Tag: Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Government Can’t Force Federal Contractors to Waive Their Rights

Despite its awkward name and somewhat technical details, AID v. AOSI provided the Supreme Court with an opportunity to make a very simple point: The federal government can’t force its contractors – whether they’re corporations (as in this case) or individuals – to promote policies that are unrelated to the program for which they receive federal funds. The Court correctly ruled that executing a program to combat HIV/AIDS is unrelated to advocating for or against the legalization of prostitution. One can imagine other instances: Treating drug abuse has little to do with one’s views on drug legalization. Running an adoption agency can be done whether one is pro-choice or pro-life. Missiles can be built regardless of whether the contractor favors a particular foreign policy stance.

As Cato argued in its amicus brief, such “policy requirements” significantly burden political speech, the constitutional protection of which lies at the very heart of the First Amendment. Had the government’s position been accepted, it would eviscerate the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine, which the Supreme Court has long recognized to prevent the conditioning of generally available federal benefits on the waiver of fundamental rights. The Court has never given Congress carte blanche to give contractors Hobson’s Choices, whether relating to the freedom of speech or other constitutional rights. Today it thus strengthened the principle that Congress’s power to condition funding is limited to ensuring that its funds are used to properly implement the program that Congress wishes to fund, not to compel private organizations to adopt express “policies” that don’t relate to the use of those federal funds.

For more on AID v. AOSI, see my recent op-ed.

Cato Brief Gains National Acclaim

Remember Bond v. United States, that typical story of adultery, federalism, and chemical weapons?  Cato has actually filed four briefs in Bond, most recently last month, the last three making the point that the president can’t expand federal constitutional powers simply by signing a treaty.

Our arguments are based on a 2005 law review article by Georgetown law professor (and Cato senior fellow) Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, the primary author of these last three briefs. It’s certainly unusual for a law review article to play a pivotal role in a Supreme Court case, but, as those following Bond know, there’s little “usual” about this case. 

Maybe that’s why the national media is starting to pay attention to our attempt to get the Supreme Court to be faithful to this particular corner of the Constitution: last week, the National Law Journal declared our Bond filing its “brief of the week.”

For more on this case, and our arguments, watch the lunch panel we had on Friday, featuring Nick Rosenkranz and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Bond in October.

Government’s Legal Arguments Shrivel on the Vine

Yet again the unanimous Supreme Court has slapped down a government attempt to deprive property owners of their civil rights.  What was at stake in Horne v. Dept. of Agriculture wasn’t even the property – raisins! – but the mere ability to challenge the government’s desire to take that property without meaningful judicial review.

Nobody should have to suffer a needless, Rube Goldberg-style litigation process to vindicate their constitutional rights. Yet that’s exactly what the U.S. Department of Agriculture sought to impose on raisin farmers Marvin and Laura Horne when they protested the enforcement of a USDA “marketing order” that demanded that the Hornes turn over 47% of their crop without compensation.

These New Deal-era regulations are bad enough – forcing raisin “handlers” to turn over some of their crop to the government so it can control raisin supply and price – but here the government kept throwing up obstacles to the Hornes’ attempts to assert that they shouldn’t legally be subject to them.  The government demanded about $650,000 from the Hornes and didn’t want to give them a day in court until they paid the money and jumped through assorted administrative hoops.

The Supreme Court correctly rejected that absurd position and reversed the California-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that upheld it, reinforcing the line drawn by five other circuit courts.  “In the case of an administrative enforcement proceeding,” Justice Thomas wrote on all his colleagues’ behalf, “when a party raises a constitutional defense to an assessed fine, it would make little sense to require the party to pay the fine in one proceeding and then turn around and sue for recovery of that same money in another.”

Indeed, there’s no reason to treat Fifth Amendment takings claims any differently than lawsuits against government violations of other constitutional provisions.

Here’s more background on the case and Cato’s amicus brief.

Maryland v. King and the Surveillance State

Ilya, Jim, and Roger have already ably covered many of the legal issues in yesterday’s major Fourth Amendment case, Maryland v. King, in which the Court narrowly approved DNA testing of arrestees. I’ve got an article in the Daily Beast this morning using Scalia’s dissent as my jumping-off point. Excerpt:

If there’s ever a time when Antonin Scalia really rises to the occasion, it’s when he serves as the Supreme Court’s liberal conscience….

[A]long with the good [from DNA testing] comes a new potential, warned against by civil libertarians, for the authorities to use DNA access to track citizens through life. Who was at the closed-door meeting of political dissidents? Swab the discarded drinking cups for traces of saliva, match it to a universal database, and there you’ve got your list of attendees. Want to escape a bad start and begin life over in a different community? Good luck with that once your origins are an open book to officialdom.

In his dissent, Scalia warns of such a “genetic panopticon.” (The reference is to Jeremy Bentham’s idea of a prison laid out so that inmates could be watched at every moment.) And it’s closer than you may think. Already fingerprint requirements have multiplied, as the dissent points out, “from convicted criminals, to arrestees, to civil servants, to immigrants, to everyone with a driver’s license” in some states. DNA sample requirements are now following a similar path, starting reasonably enough with convicts before expanding, under laws passed by more than half the states as well as Maryland, to arrestees. (“Nearly one-third of Americans will be arrested for some offense by age 23.”)  Soon will come wider circles. How long before you’ll be asked to give a DNA swab before you can board a plane, work as a lawn contractor, join the football team at your high school, or drive?

With the confidence that once characterized liberals of the Earl Warren–William Brennan school, Scalia says we can’t make catching more bad guys the be-all and end-all of criminal process:

“Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches. The Fourth Amendment must prevail. … I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

Incidentally, some of Scalia’s most scathing passages blast the majority for dwelling on objectives that Maryland might have accomplished by DNA testing, such as establishing a John Doe arrestee’s true identity, when in fact the state knew perfectly well who Alonzo King was when it collared him. Scalia nailed this rationale as merely pretextual, and just in case you doubted that, in a Washington Post interview just yesterday about the case, Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler frankly acknowledged that “the real reason for the law is solving crime.” Nothing there about a need to establish arrestees’ identities. The state’s own website explaining the law tells a similar story in its final sentence when it describes the 2009 change in the law.

One More Note on the DNA-Swab Case: Judicial Alignment

Roger Pilon and Jim Harper have already commented on the substance of Maryland v. King, but I wanted to highlight an aspect of the ruling that has raised some eyebrows, the lineup of justices.  Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Breyer.  Meanwhile, Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Justice Scalia’s hard-hitting dissent.  Breyer with the “conservatives,” Scalia leading the “liberals”; what’s going on here?

Not that much, actually, in terms of jurisprudential surprises.  As Orin Kerr points out, Justice Scalia has been on the defendants’ side in every non-unanimous Fourth Amendment case – King (DNA-swabbing of arrestees), Bailey (detention incident to search), Jardines (dog-sniffing a home), and McNeely (warrantless blood draw of DUI suspect) – while Justice Breyer has been on the prosecutors’ side in each of those cases.  

And the current term isn’t an anomaly.  In 2009, for example, Scalia joined the majority in overturning the Court’s precedent that had allowed police to search a car upon arresting its driver in the case of Arizona v. Gant (which Scalia mentions in a law-nerd-witty footnote 6 of his King dissent). The same thing happened in another case that year, Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, this time involving the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. Indeed, in both of those 2009 cases, Justices Scalia and Thomas joined Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg (then also the most “liberal” justices).

What happens in such cases is that the most originalist justices, those who like clear bright-line rules rather than mushy standards or balancing tests, join with justices who bend over backward to grant relief to criminal defendants, against those with law-and-order (Alito) or technocratic (Breyer) or establishmentarian (Roberts, Kennedy) tendencies.  Granted, Justice Thomas has been less consistent in that sense this term, but that’s the dynamic to consider when looking at seemingly weird splits in criminal procedure cases.

How Identification Is Overused and Misunderstood

Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to be carving out his place as the Supreme Court justice who doesn’t “get” identity. Maryland v. King was the case issued today that shows that.

His opener was the 2004 decision in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, which ratified laws requiring people to disclose their names to police officers on request.

In that case, Deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt County (NV) Sheriff’s Department had received a report that a man had slugged a woman. He didn’t know the names of the alleged perpetrator or the victim, but Dove found Larry Hiibel standing next to his truck at the side of the road talking to his seventeen-year-old daughter seated inside. Dove didn’t check to see if they were having a dispute, or if anyone had hit anyone. He just started demanding Hiibel’s ID.

“Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder,” Justice Kennedy wrote, approving Hiibel’s arrest for refusing to show his papers:

On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere. Identity may prove particularly important in [certain cases, such as] where the police are investigating what appears to be a domestic assault. Officers called to investigate domestic disputes need to know whom they are dealing with in order to assess the situation, the threat to their own safety, and possible danger to the potential victim.

Even if he had gotten Larry Hiibel’s ID, that wouldn’t have told Dove any of these things. Dove would have had to stop his battery investigation to investigate Hiibel’s background, which he didn’t do until after he had arrested Hiibel–and after his partner had thrown Hiibel’s distraught daughter to the ground. (There’s your battery.)

In Maryland v. King, Justice Kennedy did it again. He wrote the decision approving DNA identification of arrestees. Like demanding Hiibel’s ID, which had no relation to investigating battery, Maryland’s practice of collecting DNA has no relation to investigating or proving the crime for which King was arrested, and it does nothing to administer his confinement. This Justice Scalia made clear in a scathing dissent.

The Court alludes at several points to the fact that King was an arrestee, and arrestees may be validly searched incident to their arrest. But the Court does not really rest on this principle, and for good reason: The objects of a search incident to arrest must be either (1) weapons or evidence that might easily be destroyed, or (2) evidence relevant to the crime of arrest. Neither is the object of the search at issue here. (citations omitted)

Justice Kennedy appears to think there are certain behaviors around detention and arrest that law enforcement is allowed without regard to the detention or arrest. Here, he has sanctioned the gathering of DNA from arrested people, supposedly presumed innocent until proven guilty, to investigate the possibility of their connection to other, unknown crimes. His logic would allow searching the cell phone of a person arrested for public drunkenness to see if they have participated in an extortion plot.

There is plenty of time to run DNA identification data past cold case files after conviction, and all parties agree that’s what would have happened in King’s case. Given that, the Supreme Court has upheld DNA-based investigation of innocent people for their connections to cold cases because they happen to have been arrested. That’s the strange result of Maryland v. King.

Supreme Court Errs in Giving Agencies Power to Define Their Own Power

Although it did good by taxpayers today, the Supreme Court also issued a divided ruling that unfortunately expands the power of administrative agencies generally.  In City of Arlington v. FCC, six justices gave agencies discretion to decide when they have the power to regulate in a given area – which expands on the broad discretion they already have to regulate within the areas in which Congress granted them authority.

But why should courts defer to agency determinations regarding their own authority?  Courts review congressional action, so why should theoretically subservient bureaucrats – appointed by the executive branch and empowered by Congress – escape such checks and balances?  

Underneath the legal jargon and competing precedent regarding the line between actions that are “jurisdictional” (assertion of authority) versus “nonjurisdictional” (use of authority) is a very basic question: whether a government body uses its power wisely or not, it cannot possibly be the judge of whether it has that power to begin with.  Yet Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, essentially says that there’s no such thing as a dispute over whether an agency has power to regulate in a given area, just clear congressional lines of authority and ambiguous ones, with agencies having free rein in the latter circumstance unless their actions are “arbitrary and capricious” (what lawyers call Chevron deference, after a foundational 1984 case involving the oil company).

That makes no sense.  As Cato explained in our brief, since the theory of deference is based on Congress’s affirmative grant of power to an agency over a defined jurisdiction, it’s incoherent to say that the failure to provide such power is an equal justification for deference. Furthermore, granting an agency deference over its own jurisdiction is an open invitation for agencies to aggrandize power that Congress never intended them to have. One doesn’t need a doctorate in public choice economics to recognize that we need checks on those who wield power because it’s in their nature to husband and grow that power.

More broadly, this case should make us question the whole doctrine of Chevron deference: Yes, decisions about the scope of agency power should be made by elected officials, not by bureaucrats insulated from political accountability, but courts should also review with a more skeptical eye agency decisions about the use of power even within the proper scope.