Timothy Raben

@timothyraben.bsky.social

481 Followers 1061 Following

Genetics. Physics. Tango. Dogs. Musicals. Courts. https://traben.github.io/

The same picture but flipped along the vertical.
Follow through it has. We owe to the Spending Clause, for example, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—a law with which “few pieces of federal legislation rank in signif- icance.” Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U. S. 644, 649 (2020); see Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U. S. 181, 308 (2023) (GORSUCH, J., concurring). We owe to the Spending Clause, too, the relative cleanliness of our Nation’s air, see 42 U. S. C. §7401 et seq. (Clean Air Act), and the relative health of our Nation’s populace, 42 U. S. C. §1395 et seq.; §1396 et seq. (Medicare and Medicaid Acts). “Other exam- ples, spanning virtually every domain of national and state policy, abound.” Talevski, 599 U. S., at 198 (THOMAS, J., dissenting).
Highlighted text from Landor dissent: But even when using the analogy for those purposes, the Court has always viewed it cautiously. We have consist- ently refused to “imply . . . that suits under Spending Clause legislation are suits in contract, or that contract-law principles apply to all issues that they raise.” Id., at 189, n. 2; see also Sossamon, 563 U. S., at 290 (same); Cum- mings, 596 U. S., at 226 (declining to “incorporat[e] the law of contract remedies wholesale”). Some Justices have war- ily accepted the contract analogy in certain contexts while cautioning that it “may fail” elsewhere. Barnes, 536 U. S., at 191 (Souter, J., concurring). Others have protested its use as “novel.” Id., at 192 (Stevens, J., concurring in judg- ment); Talevski, 599 U. S., at 193 (BARRETT, J., joined by ROBERTS, C. J., concurring). Still others have cast doubt on it as “an imperfect way” to interpret Spending Clause legis- lation. Cummings, 596 U. S., at 230 (KAVANAUGH, J., joined by GORSUCH, J., concurring). In all events, the Court has always rejected the idea—though pressed with vigor in dissent—that Spending Clause legislation “is nothing more than a contractual offer.” Talevski, 599 U. S., at 196 (THOMAS, J., dissenting); see also id., at 229 (criticizing the Court for “holding that spending conditions are not merely contractual”).
fig 3 from referenced paper
U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams acceded to Trump’s dismissal of the case — which is automatic under the federal rules — in an order closing the case that was filed Monday night. In that order, though, she noted that since no one submitted the settlement to the court “there is no settlement of record.“ She added: Defendants—federal agencies represented by the Department of Justice, which has an independent obligation to uphold the “public’s strong interest in knowing about the conduct of its Government and expenditure of its resources” and the “fair administration of justice,” 28 C.F.R. §§ 50.9, 50.23—neither submitted any settlement documents nor filed any documents ensuring that settlement was appropriate where there was an outstanding question as to whether an actual case or controversy existed.
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that a Maryland state law that forced an arrested person to give their DNA to police was constitutional. But that case involved clear restrictions: It involved a law that required the arrest be for a serious crime, and the arrest had to be lawful, based on probable cause. Orin Kerr, a law professor at Stanford University, says whether the arrest is lawful is the most pressing question at hand, when it comes to the DNA taken from ICE protesters. "What you worry about is an officer making a decision in the field that a person committed a crime when they might not have. Maybe they were doing something protected under the First Amendment," Kerr says. "The officer says, 'I think you crossed the line, I'm going to arrest you.' It turns out the officer was wrong, but the DNA test has been conducted, and the information has been entered into the database. What then?" Kerr says it's not immediately clear what the legal remedy might be for such a violation, though there are avenues to request the federal government expunge a DNA record.
He said further that even if Roberts had expressly rejected the straight up reading, while Kagan refused to embrace MQD, there would still be an affirmance because six votes voted to affirm. After all, Justices are under no obligation to provide any reasoning. They can simply vote to affirm or reverse.
Poster of Rodney Dangerfield film "Ladybugs".
Two bombers dropping bombs. The first says "republicans". The second says "democrats" and has a "black lives matter" sign, "yes she can" sign, and pride flag on the bomber.
A peridot gem