Come on SCOTUS. You should know better. It is NLRB v. Noel Canning. Not NLRB v. Canning. Noel Canning is a company, not a person. (Though after Hobby Lobby those may be one and the same).
In the opinion issued last week, the title on the page was “NLRB v. Canning.”
At some point, a new PDF was uploaded, and it was changed to “NLRB v. Noel Canning.”
The Supreme Court made the same mistake when it listed the case as NLRB v. Canning on the transcript page.
Throwback Thursday comes early at One First Street. Their website lists recent decisions from the end of last term. It’s like the last year never happened. Let’s go read Windsor again!
In Harris v. Quinn, Justice Alito cast doubt on the validity of Abood. In particular, he cited several job series in Oregon and Washington that would seem to survive, only under Abood.
If respondents’ and the dissent’s views were adopted, a host of workers who receive payments from a governmen tal entity for some sort of service would be candidates for inclusion within Abood’s reach. Medicare-funded home health employees may be one such group. See Brief for Petitioners 51; 42 U. S. C. §1395x(m); 42 CFR §424.22(a). The same goes for adult foster care providers in Oregon (Ore. Rev. Stat. §443.733 (2013)) and Washington (Wash. Rev. Code §41.56.029 (2012)) and certain workers under the federal Child Care and Development Fund programs (45 CFR §98.2).
In other words. Justice Alito is practically begging for a suit to challenge these specific job series. File away.
Politico reports that Nino was not in session today:
Scalia was not at the court on Monday and a court spokeswoman said he was traveling.
I can’t quite tell from Art’s position, but it seems Scalia’s chair is empty.
#SCOTUS Sketch: the courtroom as it appeared today, last day of opinions. pic.twitter.com/AUrhPmDdt5
— Arthur Lien (@Courtartist) June 30, 2014
So where was Justice Scalia? In Galway, Ireland, teaching at a summer study program sponsored by my school, the South Texas College of Law.
Session 2: June 30–July 18
Perspectives on the U.S. Supreme Court
Distinguished Visiting Jurist, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
9:00 a.m.–10:50 a.m.
This course examines several of the U.S. Supreme Court’s principal
decisions on the separation of powers and also assesses this topic from
an international perspective.
The White House Press Secretary weighs on on what the “constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office” thinks about the Hobby Lobby decision:
“Well, as the constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office would tell you is, he would read the entire decision before he passed judgment in terms of his own legal analysis. What we have been able to assess so far … is that there is a problem that has been exposed, which is that there are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious views held, not by them necessarily, but by their bosses,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.
“We disagree and the constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees with that conclusion from the Supreme Court. And that’s why we–primarily, because he is concerned about the impact it could have on the health of those women.”
Uh-huh. I think Obama should relinquish any claim to be a constitutional lawyer. And Hobby Lobby was not a constitutional decision.