SCOTUSblog
- Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
- Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
Appeals court keeps immigration policy on hold
Appeals court keeps immigration policy on hold
Lyle Denniston writes at SCOTUSBlog:
Under the policy, some 4.3 million individuals who entered the country illegally and remained without permission would be given a status of “lawful presence” in this country — well short of citizenship, and with no guarantee that they could stay even for the three-year delay period specified — and would qualify for both some federal benefits, like work permits, and some state benefits, like drivers’ licenses.
I spoke with immigration attorneys recently about the avalanche of work this policy is expected to generate if it ever goes into effect. There are many people whose future depends largely on the outcome of the ongoing dispute about the legality of the program.
Image by Gulbenk at Wikipedia
“Super-cuts” from same-sex marriage arguments
“Super-cuts” from same-sex marriage arguments
SCOTUSBlog contributor Tejinder Singh posted 36 minutes of audio highlights from yesterday’s oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges. The case is one of several on the Court’s docket this term focused on two specific constitutional questions:
I’ve embedded the super-cut below but if you’re really interested in getting a first-hand sense of how the Justices feel you can find audio of the full oral argument (more than two hours, split into two files) at Oyez. I’ll have more to say about the arguments after I’ve had the chance to listen to them in their entirety.
[embed]sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conten…[/embed]
Public domain photograph of the Roberts Court via Wikipedia
Supreme Court Will Address Antitrust State Action Exemption
Supreme Court Will Address Antitrust State Action Exemption
Steve Semeraro at the Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog:
Government actors are charged with a duty to act in the public interest and thus can generally be trusted to restrain trade only when the public will benefit. Private actors, by contrast, are driven by the desire to maximize profit and will thus restrain trade when it is privately beneficial but harms the public interest. On 26 November, the Supreme Court will reenter the fray, hearing oral argument in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System.
This is an interesting part of antitrust law: the exemption from antitrust liability for state actors and, in very limited circumstances, private actors acting under the supervision of the state. These issues are more relevant than you may think if you’re not a law student/lawyer/professor/large-scale businessperson.
Consider my recent Amazon prediction, or the reach of international competition law.
Find more information about FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System at SCOTUSblog, or read the 11th Circuit’s opinion at Google Scholar.