Written Assignment #1
Part I: Statutory Law
H.R. 2748 – Postal Reform Act of 2013
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] introduced this bill in July of 2013. His hope is to reform and modernize the United States Postal Service by:
1) Reducing mail delivery to 5 days per week
2) Eliminating door delivery and establish centralized curbside delivery
3) Establishing a plan to close 30% of USPS area and district offices by Oct. 2015
4) Creating a temporary “checks and balances” office – Service Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
5) Moving selection of Inspector General to the President (removing from Board of Governors)
6) Protecting the USPS from reduction-in-force procedures
7) Ensuring employee fringe benefits, health benefits, and insurance
I agree that the USPS needs reform. Most of these objectives sound reasonable and worthwhile. It’s hard to say if it would or would not work, but this sounds like the most viable plan I have heard for USPS reform. I would agree with the goals.
Part II: Constitutional Law
1) The nine justices of the Supreme Court are:
a. Chief Justice: John Roberts
b. Samuel Alito
c. Stephen Breyer
d. Ruth Bader Ginsburg
e. Elena Kagan
f. Anthony Kennedy
g. Antonin Scalia
h. Sonia Sotomayor
i. Clarence Thomas
The Chief Justice is the chief administrative officer for the federal courts and acts as the spokesperson for the Judicial Branch. The Chief Justice also administers the Oath of Office of the President.
2) Interesting Site Features:
a. Organization and Relatedness: I think it’s great that archives are sorted by topic, author, party, etc…
b. Past Judge Decisions: I like that you can see a Justice’s profile and past decisions
3) Title: WINTER v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSECOUNCIL, INC.
Citation: No. 07-1239
Supreme Court of the United States, 2008
Summary: Plaintiffs assert that MFA sonar (used by the Navy) causes serious injury to animals. The Navy disputes this claim. Plaintiffs sue seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the training exercises violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
The District Court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Navy from using MFA sonar during its training exercises. The Court of Appeals the District Court for a narrow remedy. The District Court then entered another preliminary injunction, imposing six restrictions on the Navy’s use of MFA sonar for training. The injunction required the Navy to shutdown MFA sonar when a marine mammal was spotted within 2,200 yards of a vessel, and to power down sonar by 6 decibels during conditions known as “surface ducting”
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) authorized the Navy to implement “alternative arrangements” to NEPA compliance in light of “emergency circumstances.” The CEQ allowed the Navy to continue its training exercises under voluntary mitigation procedures that the Navy had previously adopted.
The Navy moved to vacate the District Court’s preliminary injunction in light of the CEQ’s actions. The District Court refused to do so, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that the balance of hardships and consideration of public interest favored the plaintiffs.
Court’s Holdings: Held: The preliminary injunction is vacated to the extent challenged by the Navy. The balance of equities and public interest tip strongly in favor of the Navy. The Navy’s need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines plainly outweighs the interests advanced by the plaintiffs.
The “possibility” of irreparable harm standard is too lenient. The plaintiffs need to demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.
Implications: This ruling has the potential for the military to dismiss the environmental impacts of its trainings. This ruling also weighs the importance of “possible” national threats over “possible” injury to natural environments.
4) BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. ()
No. 13-354, 723 F. 3d 1114; No. 13-356, 724 F. 3d 377
Supreme Court of the United States, 2014
Facts: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 requires specific employer’s group health plans to furnish “preventative care and screenings” for women. Employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further.
Non-profit organizations and religious employers are exempt from this. Insurances issuers must exclude contraceptive coverage from these employers’ plans and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services.
Three for-profit corporations have sued HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) under RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) and the Free Exercise Clause in opposition to the 4 objectionable contraceptives.
In No. 13-354, the District Court denied Hobby Lobby preliminary injunction, but the Tenth Circuit court reversed. It held that under RFRA businesses are “persons” and the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion.
Issue: Does the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate the RFRA?
Decision: Yes, the HHS regulations violate RFRA.
Reasoning: RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby. HHS sees non-profit businesses as a “person” which dispatches the belief that for-profits are the same.
HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion. It requires these organizations to engage in actions which violate their sincere religious beliefs. If they refuse to participate, they face severe economic consequences or penalties.
Implications: This decision allows corporations to force their religious restrictions on their employees as a means of “practicing religion”. This could potentially lead to imposingly restrictive corporate policies in the name of “religion”.
Part I: Statutory Law
H.R. 2748 – Postal Reform Act of 2013
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] introduced this bill in July of 2013. His hope is to reform and modernize the United States Postal Service by:
1) Reducing mail delivery to 5 days per week
2) Eliminating door delivery and establish centralized curbside delivery
3) Establishing a plan to close 30% of USPS area and district offices by Oct. 2015
4) Creating a temporary “checks and balances” office – Service Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority
5) Moving selection of Inspector General to the President (removing from Board of Governors)
6) Protecting the USPS from reduction-in-force procedures
7) Ensuring employee fringe benefits, health benefits, and insurance
I agree that the USPS needs reform. Most of these objectives sound reasonable and worthwhile. It’s hard to say if it would or would not work, but this sounds like the most viable plan I have heard for USPS reform. I would agree with the goals.
Part II: Constitutional Law
1) The nine justices of the Supreme Court are:
a. Chief Justice: John Roberts
b. Samuel Alito
c. Stephen Breyer
d. Ruth Bader Ginsburg
e. Elena Kagan
f. Anthony Kennedy
g. Antonin Scalia
h. Sonia Sotomayor
i. Clarence Thomas
The Chief Justice is the chief administrative officer for the federal courts and acts as the spokesperson for the Judicial Branch. The Chief Justice also administers the Oath of Office of the President.
2) Interesting Site Features:
a. Organization and Relatedness: I think it’s great that archives are sorted by topic, author, party, etc…
b. Past Judge Decisions: I like that you can see a Justice’s profile and past decisions
3) Title: WINTER v. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSECOUNCIL, INC.
Citation: No. 07-1239
Supreme Court of the United States, 2008
Summary: Plaintiffs assert that MFA sonar (used by the Navy) causes serious injury to animals. The Navy disputes this claim. Plaintiffs sue seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on the grounds that the training exercises violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
The District Court entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Navy from using MFA sonar during its training exercises. The Court of Appeals the District Court for a narrow remedy. The District Court then entered another preliminary injunction, imposing six restrictions on the Navy’s use of MFA sonar for training. The injunction required the Navy to shutdown MFA sonar when a marine mammal was spotted within 2,200 yards of a vessel, and to power down sonar by 6 decibels during conditions known as “surface ducting”
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) authorized the Navy to implement “alternative arrangements” to NEPA compliance in light of “emergency circumstances.” The CEQ allowed the Navy to continue its training exercises under voluntary mitigation procedures that the Navy had previously adopted.
The Navy moved to vacate the District Court’s preliminary injunction in light of the CEQ’s actions. The District Court refused to do so, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals held that the balance of hardships and consideration of public interest favored the plaintiffs.
Court’s Holdings: Held: The preliminary injunction is vacated to the extent challenged by the Navy. The balance of equities and public interest tip strongly in favor of the Navy. The Navy’s need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to the threat posed by enemy submarines plainly outweighs the interests advanced by the plaintiffs.
The “possibility” of irreparable harm standard is too lenient. The plaintiffs need to demonstrate that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an injunction.
Implications: This ruling has the potential for the military to dismiss the environmental impacts of its trainings. This ruling also weighs the importance of “possible” national threats over “possible” injury to natural environments.
4) BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. ()
No. 13-354, 723 F. 3d 1114; No. 13-356, 724 F. 3d 377
Supreme Court of the United States, 2014
Facts: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 requires specific employer’s group health plans to furnish “preventative care and screenings” for women. Employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further.
Non-profit organizations and religious employers are exempt from this. Insurances issuers must exclude contraceptive coverage from these employers’ plans and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services.
Three for-profit corporations have sued HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) under RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) and the Free Exercise Clause in opposition to the 4 objectionable contraceptives.
In No. 13-354, the District Court denied Hobby Lobby preliminary injunction, but the Tenth Circuit court reversed. It held that under RFRA businesses are “persons” and the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion.
Issue: Does the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate the RFRA?
Decision: Yes, the HHS regulations violate RFRA.
Reasoning: RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby. HHS sees non-profit businesses as a “person” which dispatches the belief that for-profits are the same.
HHS’s contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion. It requires these organizations to engage in actions which violate their sincere religious beliefs. If they refuse to participate, they face severe economic consequences or penalties.
Implications: This decision allows corporations to force their religious restrictions on their employees as a means of “practicing religion”. This could potentially lead to imposingly restrictive corporate policies in the name of “religion”.
No comments:
Post a Comment