Two cases await decisions at the Supreme Court for this term, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn. Hobby Lobby should address whether a for-profit corporation can have religious beliefs which it can express in the context of an Affordable Care Act provision which requires that health insurance policies include contraception benefits, where the corporation need not purchase insurance for its employees. Think I loaded the deck? Really, I didn’t, for this is the fact-pattern associated with Hobby Lobby and its companion cases.

Harris involves an Illinois statute that affects whether home health care workers must join a union, where the state pays those people through Medicaid. Hard to imagine the Court not finding the law unconstitutional, given

Article II, Section 2 states, in part:  “The President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.” The power to make recess appointments has been relatively non-controversial for more than two centuries. Until now!

The recess appointment provision was included in the Constitution to allow the government to function during times when the Senate was not in session. Over the past two-plus centuries the process has evolved. Appointments are made when the Senate is out of session for the year, but also during “intra-session” periods, when the Senate leaves for a week or two. Further, the

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

In Town of Greece v. Galloway, No. 12-696, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of prayers, explicitly religious and focused on one faith, during the ceremonial part of local governmental meetings. For complete and excellent coverage of the opinion and its import, go to the Amy Howe’s Tuesday round-up at SCOTUSblog. For a quick summary, Lyle Denniston’s survey piece, Opinion Analysis:  Prayers get a New Blessing, is the “go-to” on the page.

I read the opinions, mostly. For me, though, the issue is simple, and non-constitutional. (Frankly, some of the torturing of common sense in some constitutional analysis can make one’s head spin, although I do confess that I’m at the 35% point in Richard Posner’s

Nearly 40 years ago in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (1976) (per curiam), this Court considered the constitutionality of laws that imposed limits upon the overall amount a single person can contribute to all federal candidates, political parties, and committees taken together. The Court held that those limits did not violate the Constitution. Id., at 38; accord, McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93, 138, n. 40, 152–153, n. 48 (2003) (citing with approval Buckley’s aggregate limits holding). The Buckley Court focused upon the same problem that concerns the Court today, and it wrote:

“The overall $25,000 ceiling does impose an ultimate restriction upon the number of candidates and committees with which an individual may associate

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:  “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” In New Jersey, a battle has developed over a legislative committee’s demand for emails from Governor Chris Christie’s people in connection with the Bridgegate investigation. (Alas, 40+ years after Watergate, we finally have another water-related “gate.”)

Absent a grant of immunity, no one can be forced to testify about matters if the testimony may be self-incriminating. But what about emails and other records, created long before the investigation?

I have had one case in my 32+ year career that involved Fifth Amendment claims, and it revolved around a waiver of those claims. So, I’m no

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