Judge adds three new cases, including challenge to animal welfare law and Warhol copyright dispute
March 28, 2022
Supreme Court Monday give an order From last week’s private meeting of judges, three new cases were added to the docket for the next term. The new cases involve challenges to animal welfare laws in California, the death penalty in Arizona and a copyright dispute over the works of Andy Warhol. The justices also rejected a request from Texas to weigh in on the private non-delegation doctrine, which bars Congress from delegating its legislative power to other entities — but the three justices said they hoped in future cases solve this problem.
Justice in National Pork Producers Council v Ross, one case stemmed from a challenge to a California law that makes pork sales in California contingent on meeting conditions that existing commercial farms rarely meet—specifically, pork from pigs raised by captive dams Pigs are born in a 24-square-foot space and can turn freely without encountering any obstacles.Trade association representing pork industry and farmers goes to court, claiming the law violated “Dormant” Commerce Components The Commerce Clause of the Constitution regulates, among other things, commerce almost exclusively outside of California, which imports more than 99 percent of pork. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with the challenger that the law would “require general changes to the nation’s pork production industry,” but ruled that the challenger failed to bring a claim for breach of commerce terms. A judge will review the decision.
exist Cruz v. ArizonaJudge agrees to take case of Arizona death row inmate who asked judge to decide whether to Lynch v. ArizonaThe Supreme Court’s 2016 decision found the court’s 1994 decision Simmons v. South Carolina Applies to Arizona, but also to cases awaiting incidental review.exist Simmons, the court held that when it came to the defendant’s future danger in capital cases, the defendant had the right to tell the jury that he would not be eligible for parole if he was not sentenced to death. The justices, however, agreed to address a narrower question: whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that the state’s rules of criminal procedure bar prisoner John Cruz from getting relief was a sufficient and independent state legal basis for his sentencing.
while in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v Goldsmith, the justices will weigh an important issue in copyright law: what it means for a work of art to be “transformative” for fair use purposes under copyright law. The case involved a series of images Warhol created based on Lynn Goldsmith’s photographs of the prince. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that Warhol’s image was not transformative, prompting the foundation to file a Supreme Court case in December.On Monday, the justices agreed to decide whether a work is transformative, if it conveys a different meaning or message than its source material, or if it is “identifiably derived,” whether the court cannot consider that meaning[es] From “Its source material.
Judge refuses to review Texas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, a challenge to a rule issued by the Department of Health and Human Services that seeks to reimburse states for Medicaid costs incurred under the managed care model. States challenging the rule, led by Texas, have argued that the rule violates the principle of non-authorization. Specifically, states say the rule outsources decisions about compensation rates that are “actuarially reasonable” to a private group of actuaries. States are asking the justices to weigh in on the issue and when the statute of limitations for their challenges will begin to run. After seven consecutive meetings to consider the case, the justices denied their pleas.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a statement on the court’s decision to dismiss the case, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. In Alito’s view, the case raised “a fundamental question about the limits of the federal government’s power to delegate its authority to private actors,” which “cost states hundreds of millions of dollars.” But because of thorny procedural issues — the tax at the center of the case has been repealed so states don’t hurt in the future, and it’s too late to directly challenge a 2002 rule empowering actuaries — Alito agreed not to approve the review now. Decide. But he left open the possibility that if the actuary’s decision “has any future implications, it should be reviewed in appropriate circumstances”.
The justices will again hold another private meeting on Friday, April 1. The meeting’s order will likely take place on Monday, April 4 at 9:30AM ET.
this article is Originally Posted on Howe on the Court.