Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Maryland has a “state” income tax, Md. Tax-Gen. Code 10–105(a), and a “county” income tax, sections 10–103, 10–106. Residents who pay income tax to another jurisdiction for income earned in that other jurisdiction get a credit against the state tax but not the county tax. Nonresidents who earn income from Maryland sources must pay the state income tax; nonresidents not subject to the county tax must pay a “special nonresident tax.” Residents who earned pass-through income from a Subchapter S corporation that earned income in several states claimed an income tax credit on their Maryland tax return for taxes paid to other states. The Comptroller allowed a credit against state income tax but not against county income tax and assessed a tax deficiency. The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the tax unconstitutionally discriminated against interstate commerce. The Supreme Court affirmed: Maryland’s personal income tax scheme violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The Court noted previous decisions invalidating state tax schemes that might lead to double taxation of out-of-state income and that discriminated in favor of intrastate over interstate economic activity. That conclusion is not affected by the fact that these cases involved a tax on gross receipts rather than net income, and a tax on corporations rather than individuals. Maryland’s income tax scheme fails the internal consistency test; if every state adopted its tax structure, interstate commerce would be taxed at a higher rate than intrastate commerce. The scheme is inherently discriminatory and operates as a tariff. The Court rejected an argument that, by offering residents who earn income in interstate commerce a credit against the state portion of the tax, Maryland receives less tax revenue from residents who earn interstate, rather than intrastate, commerce income; the total tax burden on interstate commerce is higher. View "Comptroller of Treasury of Md. v. Wynne" on Justia Law

Florida voters elect judges. The Florida Supreme Court adopted Canon 7C(1) of its Code of Judicial Conduct, stating that judicial candidates “shall not personally solicit campaign funds . . . but may establish committees of responsible persons” to raise money for election campaigns. Yulee mailed and posted online a letter soliciting financial contributions to her campaign for judicial office. The Florida Bar disciplined her for violating a Bar Rule requiring candidates to comply with Canon 7C(1). The Florida Supreme Court upheld the sanction against a First Amendment challenge. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed. Florida’s interest in preserving public confidence in the integrity of its judiciary is compelling.. Unlike the legislature or the executive, the judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse,” so its authority largely depends on the public’s willingness to respect its decisions. Canon 7C(1) raises no fatal underinclusivity concerns. The solicitation ban aims squarely at the conduct most likely to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary: it is not riddled with exceptions. Allowing a candidate to use a committee and to write thank you notes reflect Florida’s effort to respect the First Amendment interests of candidates and contributors. Canon 7C(1) is not overinclusive It allows judicial candidates to discuss any issue with any person at any time; to write letters, give speeches, and put up billboards; to contact potential supporters in person, on the phone, or online; and to promote their campaigns through the media. Though they cannot ask for money, they can direct their campaign committees to do so. Florida has reasonably determined that personal appeals for money by a judicial candidate inherently create an appearance of impropriety. Canon 7C(1) must be narrowly tailored, not “perfectly tailored” to address that concern. View "Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar" on Justia Law

Struble, a K–9 officer, stopped Rodriguez for driving on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. Struble attended to everything relating to the stop, including checking the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a warning. He then sought permission to walk his dog around the vehicle. Rodriguez refused. Struble detained him until another officer arrived, then retrieved his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs. The ensuing search revealed methamphetamine. Seven or eight minutes elapsed from the time Struble issued the warning until the dog alerted. Rodriguez was indicted. He moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that Struble had prolonged the stop without reasonable suspicion. The district court denied the motion. Rodriguez entered a conditional guilty plea. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, characterizing the delay as a “de minimis intrusion” on personal liberty. The Supreme Court vacated. Absent reasonable suspicion, extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff constitutes an unreasonable seizure. A routine traffic stop is like a brief “Terry” stop; its tolerable duration is determined by the “mission.” Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are, or reasonably should be, completed. Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the traffic mission. An officer who completes all traffic-related tasks expeditiously does not earn extra time to pursue unrelated criminal investigations; the question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before issuance of a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff adds time to the stop. The district court determination that detention for the dog sniff was not independently supported by individualized suspicion was not reviewed by the Eighth Circuit. View "Rodriguez v. United States" on Justia Law

Grady was convicted in North Carolina of a second degree sexual offense in 1997 and of taking indecent liberties with a child in 2006. After he served his sentence, the state held a hearing to determine whether he should be subjected to satellite-based monitoring (SBM) as a recidivist sex offender, N. C. Gen. Stat. 14–208.40(a)(1), 14– 208.40B. Grady argued that the program, under which he would be forced to wear tracking devices at all times, would violate his Fourth Amendment rights. State courts rejected his arguments. The Supreme Court, per curiam, vacated, holding that the state conducts a search when it attaches a device to a person’s body, without consent, for the purpose of tracking that individual’s movements. Although the North Carolina monitoring program is civil in nature, the government’s purpose in collecting information does not control whether the method of collection constitutes a search. The Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable searches. The case was remanded to allow North Carolina courts to examine whether the monitoring program is reasonable, when properly viewed as a search. View "Grady v. North Carolina" on Justia Law

Donald, Liggins, Moore, Saine, and Zaya decided to rob a drug dealer (Makki). Donald, Moore, and Liggins drove to Makki’s home. Moore and Donald entered. Liggins waited in the car. McGinnis, a drug runner, was present, and dropped to the floor. He heard a scuffle and gunshots. After Moore and Donald left, he found Makki, dying. Moore and Donald returned to the car. Donald stated that he had stolen $320 and that Moore had accidentally shot him. Donald later went to a hospital for the wound. Weeks later, the state charged Donald with first-degree felony murder and two counts of armed robbery. Liggins and Zaya pleaded guilty. Donald was tried with Moore and Saine. His defense was that he was present, but did not participate. The court admitted a chart chronicling phone calls from the day of the crime among Moore, Saine, and Zaya. Donald’s attorney did not object, saying: “it does not affect me.’” When the trial resumed after a recess, Donald’s counsel was not in the courtroom. Ten minutes later, the lawyer returned. The judge informed him that “we only were discussing the telephone chart.” The attorney replied, “I had no dog in the race and no interest in that.” Donald was convicted. Michigan courts rejected his claim that his attorney’s absence during the phone call testimony denied him effective assistance of counsel. The federal district court granted habeas relief. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, based on the Supreme Court’s “Cronic” holding that courts may presume unconstitutional prejudice if a defendant “is denied counsel at a critical stage of his trial.” The Supreme Court, per curiam, reversed. The state court’s decision could not be “contrary to” any Supreme Court holding; no holding addresses counsel’s absence during testimony that is irrelevant within the defendant’s own theory of the case. A fair-minded jurist could conclude that a presumption of prejudice is not warranted by counsel’s short absence during testimony about other defendants, irrelevant to the defendant’s theory. View "Woods v. Donald" on Justia Law

In 2012 Alabama redrew the boundaries of its 105 House and 35 Senate districts to minimize each district’s deviation from precisely equal population and avoid retrogression with respect to racial minorities’ “ability to elect their preferred candidates of choice” under the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. 10304(b), by maintaining roughly the same black population percentage in existing majority-minority districts. The district court rejected an equal protection claim of “racial gerrymander.” The Supreme Court vacated. Analysis of the racial gerrymandering claim as referring to the state “as a whole,” rather than district-by-district, was erroneous. Showing that race-based criteria did not significantly affect the drawing of some districts did not defeat a claim that such criteria predominantly affected the drawing of others. The objectors’ claimed that individual majority-minority districts were racially gerrymandered, and those districts must be reconsidered. There was “strong, perhaps overwhelming, evidence that race did predominate as a factor” with respect to one district. An equal population goal is not a “traditional” factor in determining whether race “predominates,” but is taken as a given. The district court and the Alabama legislature relied upon a mechanically numerical view as to what counts as forbidden retrogression and asked how to maintain the present minority percentages in majority-minority districts. The Act does not require maintenance of a particular numerical minority percentage. It requires the jurisdiction to maintain a minority’s ability to elect a preferred candidate of choice. View "Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama" on Justia Law

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) has priority to use track systems owned by the freight railroads for passenger rail travel, at agreed rates or rates set by the Surface Transportation Board. In 2008, Congress gave Amtrak and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) joint authority to issue “metrics and standards” addressing performance and scheduling of passenger railroad services, 122 Stat. 4907, including Amtrak’s on-time performance and delays caused by host railroads. The Association of American Railroads sued. The District of Columbia Circuit accepted a separation of powers claim, reasoning that Amtrak is a private corporation and cannot constitutionally be granted regulatory power. The Supreme Court vacated. For purposes of determining the validity of the standards, Amtrak is a governmental entity. The D.C. Circuit relied on the statutory command that Amtrak “is not a department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States,” 49 U.S.C. 24301(a)(3), and “shall be operated and managed as a for profit corporation,” but independent inquiry reveals that the political branches control most of Amtrak’s stock and its Board of Directors, most of whom are appointed by the President. The political branches exercise substantial, statutorily mandated supervision over Amtrak’s priorities and operations: Amtrak is required to pursue broad public objectives; certain day-to-day operations are mandated by Congress; and Amtrak has been dependent on federal financial support during every year of its existence. Amtrak is not an autonomous private enterprise and, in jointly issuing the metrics and standards with the FRA, Amtrak acted as a governmental entity for separation of powers purposes. Treating Amtrak as governmental for these purposes is not an unbridled grant of authority to an unaccountable actor. On remand, the court may address any remaining issues respecting the lawfulness of the metrics and standards. View "Dep't of Transp. v. Ass'n of Am. Railroads" on Justia Law

Colorado requires residents who purchase goods from a retailer that does not collect sales or use taxes to file a return and remit taxes directly to its Department of Revenue. Noncollecting retailers must notify any Colorado customer of the requirement and report tax-related information to those customers and the Department. An association of retailers sued, alleging that Colorado’s law violates the United States and Colorado Constitutions. The district court enjoined enforcement of the notice and reporting requirements. The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that the Tax Injunction Act (TIA), which provides that federal district courts “shall not enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State,” 28 U.S.C. 1341, deprived the court of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed. The requested relief would not “enjoin, suspend or restrain the assessment, levy or collection” of taxes. The terms “assessment,” “levy,” and “collection” do not encompass enforcement of notice and reporting requirements. The terms, read in light of the federal Tax Code, refer to discrete phases of the taxation process that do not include informational notices or private reports of information relevant to tax liability. Assessment and collection are triggered after the state receives the returns and makes the deficiency determinations that the notice and reporting facilitate. The context in which the TIA uses the word “restrain” favors a narrow meaning. The Court took no position on whether the suit such as this might be barred under the “comity doctrine.” View "Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl" on Justia Law

Frost helped associates commit armed robberies in Washington, generally as the driver. Frost admitted involvement, but claimed he acted under duress. Frost’s lawyer planned to argue both that the state failed to meet its burden of proof and that Frost acted under duress. The judge insisted that the defense choose between the arguments, explaining that state law prohibited simultaneously contesting the elements of the crime and presenting the affirmative defense of duress. Frost’s lawyer limited his summation to duress. The jury convicted Frost of robbery, attempted robbery, burglary, and assault. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting the trial court’s view that state law prohibited Frost from both contesting liability and arguing duress and stating that this improper restriction qualified as a trial error (reviewable for harmlessness) rather than a structural error (requiring automatic reversal). Because the jury heard taped confessions and Frost’s confession on the witness stand, the court held that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The district court dismissed his habeas petition; the Ninth Circuit, en banc, reversed. A unanimous Supreme Court reversed. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the petition could be granted only if the state court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,.” 28 U. S. C. 2254(d). No Supreme Court case clearly requires placing improper restriction of closing argument in these narrow categories. The trial court did not prohibit the defense from arguing that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime. Reasonable minds could disagree whether requiring the defense to choose between alternative theories. View "Glebe v. Frost" on Justia Law

The inmate, a devout Muslim wanted to grow a ½-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs. The Arkansas Department of Correction prohibits prisoners from growing beards, with an exception that inmates with diagnosed skin conditions may grow ¼-inch beards. Prison officials denied him an exemption. Department witnesses testified that beards compromise safety because they can hide contraband and because an inmate could quickly shave to disguise his identity. The district court dismissed, emphasizing that prison officials are entitled to deference on security matters and that the prison permitted exercise of his religion in other ways. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed. The policy violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a). The prisoner’s sincerity is not in dispute and the policy forces him to choose between “engag[ing] in conduct that seriously violates [his] religious belie[f]” and risking discipline. Although he testified that his religion would “credit” him for attempting to follow his beliefs, even if the attempt were unsuccessful, RLUIPA applies to religious exercise regardless of whether it is “compelled.” RLUIPA’s guarantees are not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect. The Department failed to show that enforcing its prohibition against the prisoner furthers its stated compelling interests. The Court noted the difficulty of hiding contraband in such a short beard; the lack of a corresponding policy regulating the length of hair on the head; and that the Department did not establish that its security concerns cannot be satisfied by searching a ½-inch beard. Even if the policy furthered a compelling interest in prisoner identification, it violates RLUIPA as applied. Requiring inmates to be photographed both with and without beards would be a less restrictive means. Many institutions allow facial hair and the Department failed to explain the substantial underinclusiveness of its policy with regard to “analogous nonreligious conduct.” View "Holt v. Hobbs" on Justia Law