God by describing a submerged bucket of ocean water: “It is full of the ocean. As we respond to cultural challenges, however, it is imperative that we do so in ways that honor Jesus and draw people to him. Much of this reimagining happens collectively; it’s with others that we can often envision and create something new.” Welby: “Peace requires a shift in our moral imagination, a transformation of our understanding of what could be possible. Are we open to learning from people with whom we disagree?” In this case, the Great Physician. However, when our culture rejects biblical truth, it is even more imperative that we speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). First Liberty, the largest legal organization in the US dedicated exclusively to defending religious liberty, brought the case with the Institute for Justice. In response to the ruling, First Liberty President, CEO, and Chief Counsel Kelly Shackelford wrote, “We are thrilled that the Court affirmed once again that religious discrimination will not be tolerated in this country. In it, he identifies three steps we can take to “restore broken relationships, build connections across difference, and bridge divides.” And the world swimming governing body has chosen to prohibit some men who identify as female from participating in women’s competitions. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, finding that “a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”

The conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court is set to decide in the coming weeks whether to dramatically curb abortion rights when it rules on a case from ...

The procedure would remain legal in liberal-leaning states, more than a dozen of which have laws protecting abortion rights. For years, the court had a 5-4 conservative majority that included some moderates like Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who cast votes to uphold the right to abortion. In either scenario, states that want to restrict or ban abortion would have much more leeway to do so, although a total reversal of Roe would make it a lot easier for them. The leaked draft opinion indicated the court could overturn Roe v. The court said in a statement announcing an investigation into the leak that the draft was not the court's final word. The high court reaffirmed abortion rights in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v.

The U.S. Supreme Court will go into a summer recess on June 26, and most observers expect a decision before then on a case that could overturn 50 years of ...

Wade, if that faulty decision is overturned, we expect that any injunctions that rest upon it will be dissolved quickly, removing any barriers to enforcing Alabama’s abortion laws. Alabama is one of about two dozen states certain or likely to end access to abortion if the court overturns Roe. v. “We are currently enjoined from enforcing those laws by orders from lower federal courts, but the Attorney General’s Office will move as soon as possible to dissolve the injunctions if new precedent from the Supreme Court supports our position,” said Mike Lewis, spokesperson for the Alabama Attorney General’s Office, in an email. In the leaked draft opinion, justices said the decision in the 1973 case Roe v. The Supreme Court breaks for summer recess Sunday, June 26 and is expected to release the decision in Dobbs v. According to CNET, the court often releases controversial decisions right before the summer recess.

Hundreds of judges nationwide believe that U.S. Supreme Court justices should be subject to an ethics code, according to a poll released Wednesday, ...

The Supreme Court did not respond to requests for comment. But the NJC said some judges wondered who could enforce a code of ethics. Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com The survey was conducted after Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton at an NJC event in May became the rare federal judge to express support publicly for a Supreme Court ethics code, saying it "unimaginable" that part of the judiciary was not subject to one.

Carson v. Makin might not be the most high-profile case the Supreme Court will decide this term, but its decision requiring Maine to provide funding to ...

If a State cannot offer subsidies to its citizens without being required to fund religious exercise, any State that values its historic antiestablishment interests more than this Court does will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens. “[T]he consequences of the Court’s rapid transformation of the Religion Clauses must not be understated,” she writes. As she is wont to do, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a separate opinion, calls out the majority in blistering terms. Parents’ right to free exercise of religion is preserved because they can choose to send their children to religious institutions; the prohibition against establishment of religion is secured because taxpayers are not forced to fund religious schools, whether they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim or of any other faith. A state can use funds to build a community center, for example, but not a church. But the court’s majority disagreed and ruled that Maine’s refusal to subsidize sectarian schools is a violation of the free exercise clause.

The question comes amid repeated reports of ethical lapses among judges and as the nation's highest court is expected to announce more than a dozen decisions in ...

Members of Congress have tried repeatedly over the years to introduce bills that would put in place a code of ethics, Keith said, and have done so again this session. "To me, the Supreme Court has this outsized power," Roth said. "The split in judicial philosophy maps perfectly into a partisan split," Bybee said. And they should stop dodging a code of ethics that does nothing more than maintain a minimal sense of dignity, responsibility and respect amongst members of the judicial branch and the public we serve." Of the 24 judges who voted no, two added in comments that they assumed that the justices as lawyers would be bound by ethics required of them as attorneys. Many of those who said yes used the word "absolutely" as a comment, often in caps, and one wrote in caps and used 29 exclamation marks. "Congress is paralyzed, Congress and the presidency don’t work well together. Then, he said, there can be discussions about what mechanisms are permissible under the constitution to bring an even greater level of accountability. The Supreme Court is expected to announce more than a dozen decisions in the next few weeks, including on abortion, guns, immigration and the environment. Only one justice has ever been impeached by the House, and he was acquitted by the Senate in 1805. Meanwhile, the ongoing Jan. 6 committee hearings have highlighted the alleged efforts by Virginia "Ginni" Thomas – a longtime conservative activist married to Justice Thomas – to help overturn the 2020 election. The National Judicial College surveyed judges across the nation on whether the Supreme Court should be held to a higher standard.

The Supreme Court will decide the fate of the nation's most contentious Clean Water Act rule before EPA releases regulations on the matter, according to a ...

Most of those rules for state and local air agencies “have been unchanged for more than 40 years,” according to a synopsis. A key agency advisory panel has recommended a range of potential cuts to both the annual and daily exposure limits for soot, formally known as fine particulate matter. The agency now plans to propose a successor set of regulations, running at least through model year 2030, by next March, according to a synopsis the administration released yesterday. After calling off two days of scheduled meetings this month, the panel instead intends to reappraise the science underlying that finding. Other long-term regulatory actions on EPA’s plate include a final Lead and Copper Rule, as well as a rule that would clarify requirements around states and tribes assuming permitting authority under the Clean Water Act, slated to be finalized in 2024. Consequently, the White House wants half of all new cars and light-duty trucks to be zero-emission vehicles by 2030. EPA also indicated near-term action, including finalizing a recently released rule tied to state and tribal Clean Water Act permit reviews by next year. It is also moving ahead with parallel reviews of ambient air quality limits for two key pollutants and plans an overhaul of a widely used set of permitting regulations, the agenda shows. Liebesman called EPA’s decision “prudent” given the final definition will need to incorporate the court’s opinion. “Looking at November 2023, that’s probably going to be five, six months after the Supreme Court rules, I would suspect.” EPA on Oct. 3 and decide the case by early summer 2023. Delayed until next year, however, are the rollouts of draft carbon regulations on new and existing power plants ( Energywire, June 22).

In a new ruling, the theocrats on the court turned one of the nation's fundamental principles on its head.

Comer], I feared that the Court was “lead[ing] us…to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.”… Today, the Court leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation. Americans tend to think of the separation of church and state as one of our foundational principles. But the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, reversed the lower courts and ordered the state to pay tuition to these religious institutions. Nothing good can survive the conservative takeover of the Supreme Court. And it doesn’t take these conservatives long to dismantle whatever it is you hold dear. Instead, Mitch McConnell was able to steal that seat from Barack Obama and hand it to Donald Trump, who promptly filled it with Neil Gorsuch. The case was reargued in front of a full court, and wasn’t decided until 2017, and it came out 5-4 against the rule of secular government. There is an argument to be made that Maine should get its act together and provide free middle schools and high schools to students in all of its districts. That’s because using public money to pay for tuition at a religious school is, or should be, a point-and-click violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition on the “establishment” of religion. Yes, according to Fulton v. Some families in Maine wanted to use this public money to send their kids to religious schools, specifically Bangor Christian Schools and Temple Academy. Both schools “candidly admit that they discriminate against homosexuals, individuals who are transgender and non-Christians,” The New York Times reports (citing Maine’s Supreme Court brief). Yes, according to Espinoza v. Yes, according to Burwell v. Yes, according to Trinity Lutheran v.

Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc., No. 20-1641: This case concerns the interpretation of the Medicare Secondary Payer ...

31 C.F.R. 1010.350(a), 1010.306(c). The question presented is whether a violation under the Act is the failure to file an annual FBAR (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or whether there is a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported. The Fourth Circuit held that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under §924(c). In a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing that attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a crime of violence under §924(c)(3)(A). Justices Thomas and Alito filed separate dissenting opinions. In a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that a transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not “necessary or appropriate in aid of” a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief. The District Court granted Twyford’s motion, determining that the order was appropriate under the All Writs Act, which authorizes federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C. §1651(a). The District Court rejected the State’s argument that the evidence Twyford hoped to obtain would not be useful to his habeas case. After first concluding that the case had not been mooted, the Court held that Washington’s workers’ compensation law is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause because it facially discriminates against the federal government and does not fall within the scope of the federal waiver of immunity in 40 U.S.C. §3172. View the Court's decision. The law makes it easier for federal contract workers at Hanford to establish entitlement to workers’ compensation. The program, however, limited payments to those schools that are “nonsectarian.” Petitioners challenged the “nonsectarian” requirement, arguing it was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The District Court rejected the challenge, and the First Circuit affirmed. In a 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court held that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause. The Supreme Court reasoned that the effect of the Maine “nonsectarian” provision was to disqualify some private schools from funding solely because they are religious. View the Court's decision. The MSPA provides, among other things, that a group health plan “may not differentiate in the benefits it provides between individuals having end stage renal disease and other individuals covered by such plan.” The question in this case is whether a group health plan that provides limited benefits for outpatient dialysis—but does so uniformly for all plan participants—violates the MSPA. The Sixth Circuit held that the MSPA authorizes disparate-impact liability and the plan’s limited payments for dialysis treatment had a disparate impact on individuals with end-stage renal disease. View the Court's decision.

A decision by the high court's 6-3 conservative majority ruled that if the State of Maine allows for taxpayer money to pay for tuition at nonreligious private ...