Results matching “Candelaria”

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting - PointOfLaw Forum

Can we now officially end the nonsense that this is a "pro-business" court? In a 5-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court rejected the Chamber of Commerce's position that federal law preempted Arizona's E-Verify requirements. The three dissenters siding with the Chamber of Commerce (and, unusually, with federal preemption) were the liberals Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor. See also Previous discussion of the case on POL; Adler @ Volokh; Whelan; Blackman; Dow Jones]

On the radio this morning - PointOfLaw Forum

I'll be discussing the United States v. Arizona ruling on a number of radio stations:

KOA Denver, CO 0705AM ET
KFAB Omaha, NE 0715AM ET
WTAM Cleveland, OH 0745AM ET
WTVN Columbus, OH 0810AM ET
WPTI Greensborough, NC 0820AM ET
KFBK Sacramento, CA 0838AM ET
KLIN Lincoln, NE 0935AM ET
WHAS Louisville, KY 1005AM ET

Heather Mac Donald's take pretty much says it all. One hopes the pending Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria Supreme Court case short-circuits what looks to be years of litigation over SB 1070.

Around the web, June 3 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • Criticism of SG office brief in Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria. [Baker @ Volokh]
  • Big-firm patent lawyer John Desmarais opens up shop to litigate on behalf of his own patent portfolio. [BusinessWeek]
  • Foreclosure lawyer makes $1500/client for six hours work delaying legitimate foreclosures for months. [OL]
  • Empirical study provides partial support for Sunstein/Winter theory that standing doctrine arose to "insulate" New Deal from challenge. [Ho & Ross @ Stanford L. Rev. via @walterolson]
  • When is e-discovery too much of a burden? Courts wildly disagree. []
  • Effect of civil rights law on firefighting testing. [Marginal Revolution]
  • Roger Clegg on "stereotype threat." [MTC]
  • Federal court shuts down spammer-ridden web company. [Oregon Business Report via @roncoleman]
  • Gloria Allred complains that porn star's reservation at Ritz-Carlton was canceled. No comment from Rand Paul about Title II implications. [TMZ]

As Jonathan Adler notes, the Supreme Court has asked for the views of the United States in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria (cert petition), where the Chamber is challenging Arizona state law creating additional penalties on employers hiring illegal aliens. The Los Angeles Times posits that this puts Solicitor General Elena Kagan in the awkward position of alienating social conservatives (by siding with the Chamber) or alienating "Latinos, civil libertarians and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which sponsored the appeal to the high court" by siding with Arizona.

The Solicitor General's opinion is certainly important: as Cathy Sharkey notes, the Supreme Court has often sided with the Solicitor General's view of federal preemption. And it's perhaps true as a predictive matter that anyone unhappy with the SG's brief will blame or seek to blame Kagan. It's not entirely clear to me that that is fair, however. On a question with this much political significance, with legally colorable arguments on both sides, there are going to be a lot of stakeholders weighing in. The Attorney General's office is certainly going to want a say. Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano (who was both the governor who signed the law, and a supposed SCOTUS short-lister herself) will likely weigh in. The career staff in the SG's office will have input. And there is a president and a vice president who like to be hands on on legal issues. At the end of the day, Elena Kagan might be pretty far down on the list of people who are the "deciders" on this particular brief.