The Supreme Court Limbers Up to Aid and Abet Trump’s Coup

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes how the U.S. Supreme Court is readying itself to declare Trump the winner of the election. Professor Buchanan points out that no court acting in good faith would apply the text of the Constitution or existing Supreme Court precedents in a way that would allow any of this scheme to see the light of day, but based on what Justice Kavanaugh has written and what Justice Gorsuch strongly suggests, the Court might not even have that minimum amount of good faith.

Read More

If the Challengers Prevail on the Merits of the ACA California v. Texas Case, What is the Appropriate Remedy and What Effect Should the Ruling Have on the Entirety of the ACA? Part Four in a Series

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this fourth of a series of columns examining the California v. Texas case challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone consider what the appropriate remedy should be if the challengers prevail on the merits of the case. The authors explain why enjoining the 2017 amendment, which zeroed out the potential tax penalty for failure to maintain the specified health insurance coverage, is a more appropriate remedy than striking down the entire ACA.

Read More

The U.S. Supreme Court Cannot Determine the Election Result

AUSTIN SARAT, DANIEL B. EDELMAN

Amherst College Associate Provost Austin Sarat and attorney Daniel B. Edelman argue that there is nothing the Supreme Court can do to prevent governors from certifying slates of electors that actually reflect the vote of the people in their states. Sarat and Edelman explain why Bush v Gore is both inapplicable, and by its own terms, never supposed to be used as precedent.

Read More

Richardson v. UPS Store, Inc.

Docket: SJC-12769

Opinion Date: October 28, 2020

Judge: Budd

Areas of Law: Consumer Law

The Supreme Judicial Court held that the $1.25 fee cap set forth in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 262, 41 applies only to a particular notarial act known as "noting," and that the meaning of that section has not been expanded to include all notarial acts. The question at issue in this case arose in connection with a lawsuit in which Plaintiff alleged that Defendants - The UPS Store, Inc., and J&V Logistics LLC, the franchise owner - overcharged him for notary services. Plaintiff alleged violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 262, 41 and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A. Defendants removed the case to the federal district court. Thereafter, Defendants moved to certify to the Supreme Judicial Court the question of whether section 41 applies to all notarial acts, as argued by Plaintiff. The district court certified the question. The Supreme Judicial Court held that Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 262, 41 and 43 to not proscribe fees for acts unrelated to the protest of a negotiable instrumented that, aside from section 41, there are currently no statutes or executive orders that cap fees for any other notarial act.

In re J.P.

Docket: SJC-12872

Opinion Date: October 28, 2020

Judge: Budd

Areas of Law: Health Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court judge in this civil commitment matter, holding that sufficient admissible evidence was presented to warrant an order to civilly commit J.P. for a period not to exceed six months pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, 7, 8. Southcoast Behavioral Health filed a timely petition for J.P.'s involuntary commitment, alleging that, as a result of mental illness, J.P. presented a risk of harm to others and a substantial risk of harm to himself and that civil commitment was the least restrictive alternative in the circumstances. After a hearing, the judge ordered J.P. civilly committed for a period not to exceed six months. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding (1) the judge improperly considered certain evidence because it was inadmissible hearsay, but J.P. suffered no prejudice from the admission of this evidence; and (2) there was sufficient evidence presented to support the civil commitment order.

Daniel Wright's Case

Docket: SJC-12873

Opinion Date: October 27, 2020

Judge: Kafker

Areas of Law: Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the decision of the reviewing board of the Department of Industrial Accidents (department) concluding that marijuana's status as a federally illicit substance preempted any state level authority to order a workers' compensation insurer to pay for Daniel Wright's medical marijuana expenses, holding that the workers' compensation insurer in this case could not be required to pay for medical marijuana expenses. Wright sought compensation for $24,267 of medical marijuana expenses to treat chronic pain stemming from two work-related injuries. An administrative judge denied his claim, and the reviewing board affirmed. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the reimbursement limitation provision contained within the Commonwealth's medical marijuana act, St. 2012, c. 369, 7, prevents a health insurance provider or government agency from being ordered to reimburse a claimant for medical marijuana expenses.