blog.imla.orgIMLA Appellate Practice Blog

Appellate Practice Blog Produced by Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith LLP Blog Home About Contact Back to IMLA.org Search for: Subscribe by e-mail Enter your e-mail address to receive notifications of new posts. Email Address Subscribe Topics Case Notes Commentary IMLA Briefs Monday Morning Review Roundup Tips and Tactics Uncategorized Archives Archives Select Month June 2019 March 2019 February 2019 November 2018 September 2018 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 Author List Brittany Bartold Jonna Lothyan Lann McIntyre Jeff Miller Lisa Soronen Recent Updates Supreme Court Holds Partisan Gerrymandering Claims May Not be Litigated Employers Lose Important Procedural Employment Discrimination Case Justice Kavanaugh’s Surprising Oral Argument Questions in Partisan Gerrymandering Cases Supreme Court to Decide Groundwater Clean Water Act Case Supreme Court Rules against State and Local Governments in Age Discrimination Case Tags 1983 ADA Appeals Appellate Briefs Appellate Practice Attorney’s Fees Certiorari D.C. Circuit Due Process Eighth Circuit Eleventh Circuit Employment Employment Discrimination En Banc Equal Protection Establishment Clause Excessive Force Fifth Circuit First Amendment First Circuit Fourth Amendment Fourth Circuit IDEA Immigration Legal Writing Local Government Ninth Circuit Qualified Immunity Quill Redistricting Retaliation Scotus Second Amendment Second Circuit Seventh Circuit Sixth Circuit SLLC Supreme Court Supreme Court Briefs Takings Clause Taxation Tenth Circuit Third Circuit Tips Title VII кредит новосибирск займы в новосибирске открыть вклад Supreme Court Holds Partisan Gerrymandering Claims May Not be Litigated Posted in Case Notes Commentary on June 27, 2019 By Lann McIntyre ReplyResearch has shown that the more partisan gerrymandered a state legislature is, the more likely it is to preempt local ordinances. This case is important to local governments and to our democracy more generally. In Rucho v. Common Cause the Supreme Court held 5-4 that partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable—meaning that a federal court cannot decide them. Partisan gerrymandering is the practice of drawing legislative districts to benefit one political party. In Davis v. Bandemer (1986) a majority of the Supreme Court held that partisan gerrymandering cases are justiciable. In that case and since then the Court has been unable to define a standard for when partisan dominance is too much.” In Rucho v. Common Cause the Supreme Court announced it will stop trying. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion which his conservative colleagues joined (Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh). Unsurprisingly, the Court emphasized the role of state legislatures in districting: The Framers were aware of electoral districting problems and considered what to do about them. They settled on a characteristic approach, assigning the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress.” Continue reading → Posted in Case Notes , Commentary | Tagged constitutional , districting , electoral , gerrmandering , justiciable , partisan , partisanship |Leave a replyEmployers Lose Important Procedural Employment Discrimination Case Posted in Case Notes Commentary IMLA Briefs Monday Morning Review on June 3, 2019 By Lann McIntyre ReplyBefore an employee alleging employment discrimination under Title VII (on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin) may bring a lawsuit in federal court he or she must file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis the Supreme Court held unanimously that Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is a mandatory procedural prescription” that a court must consider if timely raised (but may be forfeited if not timely asserted). The State and Local Legal Center (SLLC) filed an amicus brief arguing that the charge-filing requirement is jurisdictional, meaning it can be raised at any stage of the litigation. If the charge-filing requirement was jurisdictional and an employee failed to comply with it, a court would no longer have authority to hear the case. ​ In her charge form to the EEOC, Lois Davis alleged that supervisors at Fort Bend County had sexually harassed her and retaliated against her. While her charge was pending, she was fired for refusing to come to work on a Sunday because of a commitment at church. While she updated her EEOC intake questionnaire to include religious discrimination she didn’t update the charge form. The EEOC investigated and gave Davis permission to sue. She brought a religious discrimination claim and a claim for retaliation for reporting sexual harassment. Years into the litigation Fort Bend County argued the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the religious discrimination claim because Davis never included it in the charge form. The Court, in an opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, held that Title VII’s charge-filing requirement is a mandatory but waivable claim-processing rule (which was waived in this case because Fort Bend waited so long to point out Davis didn’t comply with the charge-filing requirement). Continue reading → Posted in Case Notes , Commentary , IMLA Briefs , Monday Morning Review | Tagged charge-filing , EEOC , employee , employer , Employment Discrimination , jurisdiction , Retaliation , Title VII |Leave a replyJustice Kavanaugh’s Surprising Oral Argument Questions in Partisan Gerrymandering Cases Posted in Case Notes Commentary on March 26, 2019 By Lann McIntyre ReplyThe Supreme Court heard oral argument—yet again—in two cases arguing it should adopt a standard for when partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. Before argument court watchers were focused on Chief Justice Roberts, but during argument Justice Kavanaugh stole the show. In 1986 in Davis v. Bandemer six Supreme Court Justices agreed that some amount of partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional. But the Court has never laid out a test for making the determination. Most recently, last term, with Justice Kennedy still on the bench, the Supreme Court again failed to articulate a standard for unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering. The two cases before the Court today came from North Carolina and Maryland favoring Republicans and Democrats, respectively. By almost any measure the gerrymanders were unapologetic and extreme. Now that the Court has five solidly conservative members many have speculated that these Justices will rule that partisan gerrymandering claims raise non-justiciable political questions, effectively ending litigation over this question. In oral argument last term Chief Justice Roberts, now the Court’s likely swing Justice, used the term sociological gobbledygook ” when expressing his skepticism about the Court being able to agree to a satisfactory test. Today, as is typical, the Chief asked questions of both side. For example, he questioned the merits of a test that assumes how people will vote based on past voting noting how often predictions of how people will vote are wrong. On the other hand, he acknowledged that the Maryland gerrymander seems to be retaliation” and noted that the Supreme Court has an established analysis” to deal with First Amendment retaliation claims. Continue reading → Posted in Case Notes , Commentary | Tagged Equal Protection Clause , First...