Topic: Law and Civil Liberties

Statement on Supreme Court Granting Cert in King v. Burwell

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in King v. Burwell.

Since January, the Obama administration has been spending billions of unauthorized federal dollars, and subjecting nearly 60 million Americans to unauthorized taxes, all to hide the full cost of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. The administration’s actions have not only violated the law and caused massive economic disruption, they have also subverted the democratic process. The plaintiffs in Pruitt v. BurwellHalbig v. Burwell, King v. Burwell, and Indiana v. IRS seek to put an end to those unlawful taxes and spending.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a rebuke to the Obama administration and its defenders, who dismissed as frivolous the plaintiffs’ efforts to defend their right not to be taxed without congressional authorization.

It is essential that these cases receive expedited resolution, if only to eliminate the uncertainty currently facing states, employers, insurers, and taxpayers.

Most important, these cases deserve expedited consideration because only they can bring an end to the greatest domestic-policy scandal of this administration.

Click here for reference materials on these cases, including all court filings and judicial opinions. Click here for news and opinion coverage of these cases.

Should Republicans Restore the Judicial Filibuster?

When Republicans take control of the Senate in January, should they revive the judicial filibuster that Democrats instituted in 2003 when George W. Bush was president, but ended last November when Republicans were filibustering Obama nominees? That heads-I-win-tails-you-lose question probably answers itself, but the background is a bit more complicated.

In fact, in a post I rushed into print yesterday morning I mangled some elementary filibuster facts, which I partially corrected late in the day after a reader kindly alerted me to the error. I’m tempted to say that an impostor was writing under my name, but the better explanation perhaps is too little sleep from following overnight election returns. In any event, it turns out that Harry Reid, having gone “nuclear” by ending the judicial filibuster a year ago is in no worse shape going into the next two years, as I’d initially implied, than he would have been had he kept it in place. It’s after that, if there’s a Republican president, that he’ll no longer have the filibuster at hand.

So what’s going on here? Let’s start at the beginning. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution says that “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” As students of the subject know, those rules can be arcane. And they change, about which there are also rules. The filibuster is a case in point. It’s nowhere in the Constitution, and it’s changed over the years. On the merits, a good case can be made on either side of the practice. In general, it can keep bad (or good) laws from being enacted—or bad (or good) laws from being removed. In the abstract, therefore, it’s a wash. Empirically, it depends on the history of its use—and where you sit.

Can a State Punish You for Advertising Your Business Without a License?

Under Ohio law, it isn’t illegal to buy gold, it isn’t illegal to sell gold, and it isn’t illegal to talk about buying and selling gold. But—and it’s a significant “but”—if you talk about buying gold, you’re not allowed to actually buy any. At least not without a license.

That’s right: in Ohio, it’s illegal for anyone who advertises a willingness to buy gold to do so without a license. Obtaining and maintaining that license isn’t easy, or cheap. Licenses must be renewed every year, and license holders have to make daily reports to the police detailing their purchases. This law creates a two-tiered system: dealers who have complied with the onerous licensing regime may freely advertise their businesses, while others can’t so much as put up a sign reading “We Buy Gold” without facing criminal prosecution and fines of up to $10,000 per transaction.

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that these sorts of regulations are tantamount requiring a “license to speak”—which are universally reviled as violations of the First Amendment (although some do exist). That should have been the end of this case: laws restricting commercial advertising are only constitutional if they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant state interest. The Ohio law, however, because it targets speech instead of the behavior connected to the speech couldn’t possibly survive that test. And that’s exactly what the federal district court held in this case brought by a coin and precious-metal business.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was less willing to follow the First Amendment, and reversed the district court. While that is bad enough in itself, the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning law is especially frightening. The court didn’t hold that Ohio’s law survived strict scrutiny under the First Amendment, but instead that the First Amendment didn’t apply. The Sixth Circuit found that an advertisement—a simple statement offering to buy gold—was “unprotected speech” beyond the scope of the First Amendment.

Cato has filed an amicus brief urging the Court to take this case and reverse the Sixth Circuit’s erroneous conclusion about the nature of free speech. While there certainly are types of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment, such as incitement to violence and child pornography, the existing rule is that truthful commercial advertising is protected unless it advertises criminal conduct. 

It’s not a crime to buy gold in Ohio, so it shouldn’t be illegal to talk about buying gold, with or without a license. Upholding the Sixth Circuit’s rule—which allows states to freely prohibit speech about conduct which is only illegal if discussed in public—would deprive nearly all advertising of constitutional protection, undoing 70 years of jurisprudence in the process. 

The Supreme Court will decide whether to take the case of Liberty Coins v. Goodman later this year or early in 2015.

You Shouldn’t Have to Register with the Government to Engage in Political Advocacy

Vermont Right to Life Committee, Inc. (VRLC) is a non-profit advocacy group organized as a “social welfare organization” under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code. It seeks to achieve “universal recognition of the sanctity of human life from conception through natural death.” To accomplish this, VRLC publishes pamphlets, newsletters, brochures, mass e-mails, newspaper articles, and radio ads. The group does not advocate for the election of any candidate or coordinate its actions with any candidate. It simply take donations from supporters and tries to educate people about the sanctity of human life.

Nevertheless, Vermont has required VRLC to register as a political committee because it takes in more than $1000 in donations and seeks to “influence elections.” This means that VRLC has to (1) register with the state, which includes appointing a treasurer and creating a special bank account; (2) keep extensive records about its activities; and (3) regularly give the government extensive reports. All of these requirements add up to a significant burden on VRLC’s educational activities and advocacy while not furthering any real government interest. After all, if VRLC is talking about issues not candidates, then, according to the Supreme Court, there is little or no chance that it will corrupt candidates.

Or, to put it another way, if VRLC has to register and report to the government—and just think for a moment how ridiculous and Orwellian (and Putinesque) that statement is—then who doesn’t have to register with the government to speak about political issues?

The registration and reporting burdens on VRLC are so great, in fact, that the group has said it’s “simply not worth it” to engage in constitutionally protected speech if it has to comply with Vermont’s regulations. VRLC thus brought a First Amendment challenge to many of the state’s convoluted campaign finance laws. The trial court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the state government, however, and held that the burdens on VRLC’s speech were constitutionally acceptable.

VRLC has now petitioned the Supreme Court. Cato, joining the Center for Competitive Politics, has filed a supporting brief.

We argue that the Court should take the case in order to clarify the test for when an organization’s “major purpose” is the “nomination or election of candidates.” The “major purpose test,” which derives from the foundational campaign finance case of Buckley v. Valeo (1976), exists to save issue-advocacy groups from burdensome requirements like Vermont’s. Unfortunately, courts throughout the country misapply this test and place heightened burdens on organizations that simply want to talk about issues of public concern.

We also argue that regulations like Vermont’s place unique and often insurmountable burdens on small organizations. These laws are expensive to comply with, so larger organizations with more resources for accountants and lawyers—overhead that can be better absorbed—have a comparative advantage over smaller players. If the Supreme Court doesn’t take this case, states will continue to find it easy to shut down the political speech—particularly of feisty small idea entrepreneurs—while labeling such censorship as ordinary campaign finance regulations.

The Supreme Court will decide later this year or early next year whether to review Vermont Right to Life Committee v. Sorrell.

How to Repeal ObamaCare through the Same Process that Gave Us ObamaCare

From my latest at Darwin’s Fool:

Republicans won an impressive number of victories last night, including a larger and more conservative House majority and enough wins to give the GOP at least a 52-seat majority in the Senate. As Jeffrey Anderson and Robert Laszewski have noted, Republicans made ObamaCare a major issue in the election  (the New York Times’ denials notwithstanding). Senate Republicans will fall several seats short of the 60-vote super-majority needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster of an ObamaCare-repeal bill, though. ObamaCare opponents are therefore debating whether and how Republicans could repeal some or all of the law via the Senate’s “budget reconciliation” process, which allows certain legislation to pass the Senate with only 51 votes. Some opponents have proposed getting around these difficulties by getting rid of the filibuster entirely. I think there’s a more prudent, targeted way Republicans could put ObamaCare repeal on the president’s desk, give Democrats a taste of their own majoritarian medicine, and convince Senate Democrats of the virtues of restoring the filibuster on legislation and judicial nominations.

It goes like this…

Read the whole thing.

Three Quick Thoughts on the Election’s Implications for the Judiciary

#1: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be reconsidering her decision not to retire. President Obama or a future President Hillary Clinton will have much less leeway with replacing her in a Republican-controlled Senate.

#2: There will be very few lower court judicial confirmations. Those that get through will be completely uncontroversial. Forget the nuclear option that removed judicial filibusters. At this point, with no political capital, President Obama will only get a small number of milquetoast nominees through the Senate.

#3: Expect even more litigation regarding executive actions. With no chance of getting his expansive regulatory project through Congress, President Obama will increasingly use the executive branch–particularly the EPA, the IRS, and HHS–to advance his policy agenda. That is good news only for litigators.

The 2014 Marijuana Ballot Initiatives

In yesterday’s election, Alaska (52-48%), Oregon (54-46%), and the District of Columbia (69-31%) all passed ballot initiatives that legalize marijuana under state (district) law.  This comes on top of the 2012 legalizations in Colorado and Washington.

Florida’s medical marijuana law failed, but only because it was a constitutional amendment and therefore needed 60 percent support to pass; 58 percent of voters endorsed the measure.

Two big tests remain for marijuana legalization. In 2016, another 5-10 states will consider legalization (plausibly Arizona, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont).  If legalization is successful in most of these states, the pressure for federal legalization will ramp up.

In January 2017, the country will have a new president. That person could order the Attorney General to enforce federal prohibition regardless of state law. That seems unlikely if more states legalize and public support expands.

But until federal law explicitly legalizes marijuana, the risk of interference continues.