Category

Category: Politics

Politics

Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 29

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/KXb3BdaEXIKh1DLtMY4Uunn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 29" title="Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 29"> <p>On Tuesday, April 29, we will be live blogging as the court releases opinions in one or more argued cases from the current term.</p> <p>Click <a href="https://scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/">here</a> for a list of FAQs about opinion announcements.</p> <p><span id="more-505476"></span></p> <section class="custom-block"> <div class="arena-embed"> u003cdiv class=u0022arena-chatu0022 data-publisher=u0022scotusblogu0022 data-chatroom=u0022DzXt08Gu0022 data-position=u0022in-pageu0022u003eu003c/divu003eu003cscript async src=u0022https://go.arena.im/public/js/arenachatlib.js?p=scotusblogu0026e=DzXt08Gu0022u003eu003c/scriptu003e </div> </section> <p></p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-december-5-2-2/">Announcement of opinions for Tuesday, April 29</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 1 min read
Read more →
Politics

The morning read for Tuesday, April 29

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/KXb3BdaEXIJq5Bdi14Fb4Hn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="The morning read for Tuesday, April 29" title="The morning read for Tuesday, April 29"> <p>We’re expecting one or more opinions from the court this morning at 10 a.m. EDT. Join us for the <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/announcement-of-opinions-for-tuesday-december-5-2/">live blog</a>. The court will then hear oral argument in <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/martin-v-united-states-2/">Martin v. U.S.</a></em>, the case of an Atlanta couple whose home was mistakenly raided by an FBI SWAT team. They now ask the justices to decide whether they can sue the federal government for the error. In <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/laboratory-corporation-of-america-holdings-v-davis/"><em>Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis</em></a>, the court will consider whether it is appropriate for a federal court to certify a class action for a class that includes plaintiffs who did not suffer any cognizable injury.</p> <p>Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles and commentary related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:</p> <ul class="wp-block-list"> <li><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/29/supreme-court-fbi-raid-wrong-house-liability/">Supreme Court asks: Can FBI be held liable for raiding the wrong house?</a> (Ann E. Marimow, The Washington Post)</li> <li><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-considers-lawsuit-arising-wrong-house-fbi-raid-rcna200461">Supreme Court considers lawsuit arising from ‘wrong house’ FBI raid</a> (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)</li> <li><a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/04/29/g-s1-62787/supreme-court-law-enforcement-raid">Supreme Court weighs whether law enforcement can be held accountable for raid on wrong house</a> (Christina Gatti, NPR)</li> <li><a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-fight-may-shape-trumps-ability-fire-fed-chair-2025-04-29/">US Supreme Court fight may shape Trump’s ability to fire Fed chair</a> (John Kruzel, Reuters)</li> <li><a href="https://legalytics.substack.com/p/the-bench-barometer-ranking-the-supreme">The Bench Barometer: Ranking the Supreme Court’s Best Oral Advocates from the 2024 Term’s First Sitting</a> (Adam Feldman, Legalytics) </li> </ul> <p><strong>Coming up</strong>: On Wednesday, April 30, the court expects to issue one or more opinions from the current term. Well be live at 9:45 a.m. EDT.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/the-morning-read-for-thursday-april-24-2-2-2/">The morning read for Tuesday, April 29</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 2 min read
Read more →
General

Bauchi Governor Bala Mohammed Appoints 168 Political Aides

<p>Bauchi Governor Bala Mohammed has appointed 168 aides, aiming to strengthen governance and enhance service delivery across the state.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.arise.tv/bauchi-governor-bala-mohammed-appoints-168-political-aides/">Bauchi Governor Bala Mohammed Appoints 168 Political Aides</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.arise.tv">Arise News</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 3 min read
Read more →
Politics

Can a federal court certify a class action that includes plaintiffs who were not injured?

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/vkClPQRPbwrwuXWy-Ylj93n9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Can a federal court certify a class action that includes plaintiffs who were not injured?" title="Can a federal court certify a class action that includes plaintiffs who were not injured?"> <p>The argument on Tuesday in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/laboratory-corporation-of-america-holdings-v-davis/"><em>Laboratory Corp. of America v. Davis</em></a><em> </em>presents another in a remarkable string of cases this year that have reached the argument stage without clearly presenting the question on which the justices granted review.</p> <p>The presentation in Labcorp’s opening brief is powerful and direct. First it posits the idea that federal courts can’t possibly grant relief to plaintiffs who haven’t suffered a cognizable injury. Then it presents the facts of this case: Labcorp has rolled out automated check-in kiosks in its facilities, which most customers really like. One problem, though, is that those kiosks don’t work for the blind. Hence this class action, claiming that the kiosks disadvantage the blind, leading to liability under various legal theories.</p> <span id="more-505468"></span> <p>Labcorp then describes a class that includes all blind people who had been exposed to the kiosks – whether they knew of the kiosks or wanted to use them. Obviously, though, if they didn’t know about the kiosks and had no interest in them, they did not suffer any injury from the presence of the kiosks. A class including all blind people, then, includes a huge mass of uninjured parties. That poses the prospect, Labcorp explains, that certification of the class will force it into a massive and inappropriate settlement. Cue the outrage. Justices who have a deep suspicion of the extortionate power of class certification will be very suspicious – and there are more than two or three of those on the current court.</p> <p>Two major problems hinder a straight path to the decision Labcorp seeks. The first, all too common this term, is the likelihood that the case does not really present that question. It is pretty clear that the district court at one point certified a class that excluded all blind persons who did not attempt to or want to use the kiosk – a class limited to those who could be said to have suffered a cognizable injury. The class definition about which Labcorp complains came about only in response to Labcorp’s objection to the more limited definition. Apparently Labcorp’s strategy at that point of the litigation – different from its strategy now – made the narrow class seem objectionable. The problem for the justices is that Labcorp already had appealed before the class definition was narrowed, so it is not at all clear that anything in the opinion of the court of appeals relates to the class definition that Labcorp now challenges so forcefully.</p> <p>The second difficulty is a “slippery slope” problem. Labcorp’s rhetoric would support an absolute rule that a class can never include even a single individual without a cognizable injury, but when it gets down to argument it admits that some uninjured individuals must be included as a practical matter. Its objection here is that there are just too many uninjured individuals. That kind of imprecise argument will be much harder for the justices to evaluate than a hard and fast rule of exclusion.</p> <p>My guess is that some, but not all, of the justices will take the view that it is easy enough to sort out the injured and uninjured claimants when the time comes for a remedy, limiting relief only to the injured. For those justices, this case will seem “<a href="https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/much-ado-about-nothing/read/">much ado about nothing</a>.” But my guess is that the bulk of the argument will be expended on questions about exactly what was, and was not, before the court of appeals and what is, and is not, properly before the court. At some point, though, you really have to start wondering why the law clerks are not doing a better job of having these problems fully aired before the justices devote an argument slot to a case that plainly is not a good vehicle for answering the question presented.</p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/can-a-federal-court-certify-a-class-action-that-includes-plaintiffs-who-were-not-injured/">Can a federal court certify a class action that includes plaintiffs who were not injured?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 4 min read
Read more →
Politics

Supreme Court to consider bid for first religious charter school

<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/LH6so1w6elcsVD4q-4hb-Hn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Supreme Court to consider bid for first religious charter school" title="Supreme Court to consider bid for first religious charter school"> <p>The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday in a Catholic virtual charter school’s bid to become the nation’s first religious charter school. The Oklahoma charter school board that approved the Catholic school’s application tells the justices that a state supreme court ruling invalidating its contract with the school violates the Constitution and harms lower-income families. But the state’s attorney general counters that a ruling in favor of the Catholic school could upend the charter-school system nationwide. </p> <p>The Oklahoma law governing charter schools requires them to be non-religious “in their programs, admissions policies, and other operations.” The dispute now before the court began when the archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the diocese of Tulsa applied to the state’s charter school board to establish a virtual Catholic charter school, St. Isidore of Seville. The purpose of the school – which was named after the patron saint of the internet and projected to have an initial enrollment of 500 students, approximately half of whom would come from lower-income families – is explicitly religious: It “fully embraces” the Catholic Church’s teachings, “fully incorporates” them “into every aspect of the” school, and intends to participate “in the evangelizing mission of the church.”</p> <span id="more-505458"></span> <p>The charter school board approved St. Isidore’s application in 2023, with the school slated to start in 2024. The contract that the charter school board signed with the school indicated that the school is allowed to freely exercise its religious beliefs. </p> <p>The state’s attorney general, Republican Gentner Drummond, went to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, seeking an order directing the charter school board to invalidate its contract with St. Isidore. </p> <p>The state supreme court granted that request. It concluded that St. Isidore is a public school and therefore required under the state charter-school law to be non-sectarian. That mandate, it added, “is in line with the Oklahoma Constitution and the Establishment Clause, which both prohibit the State from using public money for the establishment of a religious institution.” </p> <p>The state supreme court rejected the contention that St. Isidore is a private actor working under a contract with the state. The state, it reasoned, is providing money for the school to teach a Catholic curriculum, which students will be required to participate in. And the school will be a “government entity,” it found, without any right to the free exercise of religion, because it will act as a “surrogate of the State in providing free public education.” </p> <p>The school and the charter school board came to the Supreme Court in October, asking the justices to weigh in. </p> <p>The issue of public funding for private schools is one with which the justices are very familiar: In the past eight years, the justices have sided with parents and religious institutions in three cases challenging state policies that barred them from receiving education-related funds that were available for secular, but not religious, recipients. In 2017, they ruled that<a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/opinion-analysis-church-prevails-funding-dispute/">Missouri violated the Constitution</a> when it excluded a church preschool from a state-run program to resurface its playground. Three years later, they held that <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/espinoza-v-montana-department-of-revenue/">Montana could not bar religious schools</a> from a tax-credit program used to fund scholarships for children to attend private schools. And in 2022, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/court-strikes-down-maines-ban-on-using-public-funds-at-religious-schools/">they struck down a Maine policy</a> that allowed public funds to be used to pay tuition at non-sectarian schools but not at religious schools. </p> <p>Urging the justices to overturn the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision, the charter school board first insists that charter schools are not state actors or government entities. It points to the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in <em><a href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep457/usrep457830/usrep457830.pdf">Rendell-Baker v. Kohn</a> </em>– in which, the charter school board contends, the justices found that there was no state action when, as in this case, “a privately operated school provided free publicly funded education through a contract with the government.”</p> <p>The fact that the charter school would be labeled “public” does not, standing alone, make it a state actor, the board continued. That designation, the charter school board counters, simply indicates that charter schools receive public funding and do not charge tuition. </p> <p>Moreover, the board added, none of the factors that the court normally considers to determine whether a private entity is a state actor – such as whether the entity is intertwined with the government or whether it performs a traditional, exclusive public function – is satisfied in this case. </p> <p>More broadly, the board cautioned, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision could mean that other faith-based organizations – such as those providing foster care services, adoption services, homeless shelters – could be deemed “state actors” if they partner with the government or are subject to government regulation. </p> <p>Turning to its allegation that the invalidation of its contract with St. Isidore violates the Constitution, the charter school board contends that in its recent cases the Supreme Court has made clear that states violate the Constitution’s free exercise clause when they deny religious institutions or individuals benefits or the ability to participate in a program that is otherwise generally available to everyone. </p> <p>By banning charter-school applicants affiliated with religious institutions, the board says, Oklahoma law discriminates based on religious status against both the groups that want to operate religious charter schools and the parents who want to send their children there. And the ban on charter schools with religious programs or operations, the board writes, “unlawfully discriminates based on intended religious use.” </p> <p>The state cannot try to justify its exclusion on the ground that it does not want to violate the Constitution’s establishment clause, the board writes. The establishment clause bars the government from both establishing an official religion and favoring one religion over another. In the 18th and 19th centuries, governments in the United States did fund religious schools, they note. And in any event, they argue, a state does not violate the establishment clause if it simply treats religious and secular groups the same under funding programs available to all. “This is especially true when the money from those programs flows to religious schools because of private parental choice,” the board contends. </p> <p>In fact, the board suggests, a ruling against the charter school would conflict with the establishment clause: “Rejecting St. Isidore because of its religious character, which harms the families who want to send their kids there, manifests a deep mistrust of and hostility towards faith.” </p> <p>St. Isidore adds that the state supreme court’s holding that it is a state actor “flipped the state-action doctrine on its head.” The school, it stresses, was both created by and is controlled by private actors. “Neither its Catholic affiliation nor the Catholic educational model that it independently designed are attributable to the State.” </p> <p>And the case does not present an establishment clause problem, the school insists: It simply provides another option for Oklahoma families. Students will not be required to attend the school. Instead, it “will receive students, and state funding, only through the private choices of families.” </p> <p>The Trump administration filed a brief supporting the board and the school. In its view, however, the important question is not whether the school is a state actor, but instead whether it is a government entity – which, the government argues, it is not, because the state did not create or run the school. </p> <p>The federal government acknowledges that in 2023, the Biden administration took the opposite position in a challenge to a charter school’s dress code, which barred female students from wearing shorts or pants. But now, the Trump administration explained, the government has “concluded that charter schools do not perform functions exclusively reserved to the State.” </p> <p>Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond agrees that the state begins “with common ground” with the board and the school. During the past eight years, he writes, the Supreme Court “has made clear that when a State offers a generally available public benefit to private actors, it cannot deny that benefit to religious entities.” Oklahoma, Drummond adds, “strongly supports that free exercise principle.”</p> <p>But in the wake of the Supreme Court’s cases, Drummond says, there is a “clear” line: States that establish tuition-assistance programs that allow parents to use public funds for schools of their choice “cannot exclude private schools because they are religious.” But states can also choose to have public schools that provide “a strictly secular education.” </p> <p>The Supreme Court has never ruled either that the establishment clause allows or that the free exercise requires states to provide “direct aid for religious instruction <em>in public schools</em>.” To the contrary, Drummond contends, “creating and funding a religious <em>public</em> school would violate the Establishment Clause.” </p> <p>It makes no difference, Drummond asserts, that Congress and state governments provided funding for private religious schools during this country’s early history. He notes that there were no public schools when this country was originally founded in the 18th century – indeed, education was not even compulsory until the second half of the 19th century. “And since the advent of the modern public-education system, there is no history of creating — or funding — religious public schools.” </p> <p>Whether the charter schools are “state actors” is not the relevant question – as the federal government also observes in its brief – because the focus of the Supreme Court’s state-action cases is whether conduct by a private entity can fairly be attributed to the government, Drummond emphasizes. But this case is not a challenge to specific conduct by St. Isidore, Drummond observes. Instead, he writes, “it concerns St. Isidore’s very existence as a public charter school.” </p> <p>The real question, Drummond tells the justices, is whether charter schools in Oklahoma are public schools. They are, he contends, because “they bear all the classic indicia of public schools”: “They are free, open to all, subject to antidiscrimination laws, created and funded by the State, and subject to continuing government regulation and oversight as to curriculum, testing, and a host of other matters.” </p> <p>And because they are public schools, Drummond continues, charter schools in Oklahoma are also government entities. They meet both of the criteria that the court has considered in determining whether something meets that definition: They are created by the government, and the government controls them. </p> <p>Drummond pushes back against the suggestion that if St. Isidore’s is a state actor, then countless other faith-based groups would also become state actors. Those other groups are different, Drummond insists, because they are not “created by the State, delegated a traditional and exclusive state duty, nor knitted directly into the fabric of an existing public system like charter schools.” </p> <p>Reversing the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision, Drummond warns, could have serious implications. The federal charter school program also requires charter schools to be “public schools” that are “nonsectarian in [their] programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations.” Over the past three decades, he says, the federal charter school program has provided billions of dollars to public charter schools. Ruling that Oklahoma’s charter-school law “unconstitutionally discriminates against religion would upend the federal CSP and charter-school laws nationwide, sowing chaos and confusion for millions of charter-school students,” he contends. </p> <p>Moreover, he posits, if states are required to allow religious charter schools, they would face two options. The first would subject the religious institutions that operate the charter schools to regulations that normally do not apply to them – for example, antidiscrimination rules governing which students a school must admit, or which teachers a school can hire or fire. The other alternative would be to “grant religious charter schools a special status.” </p> <p>A brief supporting the attorney general by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools emphasizes that the term “‘public school’ is not just a label” but instead “reflects the original intent and current operation of every state charter school statute in the country.” If the Supreme Court were to rule that charter schools are not public schools, the group says, “many charter schools — 8% of public schools — risk losing all state funding due to state constitutional bans on public funding for private schools (sectarian or not).” </p> <p>St. Isidore and the charter school board will need at least five votes to reverse the state supreme court’s ruling for the state. One of the court’s conservative justices, and one of six Catholics on the court, Amy Coney Barrett, is not participating in the case. Although she did not explain why, St. Isidore’s is represented by the religious liberty clinic at Notre Dame’s law school, where Barrett taught for 15 years before becoming a federal judge and, eventually, a Supreme Court justice. And Barrett’s close friend, Nicole Stelle Garnett (also a law professor at Notre Dame), has been a leading advocate to allow the use of public funds at religious schools. If the court were to deadlock 4-4 with Barrett recused, the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of the attorney general (and against the charter school board) would stand. </p> <p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/04/supreme-court-to-consider-bid-for-first-religious-charter-school/">Supreme Court to consider bid for first religious charter school</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>

mingooland · · 11 min read
Read more →