Archive

Reuters blog archive

from India Insight:

Markandey Katju: Ex-India Supreme Court judge stirs the pot

Comments by retired Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju had India’s parliament in uproar this week. In a blog post published by the Times of India, the chairman of the Press Council of India hinted at a connection between the government and the judiciary in the elevation of an allegedly corrupt judge in Tamil Nadu.

This isn’t the first time that the man heading India’s print media oversight body has stirred the pot. Katju was known among his peers as an outspoken judge who passed landmark judgements and made scathing remarks in several cases.

While what he said and did as a judge might have had a legal context, Katju’s recent statements seem to have gone beyond his brief as press body chief. Take, for example, his appeal to let off convicted Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt or his objection to India’s highest civilian honour being awarded to sportspersons or film stars.

Last year, Arun Jaitley, then an opposition party lawmaker, asked Katju to quit office over his criticism of Bharatiya Janata Party leader Narendra Modi. Jaitley, now India’s finance minister, had said Katju should quit his “quasi-judicial office” before airing his political views.

from The Great Debate:

What’s the 2014 election really about? Religious vs. women’s rights

Demonstrators gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court for the "Not My Boss's Business" rally for women's health and rights in Washington

Religious rights versus women's rights. That's about as fundamental a clash as you can get in U.S. politics. It's now at the core of the 2014 election campaign, with both parties girding for battle.

What generated the showdown was last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case. The decision instantly became a rallying cry for activists on both the right and left. Congressional Democrats are already proposing a law to nullify the decision. “It's shameful that a woman's access to contraception is even up for debate in 2014,” Senator Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) said.   Conservative blogger Erick Erickson crowed, “My religion trumps your ‘right’ to employer-subsidized, consequence-free sex.”

from Stories I’d like to see:

How much is contraception coverage and costly violations for BNP Paribas

justices

1. Does health insurance covering contraception actually cost anything?

In this article about a renewed fight at the U.S. Supreme Court just days after its decision about whether the owners of the Hobby Lobby retail chain had to buy insurance covering certain forms of contraception, the New York Times’ ace court reporter Adam Liptak wrote:

The majority opinion there, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., seemed to suggest that the forms could play a role in an arrangement that was an acceptable alternative to having employers pay for the coverage. Under the arrangement, insurance companies that receive the forms pay for the coverage on the theory that it costs no more to provide contraception than to pay for pregnancies.

from Alison Frankel:

SCOTUS Libor case, by itself, won’t revive antitrust claims

Don't get too excited about the news Monday that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of bond investors whose antitrust claims against the global banks involved in the Libor-setting process were tossed last year.

Untold billions of dollars are at stake in the Libor litigation, in which investors in all sorts of securities pegged to the London Interbank Offered Rate claim that the banks conspired to manipulate the interest rate benchmark. There are now about 60 cases consolidated in the Libor multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan, asserting a potpourri of state and federal securities, racketeering and fraud claims as well as violations of federal antitrust laws. Last year, Judge Buchwald gave the bank defendants an almost priceless gift when she concluded that U.S. antitrust laws don't cover the sort of rate-rigging alleged in the Libor scandal because the banks' conduct wasn't anticompetitive. Buchwald has permitted other pieces of the litigation to move forward, most recently refusing to dismiss classwide unjust enrichment claims in an 80-page decision last week, but has refused to re-instate the big-money antitrust allegations, which offer the prospect of treble damages.

from The Great Debate:

Despite Scalia, Supreme Court sends Obama a progressive message

breyer-and-scalia-1024x707

In a decision widely perceived as a setback for President Barack Obama last week, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the president’s recess appointment of three members of the National Labor Relations Board. Though the ruling could mean Obama never makes another recess appointment, the court’s reasoning is a substantial victory for progressives. It decisively rebuffs the wrongheaded, rigid brand of originalism that argues only the framers’ original intent is relevant in interpreting the Constitution -- which conservative justices have supported for decades.

The court’s judgment was unanimous, yet the two separate opinions issued highlight the deep ideological fissure dividing the four conservative justices from the five who joined the court’s opinion. A majority of justices embraced a pragmatic reading of the Constitution, taking account of the nation’s rich experience over the past 225 years. That approach is far removed from the conservative justices’ unrealistic insistence that the Constitution is frozen in the late 18th century.

from The Great Debate:

Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision puts faith in compromise

Anti-abortion demonstrators high five as the ruling for Hobby Lobby was announced outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington

On Monday the Supreme Court decided its most anticipated case of the year. According to a sharply divided 5-4 court, the government cannot compel a closely-held corporation to provide contraceptive coverage as part of its Affordable Care Act-mandated employee insurance plans.

This was the expected result: four conservatives in favor, four liberals against, and Justice Kennedy concurring in the middle. Yet while many are calling the ruling a victory for conservatives and a loss for women’s (and by extension, LGBT) rights, Justice Alito’s majority opinion is actually far more limited than many had expected. Here’s why.

from Breakingviews:

Aereo is dead, long live TV disruption

By Reynolds Holding

The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

Aereo is dead, long live television disruption. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the streaming startup backed by entertainment mogul Barry Diller violates copyright law. Legal loopholes abound, however, and investors and viewers will still reward those who find ways to exploit them. The likes of broadcasters CBS and Disney-owned ABC can’t afford to waste time celebrating.

from Alison Frankel:

On one-year Windsor anniversary, 9th Circuit delivers best gay rights gift

Sometimes, the best way to understand the broad implications of a court's decision isn't to read the ruling itself but rather the dissent. That was certainly true a year ago, when Justice Antonin Scalia attacked the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Windsor v. U.S., which struck down federal prohibitions on same-sex marriage as an unconstitutional intrusion on the equal rights of gays and lesbians. The majority's ruling was carefully constrained, but a furious Scalia predicted that the stirring language of Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion would reverberate more loudly in the lower courts than the actual holding. As we now know from decisions all over the country striking down restrictions on same-sex marriage, Scalia was right.

So if you want to know just how monumental a gay-rights ruling the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued Tuesday, just two days short of Windsor's one-year anniversary, take a look at the dissent written by Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain and joined by Judges Jay Bybee and Carlos Bea. O'Scannlain posits that his colleagues' decision in the case, GlaxoSmithKline v. Abbott Laboratories, "precludes the survival under the federal Constitution of long-standing laws treating marriage as the conjugal union between a man and a woman." But it's even more drastic than that, according to the dissent: The appellate decision has changed the standard for evaluating all laws targeting gays and lesbians, the dissent said, "with far-reaching -- and mischievous -- consequences."

from The Great Debate:

Think we don’t need to update the Voting Rights Act? Check out Tuesday’s primaries.

mahurin-for-troutt--- nelson

The door is open for Congress to repair the nation’s most transformative election law, which was neutered by the U.S. Supreme Court a year ago today.

Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion for Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, issued Congress a written invitation to renew the Voting Rights Act of 1965 after striking down Section 4 of the act and disabling the strongest safety check against racial discrimination in voting.  The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday on the Voting Rights Amendment Act shows that his invitation did not fall on deaf ears or timid hearts.

from Alison Frankel:

SCOTUS Halliburton ruling could backfire for securities defendants

Let's state the obvious: Big Business did not get what it wanted Monday from the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund to overturn Basic v. Levinson, the 25-year-old precedent that permits shareholders to bring classwide claims of securities fraud.

The justices didn't even adopt the alternate approach -- suggested by some Halliburton supporters in friend-of-the-court briefs -- of requiring plaintiffs who want to sue as a class to show that supposed corporate misstatements had an impact on share prices. Instead, the court ruled only that defendants may argue against class certification with evidence that share prices didn't drop as a result of the alleged fraud.

  •