The Supreme Court: This Week (6/14 – 6/21/2020)

U.S. Supreme Court Building

A doozy, this week, with plenty to observe! The week began on Monday with the decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, etc. and two related cases (Nos. 17-1618 and 23, and 18-107) aka the Title VII same sex / transgender cases. On Thursday, the Court issued its opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587, the DACA case. Earlier, the Court rejected certiorari writs in 10 Second Amendment cases.

For those who thought they bought the Court when they elected Donald J. Trump, this was a very bad week. But, a good week it was for the rule of

Trump, the Court, and Subpoenas

Mark Rubin

The U.S. Supreme Court heard three cases during two oral arguments today. Here’s the C-Span link.

Two cases involved subpoenas directed to Mazars (an accounting firm which provided services to Donald Trump and his entities) and Deutche Bank (purportedly, the only money center bank which still deals with the Trumps and their entities). The other case involves state law claims which a New York County (Manhattan) grand jury intends to investigate.

I have thoughts. Really, you say? A top 40% law student – TBT, 57^th percentile, ranked just behind my law school roommate, with a practice which mostly involves elder law and real estate – intends to spout off on Con

Notes From the Isolation Ward aka Home

Me, before COVID-19

Hey there! I hope you all are well and safe. Apologies for not posting for 2+ weeks.

Sheltering in Place

I am sheltering in place. Our terrific crew at the office got me set up completely at home. Everything works, and I want for nothing (on the work side of life.) Well, not exactly! My office phone sits on my desk at home courtesy of something called … VOIP! And it rings. Often! Even when I call the office from it. Such troubles!!!

Personally, sheltering in place works. I’m writing on Saturday. I bought produce at 7:15 a.m. at Cardenas, where they reserve the 7 a.m. hour for old people

Rubin & Bernstein PLLC – An Update

Mark Rubin

I’m embarrassed! Rubin & Bernstein PLLC celebrates – can we celebrate anything, other than a youngster’s birthday, in these times? – our second anniversary on May 1, six weeks from now. Still, we don’t have a working website for the firm we treasure. So, here at my Leftie site aka the place where I provide The Word, I’m providing an update.

In theory, I sent myself home more than a week ago. I heard what seemed like a directive to be home if you’re 60+. I was an early adapter, but Life Happens and today, Wednesday, March 18, was really my first day away from the office. (A foolish grocery store

The Equal Rights Amendment: Torn

Mark Rubin

On January 15, 2020, the Virginia legislature ratified the Equal Rights Amendment. Both legislative bodies passed it. (Candidly, I can’t figure out whether Governor Ralph Northam has any role in the ratification process. I think not, but I’m not sure.)

Congress passed the ERA when the Senate approved it on March 22, 1972. (I was 14 and now I’m 62, for whatever that’s worth.) The amendment gave the states seven years to ratify it. Later, Congress passed an extension of the deadline from March 22, 1979 to June 30, 1982. By June 30, 1982, 37 states had ratified the ERA; however, by the same deadline, five states from among the 37 revoked their

Affordable Care Act … Redux -dux -dux -dux

“Just when you thought it was safe …” it’s not! Late on Friday, December 14, 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor issued a 55-page Memorandum Opinion and Order in Texas v. United States, Case No. 4:18-cv-00167-O, filed in the District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Texas, along with 19 other states, sought a finding that, with the elimination of the penalty for failing to purchase health insurance, the ACA aka Obamacare violates the U.S. Constitution. The argument? Here it is:

• In NFIB v. Sebelius, Nos. 11-393, -398, and -400, a bare majority of the U.S.Supreme Court held that because the ACA regulated inactivity—the decision to