Quantcast

two more or less favorable SCOTUS decisions today

Discussion in 'Legal' started by ilbob, May 14, 2018.

  1. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    13,651
    Location:
    Illinois
    The first rules that sports betting authorized by states cannot be banned by congress on 10th amendment grounds. I wonder if this might eventually be applied to some of the firearms freedom bills that have been passed in some states.

    The other seems a little goofy but the court ruled that a guy who was found with 49 bricks of heroin in his car should probably have the evidence thrown out because the cops did not get a warrant to search the car first on privacy grounds. The cops searched his car based on it being a rental car that he was not an authorized user of. I am a little ambivalent about this one but anything we can get back from previous courts that have all but gutted the 4th amendment I guess I will take. This one is not over as it was sent back to a lower court to review some other aspects of the case.

    http://reason.com/blog/2018/05/14/scotus-says-non-authorized-rental-car-dr
     
    Kendal Black likes this.
  2. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,225
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    We need links to the actual decisions in order to have a productive discussion.
     
  3. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    13,651
    Location:
    Illinois
  4. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    8,450
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    rental car case (4th Amendment, pertains to search'n'seizure, evidence rules)
    Terrence Byrd v U.S. Decided 14 May 2018
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1371_1bn2.pdf

    state legalized sports gambling (10th Amendment, could be related state laws in other areas, such as state constitutional RKBA rights, legalization of med or rec MJ)
    Murphy, Gov of NJ, et al, v National Collegiate Athletic assn. et al.
    Decided May 14, 2018
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-476_dbfi.pdf
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2018
  5. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,225
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Good. Thank you both.
     
  6. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,225
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    Short answer: no.

    The federal law under consideration in Murphy, Gov of NJ, et al, v National Collegiate Athletic assn. et al. purported to directly exercise control over a state legislature by telling a state legislature that it could not authorize sports betting. The federal government directly telling State what it can or cannot do is called "commandeering." But the courts have applied the basic principle that the federal government can not, in effect, issue orders to state governments.

    But things like the firearm freedom laws or state laws legalizing marijuana are different matters. Those state laws make conduct legal under state law which is illegal under federal law. The federal government isn't ordering the State to do, or not do something. The federal laws don't purport to nullify, or prevent the state from adopting, those laws. But neither do the state laws prevent the federal government from enforce its laws against the conduct legal under state law.
     
    alsaqr and ATLDave like this.
  7. jdc1244

    jdc1244 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2007
    Messages:
    776
    Location:
    Florida
    Murphy, Gov of NJ, et al, v National Collegiate Athletic assn. et al. could result in the courts invalidating punitive measures by the Federal government against states and local jurisdictions that elect to not use local law enforcement resources to detain alleged undocumented immigrants.
     
  8. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11,225
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    What punitive measures?

    For example, Murphy was about a federal law which directly instructed state legislatures that they could not do certain things. That appears not to be permissible.

    On the other hand, there is a long history of the federal government conditioning a State's receipt of certain benefits or financial assistance on the State promoting in various ways certain federal policies, e. g., condition federal contribution of certain highway funds on a State enacting a 55 mph speed limit. Those sorts of incentives have been litigated and are often sustained.
     
  9. CoalTrain49

    CoalTrain49 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2014
    Messages:
    2,995
    Location:
    On an island in WA.
    The 10th amendment guarantees that states can pass as much or as little firearm regulations as they want as long it doesn't outright prevent a person from owning a firearm (McDonald vs Chicago). A state can have no firearm regulations if they wish. The federal laws will still exist however.

    I'm not seeing this SC ruling having any impact on state firearms regulations one way or the other. But then, I'm not Alan Gura.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice