It’s Court-time, that busy time in June when the U.S. Supreme Court gets ready for its summer vacation. (Is there any hope for getting away from the ag-based, nine-month school year, when one of our three governmental branches has the summer off?)

Here are a few cases recent cases that caught my attention.

In Clark v. Rameker, No. 13-299, the Court issued a unanimous opinion holding that an inherited IRA does not qualify as an exempt asset. Justice Sotomayor, in her opinion, looks at the characteristics of an inherited IRS—no money can be added, money must be withdrawn, and all money can be withdrawn at any time without penalties—and reached the conclusion that the assets belongs to creditors in

On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Bond v. United States, No. 12-158, one of the crazy-goofiest cases ever presented to the Supreme Court. Here’s commentary from Amy Howe and Lyle Denniston, both from SCOTUSblog.

The case is very sad. Carole Ann Bond was married and living a pretty traditional life. She worked in a science field, was married, and, among other things, was pleased as punch when she learned about her good friend Myrlinda Haynes’ pregnancy. Until, that is, she found out her husband was the father-to-be. Then, she was sufficiently not pleased that she used chemicals to try and harm Ms. Haynes, her former friend. (The good news? Ms. Haynes suffered

We live in “gotcha” times! Two comments made by prominent Republicans—one a Senator, and the other a judge—prompted my focus, although in any other week—or with several others during this week—the “gotcha” moments could have featured others.

Senator Mitch McConnell from Kentucky, the Senate Minority Leader whose party may take back the Senate this fall, while he finds himself involuntarily retired, said “that is not my job,” when asked what he would do bring jobs to a struggling county in Kentucky. Outrage, of course, ensued, with the editor who ran the story asserting that “he said that, and I swear those were his words,” and Senator McConnell offering a load of pablum about everyone’s responsibility for jobs, economic development, blah,

On Thursdays, Mark Rubin Writes usually focuses on general legal issues. Because I think Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. matters greatly, however, you’re getting a follow-up, after oral argument on Tuesday before the United States Supreme Court.

Here are some random thoughts. I have not read or listened to the transcript. I work—and was in trial for two days—and simply haven’t had the time. That said, I have heard and read several reports.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Employers Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in 1990. The case involved the religious use of peyote. There, he wrote:

If the “compelling interest” test is to be applied at all, then, it must

On Tuesday—today, unless you’re reading this blog post on Monday evening—the United State Supreme Court will hear arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13-354. This case involves a corporation’s right to ignore certain parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act aka the ACA and Ombamacare. Basically, David Green and his family—owners of the Hobby Lobby chain of craft stores—want to avoid the obligation in the ACA to include contraceptive coverage in all qualifying health insurance plans. More precisely, the issue before the Court is:

Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq., which provides that the government “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless

Arbitration. Mediation. Settlement conference. The same thing? Different? And the answer is (and, attorneys, be quiet):  YES!

Arbitration

With arbitration the parties pay the arbitrator—sometimes there are three—to decide the case, instead of letting the judge—paid with tax dollars—handle things. The decision may or may not be binding; in most instances involving non-binding arbitration, however, the appealing party may be subject to a sanction if the outcome in case #2 is not better by some amount than the arbitrator’s decision. (Some Arizona courts use this system to deal with smaller cases.)

Arbitration clauses show up often in boilerplate consumer contracts. The U.S. Supreme Court loves arbitration, even though—or maybe because—the process costs lots of money and deals poorly with

The U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in June 2012 in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka Obamacare, case. It is a case for the ages, but it’s also a case that provides a platform for examining how the Court decides matters.

First, courts at all levels value stare decisis, Latin for “stand by the decision.” Underlying stare decisis is the notion that we are a nation of laws; thus, legal principles, once decided, should be applied consistently going forward, without regard for politics, the identity of the parties, etc. Further, we need and expect predictability from the law, for we want to know with a reasonable degree of certainty what is