AAC
LEGAL CORNER
U.S. Supreme Court cases of interest in the 2018-2019 term
was replaced by an expectedly more conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Tis is the second change in the makeup of the court in the last two years, with Justice Neil Gorsuch being appointed to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia in April 2017. Tis article will provide a brief synopsis of some key cases the Court has already granted or is expected to grant review during this term.
O
• Te American Legion v. American Humanist Ass’n/ Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Comm’n v. American Humanist Ass’n — In this case the Court will address religiously-associated displays on govern- ment property, an issue with widely inconsistent rulings across the country. Tis case involves a 40-foot, 93-year old memorial in the shape of a cross dedicated to those who died in World War I located at a three-way inter- section in Bladensburg, Maryland. Te Fourth Circuit ruled that the cross, due to its size and prominence did violate the First Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of a state religion. Te Court will hear this case and provide some much-needed clarity to the issue of when and how religiously-affiliated displays may and may not be placed on government-owned properties.
• Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — In 2010, the US Fish and Wildlife Service designated over 1,500 acres of land in Louisiana owned by Wey- erhaeuser and others as “critical habitat” for the en- dangered dusty gopher frog, although the area had not been inhabited by the frogs for decades, and in fact, would not be a viable habitat for the species without numerous costly restorations. Te Endangered Species Act allows designation as “critical habitat,” even if the area is not inhabited by a species if it is deemed “es- sential to the conservation of the species.” Te “criti- cal habitat” designation comes with federal regulations and restrictions that would inhibit the landowners’ plans for the commercial and residential development of their property, as well as cost up to an estimated $34 million to make the changes necessary for a suit- able habitat for the species. Te landowners ask the Supreme Court to rule that the Act does not allow for privately-owned land to be designated as “critical habi- tat” when it is neither currently habitat for a species
18
ct. 1, 2018 marked the beginning of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term, the first without former Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy, often a swing-vote in key decisions,
nor essential to the species’ conservation.
• Knick v. Township of Scott, PA — Te Township passed an ordinance requiring all property that is used as a cem- etery, whether private or pub- lic, to be open and accessible to the public in the daytime. It allowed enforcement agents to enter property to inspect whether a cemetery exists, and to charge up to $600 in fines for violations. Agents entered Knick’s property and found what they believed to be grave markers, and issued her a notice of viola- tion of the ordinance. Knick filed a complaint in state court for the unlawful taking of her property, but the state court refused to rule since she had not initiated an inverse-condemnation proceeding against the Town- ship. Federal Courts also refused to hear her claims that the ordinance violated the Fourth Amendment’s prohi- bition against unreasonable search and seizure for lack of standing and ripeness. Knick now asks the Court to overrule precedent set in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank in 1985, that prop- erty owners must exhaust state remedies before a federal constitutional claim may be heard in federal court.
LINDSEY BAILEY General Counsel
• Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren — Te Atomic Ener- gy Act of 1946 placed authority over nuclear radiologi- cal safety with the federal government, with states being free to regulate other nuclear power-related activities. In 1982, Virginia banned uranium mining while health and safety studies were conducted. Virginia Uranium argues that the state’s ban on mining is preempted by the 1946 Act’s designation of authority over radiological safety concerns to the federal government. Lower courts have upheld the state’s ban, and Virginia Uranium asks the Supreme Court to rule that the 1946 Act preempts Virginia’s state laws related to radiological safety.
• Gundy v. United States — Article I of the U.S. Consti- tution grants Congress all federal legislative power and prohibits the delegation of legislative functions to the Executive branch. Exceptions have been upheld so long as Congress provides a guiding “intelligible principle” for the agency to exercise its discretion. When Congress passed the Sex Offender Registry and Notification Act (SORNA) in 2006, it delegated to the Attorney Gen- eral’s office the authority to determine whether and how to apply the registration requirements to SORNA
COUNTY LINES, FALL 2018
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
