SCOTUS Decisions & Politics

Copyright: © These works are in the public domain, the use of my personal voice belongs to Danilo Feliciano and assigned to None of the Above and cannot be reproduced without permission. Please contact

Latest Episodes:

American Civil Rights Union v. Philadelphia City Commissioners 872 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2017) Oct 25, 2023

Show notes

The American Civil Rights Union ("ACRU") challenges the Philadelphia City Commissioners' failure to purge the city's voter rolls of registered voters who are currently incarcerated due to a felony conviction. Because state law prohibits felons from voting while they are in prison, the ACRU argues that the National Voter Registration Act requires the Commissioners to remove them from the voter rolls. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the District Court's dismissal of this suit.

Don Blankenship v NBC Universal LLC No. 22-1125 Oct 25, 2023

Show notes

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1125_c07d.pdf

Vivek H. Murth, Surgeon General v Missouri No. 23A243 Oct 25, 2023

Show notes

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a315_3d9g.pdf

West Flagler Associates, LTD v Debra Haaland, Secretary of the Interior No. 23A315 Oct 25, 2023

Show notes

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23a243_7l48.pdf

Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 (1975) Oct 19, 2023

Show notes

Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560 (1975), is a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which held that the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 gives federal courts jurisdiction to review decisions of the United States Department of Labor to proceed (or not) with prosecutions under the Act. In this case, there was a disputed election within the United Steelworkers. The Court declined to authorize a jury-type trial into the reasons for the department's decisions, and instead held that court may only review the department's rationales under the "arbitrary and capricious" test
from Wikipedia

Moses v. Kennedy 219 F. Supp. 762 (D.D.C. 1963) Oct 18, 2023

Show notes

Moses v. Kennedy 219 F. Supp. 762 (D.D.C. 1963)
Holding that a private citizen does not have a constitutional right to have his claim investigated and prosecuted by the FBI

Adams v. Richardson 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1973) Oct 18, 2023

Show notes

Adams v. Richardson 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1973)
This education desegregation lawsuit against the federal government was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 1970 by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) on behalf of plaintiffs from across the country. Plaintiffs were black college students, citizens, and taxpayers from ten states that had been identified by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) for “operating segregated systems of higher education in violation of Title VI” of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 351 F. Supp. 636, 637–38 (D.D.C. 1972). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the Secretary of HEW and the Director of HEW’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) because they claimed HEW and OCR were not doing their part to administer Title VI.
The first district court opinion was issued on November 16, 1972. Judge John H. Pratt found that the ten states identified by HEW— Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, Arkansas, and Pennsylvania—either completely ignored HEW’s request for a higher education desegregation plan or submitted deficient desegregation plans to HEW. HEW failed to enforce Title VI against these states and it continued to give federal funding to these states to support their public schools at every level: elementary, secondary, and post-secondary. According to Title VI, HEW was supposed to deny/terminate federal financial assistance to states that were not in compliance with the law or take any other legal measures to enforce state compliance with Title VI. Judge Pratt ordered that HEW officials could no longer use their limited discretion to enforce Title VI; rather, they were ordered to use the means available in Title VI to achieve compliance on a case-by-case basis.
https://clearinghouse.net/case/11091/

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985) Oct 18, 2023

Show notes

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), was a United States Supreme Courtdecision that held agency decisions to not undertake enforcement proceedings is "committed to agency discretion by law" (5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)) and therefore not subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
From Wikipedia

Powell v. Katzenbach Oct 18, 2023

Show notes

Powell v. Katzenbach
Holding that writ of mandamus against Attorney General would not lie because the question of whether to institute prosecution is discretionary

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 542 U.S. 55 (2004) Oct 18, 2023

Show notes

Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
Holding that agency can be compelled to act if time period is specified by law.Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (2004), was a Supreme Court case that held that although the Administrative Procedure Actsays that a person may challenge an agency's failure to act, this provision essentially just carries forward the writ of mandamus. Thus an agency cannot be compelled to act unless there is some non-discretionary, discrete act.
(from Wikipedia)

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

SCOTUS Decisions & Politics

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected