The Supreme Court will not hear an appeal from Texas officials who wish to restore their state’s voter ID law, which lower courts ruled unconstitutional and discriminatory against minorities. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the order on the case. In his brief statement, he left open the possibility of hearing the case after it is finished moving through the lower courts.

“Petitioners may raise either or both issues again after entry of final judgement,” Roberts wrote. “The issues will be better suited for certiorari review at that time.” The courtroom tussle over the ID law goes back to 2014, when a federal judge first struck down the bill as “unconstitutional.” Other federal courts took up the case as well; one affirmed the 2014 decision, and another is awaiting trial.

Enacted in 2011, the Texas law requires voters to present photo identification–a Texas driver’s license, gun license, military ID, or passport–at the voting booth. Critics contend that it is specifically aimed at silencing the minority vote; adherents say it is meant to stanch voter fraud. Up until 2013, the Voting Rights Act required states with a history of discrimination, which includes Texas, to get approval from federal authorities before changing a state-level voter ID law.

In 2013 however, the Supreme Court struck down the section of the Voting Rights Act that required federal approval for changes in a states’ voting laws. Texas began enforcing this one. But soon after, the law was challenged in the Federal District Court in Corpus Christi. Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos found the law to be an “unconstitutional burden on the right to vote,” adding that it has “an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans.”

Texas officials were adamant that the challengers to the law “presented no evidence that the law resulted in diminished minority political participation or prevented even a single person from voting.” The challengers to the law responded, saying it was an “unusually and unnecessarily harsh law, affecting over 600,000 registered voters, and taking aim specifically at minority voters.”

While the National Conference of State Legislatures previously classified the Texas law as a “strict photo ID law,” it now puts it in in the “nonstrict voter ID” category. This includes states that allow voters to sign an affidavit in lieu of a photo ID if they are unable to produce one at the polls. For now, at least, this policy will hold.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rejects Hearing for Appeal to Restore Texas Voter ID Law appeared first on Law Street.

This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Corruption: McDonnell v. United States

The decision: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously to overturn corruption convictions of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and his wife. However, there is still a possibility that they can be retried under the court’s new interpretation of the law.

What corruption charges?

In 2014, McDonnell and his wife were convicted on federal bribery charges. He received luxury gifts and financial benefits from Virginia businessman Jonnie Williams in exchange for what prosecutors deemed “government favors” or “official acts.” In total, the gifts and benefits that the McDonnells received were worth more than $175,000–including a Rolex watch, catering their daughter’s wedding, and a $20,000 shopping trip for Mrs. McDonnell.

“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the Government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

What does this mean for the future of political bribery?

This case was centered around the question of what constitutes an “official act” under federal law. McDonnell arranged meetings between Williams and state officials in the form of a luncheon thrown at the Governor’s Mansion with a guest list consisting of healthcare leaders. Williams is the chief executive of Star Scientific, a tobacco-based dietary supplement company, and he wanted state universities to perform research on his product.

McDonnell said he never made an official act in favor of Williams or his business, which left the justices searching for where to draw the line between a politician’s regular activities and ones that violate corruption laws. A bipartisan group of officials wrote an amicus brief for the case, arguing that if McDonnell’s convictions were upheld, it would criminalize routine favors that politicians do for donors.

To avoid confusion in the future, Chief Justice John Roberts created a clearer definition of an “official act:”

“In sum, an ‘official act’ is a decision or action on a ‘question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” Roberts wrote. “Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)–without more–does not fit that definition of an official act.”

Read the full opinion here.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Overturns Former Virginia Governor’s Corruption Conviction appeared first on Law Street.

A Georgia man on death row, Tyrone Foster, may get a second chance after the Supreme Court weighed in on the evidence of racial bias found in his jury trial. SCOTUS’s decision overturned the Georgia Supreme Court ruling, and will most likely lead to a new trial for Foster–29 years after he was first sentenced to death.

Foster, a black man charged with the rape and murder of an elderly white woman, Queen Madge White, was tried by an all-white jury. Moreover, there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the prosecutors wanted it that way–they struck black jurors for reasons that appeared to be racially motivated. For example, in the notes that the prosecutors took during jury selection, they marked black potential jurors with a “b.” According to the LA Times, one black juror was excluded because the prosecutor said that “his son was convicted of ‘basically the same thing’ as the defendant, who was charged with rape and murder. In fact, the man’s son had been given a suspended sentence five years earlier for stealing hubcaps from a car.” Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the decision, wrote that “the focus on race in the prosecution’s file plainly demonstrates a concerted effort to keep black prospective jurors off the jury.”

A 1986 case, Batson v. Kentucky, made it clear that it’s up to judges to watch over prosecutors when it comes to jury selection, and probe their choices if anything seems amiss. But that process does rely on judges to actually follow through–and in Foster’s case, the judges accepted the prosecutors’ reasoning for why certain jurors were selected and others weren’t.

But Foster’s case is also somewhat rare, in that the defendant’s lawyers were actually able to prove that there was racial motivation in the jury selection. Stephen Bright of the Southern Center of Human Rights, who was Foster’s lead lawyer, pointed out:

This discrimination became apparent only because we obtained the prosecution’s notes which revealed their intent to discriminate. Usually that does not happen. The practice of discriminating in striking juries continues in courtrooms across the country. Usually courts ignore patterns of race discrimination and accept false reasons for the strikes.

Foster’s case will now be reevaluated–and while it’s not ensured he’ll receive a new trial, it certainly seems like the most likely possibility.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Weighs in on Black Man Sentenced to Death by All-White Jury appeared first on Law Street.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead at 79 today at Cibolo Creek Ranch, in Texas. A conservative fixture on the court since he was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia’s death leaves a hole in the bench–filling it already promises to be contentious in today’s hostile political environment.

According to sources, Scalia was in Texas at a resort this weekend. He complained that he did not feel well last night, went to bed, and didn’t show up for breakfast this morning, so his hunting party left without him. He was later found to have passed away in his sleep, from natural causes.

His colleagues, as well as other top political voices, mourned his passing. Chief Justice John Roberts stated:

He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the Court and the country he so loyally served. We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Maureen and his family.

Additionally, 2016 candidates weighed in on Scalia’s legacy:

My thoughts and prayers are with Justice Scalia’s family and his colleagues on the court who mourn his passing. pic.twitter.com/Y51xUMMEId

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 13, 2016

The totally unexpected loss of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a massive setback for the Conservative movement and our COUNTRY! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 13, 2016

Statement on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: pic.twitter.com/xazj9dDd5c

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 14, 2016

Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement. — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) February 13, 2016

Jeanette & I mourn the loss of Justice Scalia, and our thoughts & prayers are with his wife Maureen & his family. pic.twitter.com/e03KRZRM6q

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 13, 2016

President Barack Obama stated:

Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy. I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. These are responsibilities I take seriously, as should everyone.

However, the arguably most controversial statement came from Senator Mitch McConnell, who stated: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Given President Obama’s sitting duck status, the fight to replace Scalia will probably be incredibly controversial, especially given McConnell’s fighting words. But for now, the United States mourns a leading legal mind.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead appeared first on Law Street.

Same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states and a majority of Americans are thrilled with the landmark Supreme Court decision. Millions of people used Facebook’s rainbow flag photo-editing tool to shade their profile pictures in “celebration of pride.” On Twitter, #LoveWins became the victory cry of marriage equality proponents. On Instagram, prominent celebrities such as Beyoncé, Miley Cyrus, and Lady Gaga posted pictures of themselves to show support. A nation that was overwhelmingly against gay marriage just 15 years ago is suddenly in agreement that this is a good thing.

I have mixed feelings about all of this.

On one hand, I support gay marriage and the notion that gay people should have the legal right to marry and start a family. At the same time, there is a difference between promoting tolerance and forcing acceptance. The Supreme Court decided to force acceptance when it declared laws banning gay marriage unconstitutional, refusing to wait for the gay marriage discussion to reach its natural conclusion in each state. After reading hundreds of social media posts about gay marriage, a vast majority of which mock gay marriage opponents with a “you are ignorant if you don’t agree with me” attitude, it appears most Americans are following suit. This is sad because American society was so close to achieving the wholesale attitude change necessary for true tolerance. Now, in an ironic twist of fate, gay marriage opponents are victims of the condescension of another “majority.”

The gay marriage debate is really a matter of semantics that revolves around one question: What is the definition of marriage? The most intriguing argument against gay marriage is that of the “slippery slope,” or the idea that legalizing same-sex marriage may lead toward legalizing all sorts of “unconventional” marriages. In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts argued, “much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.” The same can be said for incest.

Nearly all arguments against gay marriage apply to incest and polygamy. It’s unnatural, they say–marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. Think about the social problems. Children should be raised in traditional households. What about people taking advantage of the tax incentives? Drawing the line at incest and polygamy is fine. Justifying that line with the notion that incest and polygamy offend modern sensibilities is not. This is a justification that gay marriage supporters, now the majority of Americans, should be disgusted by.

When I brought up this issue to a gay friend, he had an interesting point. Polygamists and people who enjoy incestuous relations still have the right to marry a member of the gender they are attracted to despite being barred from marrying a family member or having multiple spouses. For gays, a ban on gay marriage eliminates the possibility to marry the entire population segment they are attracted to, he reasoned.

I don’t buy this argument.

In LSAT circles, they call this Begging the Question fallacy, or assuming the conclusion of an argument. My friend set out to find an argument that validates gay marriage in a way that doesn’t also validate polygamy or incest, and this is the situation-specific justification he arrived at. It is entirely possible that a person is only attracted to people within his own family, or is only capable of expressing love when he has multiple partners. I have yet to find a reasonable justification for allowing gay marriage while banning polygamous and incestuous marriages.

So, I have mixed feelings about all of this. I have mixed feelings about the role of government in the institution of marriage. I have mixed feelings about the new “celebrate pride” majority and their pompous definitions of ignorance and love. I have mixed feelings about my own sensibilities and the hypocrisy of supporting gay marriage while opposing polygamy and incest.

I have mixed feelings about marriage equality, and what it really means.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Have Mixed Feelings About Gay Marriage appeared first on Law Street.

Americans must abide by governing laws at a variety of levels throughout the country. Aside from the U.S. Constitution, each state has its own constitution further detailing the everyday relations between the state government and the people. But what about international law? Can we be affected as individuals by agreements the United States has entered into with foreign countries? Although it may seem a little far fetched, these questions have come up time and again in our court system. You may be surprised by how international law can affect you.

International Law in America

Overview

Two sources primarily make up international law: international agreements and customary practice. In adherence to U.S. law, international agreements can be established by entering into a treaty or an executive agreement. The executive branch has authority over treaties and executive agreements, but treaties need the consent of Congress as well. While Congress may be part of a joint agreement between the executive branch and Congress, that is not necessary; the president is only required to notify Congress of an upcoming executive order. Treaties and executive agreements may or may not be self-executing. Non-self-executing treaties and executive agreements do not immediately establish U.S. law, but evoke a promise to enact domestic legislation in order to enforce them in a timely fashion.

The strength of international law within the U.S. court system depends on a variety of circumstances. Self-executing treaties and executive treaties are generally considered to have equal status to federal law, superior status to state law, and inferior status to the Constitution. Generally speaking, non-self-executing agreements have limited strength. The question still remains whether implemented legislation required from these agreements can be reviewed for validity by the Supreme Court.

The second source of international law is customary international practice. Customary international law is essentially general practice–for example genocide has been forbidden by common practice even before it was codified. It is generally understood that U.S. statutes that conflict with customary international practice will reign supreme, although that phenomenon is relatively rare.

What is the Treaty Power?

The Constitution designates that the President has the authority to sign treaties “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” and a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The treaty power maintains our system of checks and balances and makes passing a treaty a relatively hard process. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution calls treaties “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

The U.S. is governed by both federal and state authority, and jurisdiction is established by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment reserves all power to the states when not specifically delegated otherwise or specifically prohibited in the Constitution. So federal authority can ratify a treaty. But what happens when the laws meant to implement the treaty overstep into state jurisdiction? Technically, that could be increasing Congress’ powers. These kinds of inconsistencies make the integration of international law even more of a gray area.

What is the Necessary and Proper Clause?

The clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, under Article 1 of the Constitution empowers Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” The Necessary and Proper Clause grants the federal government power to govern outside its set natural jurisdiction when required to enforce federal laws. This clause is specifically used to justify implemented legislation in enforcing international treaties and executive agreement.

Here is a quick video explaining the clause with regard to the 10th Amendment.

These are, of course, not the only aspects of American law that affect the application of international law, but they are the ones that are most often discussed and considered when attempting to determine the scope of that application.

Case Study: Bond v. United States

In some ways, this case is more apt for a soap opera than the U.S. Supreme Court, but very important legal questions were hidden under the dramatics. In this case, international policy implicitly affected a single person. An individual right, specifically the 10th Amendment, was called into question. In an even rarer scenario, the case was brought before the Supreme Court twice. The first question posed to the Supreme Court was whether we can challenge international laws (treaties) as individuals using our individual rights and the 10th Amendment? The second, can the Supreme Court deem unconstitutional implemented legislation brought on by international law?

Summary of the Initial Case

In Lansdale, Pennsylvania, Carol Bond discovered that her friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant from an affair with her husband, Clifford Bond. In a flare of passion, she vowed revenge. Bond is a trained microbiologist, and at the time worked for the chemical manufacturer Rohm and Haas. She took advantage of her connection to steal 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine from Rohm and Haas and ordered potassium dichromate over Amazon. The chemicals can be poisonous with minimal topical contact. Over the course of at least 24 attempts, Bond spread the chemicals on Haynes’ house and car door handles and mailbox. Fortunately, Haynes was often able to spot the chemicals from noticeable color distortions and only suffered from a mild hand burn that was cleaned with water.

After several attempts to contact local police to no avail, Haynes brought the matter to federal officers of the Postal Service. At the culmination of the investigation, Bond was ultimately charged with two counts of possessing and using a chemical weapon in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code and section 229 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 and two counts of mail theft. Bond pleaded guilty and had the right to appeal. She was sentenced to six years in federal prison.

What is the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998?

The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (CWCIA) of 1998 implements the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) into U.S. federal legislation. Section 229 is the penalty provision.

Read More: The Forgotten Chemical WMDs: Chemical Weapons

The United States signed the CWC on January 13, 1993 and initiated it in April 1997. The international convention currently has 190 state parties. The CWC prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. The National Implementation Measures clause prohibits “natural and legal persons anywhere on its territory … from undertaking any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.” Section 229 of the CWCIA specifically decrees it “unlawful for any person knowingly to develop, produce, otherwise acquire….retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon.”

The CWC was signed with specific intentions aimed at international peace. It is a ceasefire for all countries involved in the manufacture or possession of chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction, as means of combat to ensure global safety. The treaty is non-self-executing, meaning the CWC itself didn’t establish any U.S. laws, but evoked a promise from the U.S. to enact future legislation in accordance to the treaty.

First Supreme Court Case

The first question at hand: Does Bond have standing to challenge the federal chemical weapons charges filed against her under the CWCIA claiming her 10th Amendment rights? The answer ended up being yes. The court found that a federally indicted criminal defendant has the right to challenge the statue raising the question of federalism and states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.

The following video recaps the initial case summary and further details the defense’s arguments.

The court also questioned whether the CWCIA is valid under the “necessary and proper” clause to enforce the Treaty Power. The Supreme Court opted out of making that decision and remanded the case to the Third Circuit.

Third Circuit Case

The Third Circuit stated the validity of a treaty was “beyond [its] ken.” The creation of treaties is outside the courts’ powers; they are created by the President and Senate. The court ruled that for a valid treaty, implementing legislation need only to be “rationally related.”

The Third Circuit used the 1920 case Missouri v. Holland as precedent. That case concerned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, a treaty established with Great Britain. The regulation of the hunting of migratory birds was previously deemed as a state concern, outside of Congress’ jurisdiction. The former case declared “the premise that principles of federalism will ordinarily impose no limitation on Congress’ ability to write laws supporting treaties” is implicit under the “necessary and proper” clause.

This decision raised natural concerns. Onlookers worried that if the court refused to decide on the validity of treaties, then anything goes. The President and Senate could ultimately ratify a treaty that required implementing laws that would otherwise be gravely illegal. Congress could theoretically grant itself powers it previously lacked through the Treaty Power.

This video features Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Law Professor at Georgetown University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, further discussing the merits of the Treaty Power with regard to the case. Rosenkranz advocates limited power of the Treaty Power and enforcement of domestic law.

Second Supreme Court Case

The case was brought back to the Supreme Court to further test the scope of the treaty power. The case had an opportunity to create a landmark decision but fell short. The majority response failed to make a decision in that regard. It did side with the defense, however, claiming that Bond’s actions didn’t fall within the CWCIA in the first place.

The Court emphasized the importance of Congress’ intent when implementing federal laws with regard to treaties. The CWCIA was not intended to punish local criminal activity, which has generally been a state concern. The Court also considered the definition of a chemical weapon, and decided Bond’s chemical choices did not fit. Justice Roberts explained, “In sum, the global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemi­cal irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon.” Although Bond’s actions didn’t fall under the CWCIA, the decision casted “serious doubts about whether the treaty power can reach local crimes.”

The Court unanimously decided  in favor of Bond, although Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wrote separate concurring opinions. They did not agree with the majority opinion that Bond’s actions didn’t fall under the CWCIA. They believed the CWCIA expressly prohibited “toxic substances” outside of “peaceful purposes.” The three justices sided with Bond in belief that the CWCIA is unconstitutional and goes outside of Congress’ enumerated powers. Treaties should only concern “matters of international intercourse,” not “matters of purely domestic regulation.”

So although the majority avoided the issues of the Treaty Power, Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas faced it right on. While the gray areas of international law and national application still exist, this at least hints to the fact that the Supreme Court may not hold American citizens to international laws that infringe on their rights in the future.

Conclusion

Can Americans be held to International Laws? It seems so. What if they intrude on individual and states’ rights?  The first Bond v. U.S. decision decreed we have the legal right to raise objections. The Supreme Court decision ensures our right as individuals to check the federal government when entering international agreements. It is important that the balance between state and federal government power stays in check. Even if the President and Senate can legally ratify international treaties, it doesn’t mean they should if they “violate traditional American rights, including the individual rights of federalism and the separation of powers.” American law, as always, reigns triumphant in the U.S.

Reources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: International Laws and Agreements

Justia: Bond v. United States

U.S. Chemical Weapons Convention: National Implementation Measures

Additional

Cornell University Law School: 18 U.S. Code & 229

Heritage Guide: Necessary and Proper Clause

Heritage Guide: Treaty Clause

Legal Information Institute: CRS Annotated Constitution

Atlantic: Bond v. U.S. Doesn’t Mean Latvian Cops Are Coming For Your Guns

The Heritage Foundation: Bond v. United States

Slate: Chemical Reaction

Washington Post: Thoughts on Bond v United States

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Are Your Individual Rights When it Comes to International Law? appeared first on Law Street.

Senior federal judges can make quite a pretty penny by working as teachers or lecturers at law schools, according to the financial statements that they are required to supply each year. The National Law Journal is featuring an excellent story, to be published next week but available online now, on just how much money is made by senior judges who lecture or teach at top law schools around the country.

The highest earning senior judge this year was Senior Judge Donald Ginsburg, a DC Circuit Court Judge, who took home $277,906 teaching for NYU Law. Another DC Circuit Judge, Senior Judge Harry Edwards, took in just south of $200,000, also from NYU Law. All in all, there were five federal judges who earned at least $100,000 from outside teaching and speaking engagements.

So, what is a senior judge?

A senior judge is a federal judge. In some states, state judges who are quasi-retired are considered senior judges. In order to be a senior judge, a judge must be at least 65, and have served at least 15 years on the bench. That requirement is sliding though, for each year older than 65, they need to have served one year less on the bench. For example, a 67-year-old judge could receive senior status after 13 years of presiding.

Depending on how many cases they choose to take on, senior judges might receive the same salary as an active federal judge. If they take on less, their salary is discounted slightly, but it will never fall below what it was the year they took senior status. So those five senior judges that made $100,000 (or more) are earning that on top of the regular salary they get from being senior judges. Given that a circuit judge now makes roughly $200,000 just for that position, senior judges like Ginsburg and Edwards are doing very, very, well for themselves.

The purpose of this program is that when judges elect to take senior status, they forfeit their seat. They become a kind of “at-large” judge who can float around and take on cases when needed. The vacated seat is filled so that there are more judges to take on heavy caseloads at the federal level. Senior judges can also work with and mentor younger active judges.

Active judges do have requirements about what they can do outside of their judgeship. They are not allowed to make more than $26,955 a year outside of their federal salary — although this does exclude certain ways of earning money, such as royalties from books already published. The purpose behind the rule is to keep active judges, who certainly could be in demand to teach or lecture, focused and prevent them from becoming overworked. However, there is no such requirement for senior judges. 

Senior judges are free to make as much as they desire in their free time, in addition to whatever portion of salary they receive from taking on a case load. Which leads to positions like Ginsburg and Edwards have at NYU Law.

Whether active or senior, that sounds like a decent amount of money to me, especially for a government employee. It is more than what our members of congress get–roughly $175,000 per year. But still, some judges say that it is still much too little. For example, Chief Justice John G. Roberts has made a number of statements saying that we need to pay our judges more. He claims that the salaries have not stayed consistent with the cost of living. In 2007, he actually called the supposedly stagnant pay for judges a “constitutional crisis” in his annual report.

To be fair, judges do make less than their law school classmates who landed partnerships at big law firms. But they still are among the highest paid government employees, they (clearly) can make quite a lot once they reach retirement age, and most importantly, they have lifetime job security. No law firm can boast that kind of awesome financial security.

So if you are thinking about a new dream job, being a senior judge may not be a bad one to add to your list. If you are anything like some of the judges teaching at law schools now, you will be pretty much set for life. Although if that is not quite enough money for you, there is another kind of judgeship to check out: in my research, I found out that Judge Judy makes about $47 million a year, making her the highest paid personality on TV. So either way, go on the judge route and you should be all set!

[National Law Journal]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Martin Bowling via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Looking to Make Money? Become a Federal Judge appeared first on Law Street.

Town of Greece v. Galloway began oral arguments before the Supreme Court this week. Greece is a small city located just north of Rochester, New York. For the last 14 years, the city of Greece has begun each town council meetings with a prayer, almost exclusively Christian in nature. Each meeting, a different cleric would come before the body and offer up a prayer to the council members and any observers.

In 2008, two retired women living in the town, Linda Stephens and Susan Galloway, complained that these prayers were always Christian, and seemed to align the town with Christianity. Stephens is an atheist, and Galloway is Jewish. The town did respond at first, inviting leaders of other faiths to come in and lead the prayers—including Jewish, Baha’i, and Wiccan. But that was not enough to make up for approximately 10 years of solely Christian prayers, and after those notable outliers, the town returned to mainly Christian speakers.

So, Stephens and Galloway sued their town, contending that Greece has violated the Constitution. The issue is not that the town council meetings are beginning with prayers; the ability to do so was established under the 1983 Supreme Court Case Marsh v. Chambers.  However, Marsh also stated that it’s only legal to begin a meeting with a prayer if the “government does not act with improper motive in selecting prayer-givers or exploit the prayer opportunity to proselytize, advance, or disparage any one faith or belief.” Stephens and Galloway are arguing that by choosing only Christian prayers, the town of Greece has broken those constraints. After a series of contrasting appeals, the case has made it to the Supreme Court.

Oral arguments began on Wednesday, and there have already been some interesting conversations. My guess is that the Supreme Court will stick to precedent, but with this cast of characters on the Court, it’s always hard to predict. Some of the justices who offered questions or comments seem to be suspicious of Greece’s case; perpetual swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, “well, the essence of the argument is we’ve always done it this way, which has some — some force to it. But it seems to me that your argument begins and ends there.” Justice Elena Kagan deviated from purely First Amendment issues and pointed out that we’re all entitled to equal protection under the Constitution, regardless of religious beliefs. Chief Justice John Roberts raised interesting thoughts about the context of tradition in public life. Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia waxed poetic about how no prayer will every satisfy everyone 100 percent of the time. It’s important to note that another player in this case includes the Obama Administration, which is standing on Greece’s side. Deputy Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn was there to advocate the administration’s views.

The balance of faith and secularity in the public sphere is always a contentious topic. It seems like every couple of years there is another instance of a battle over religion in a public school, whether it stems from the use of prayer or the reference to God in “The Star Spangled Banner.” And every single time this issue comes up, there does not seem to be an absolutely right or wrong answer—any sort of balancing test is wobbly at best. There are always people who will be offended, but there’s also always a line that is very easily crossed. The Court will most likely not be able to solve these debates completely, but some guidance would be helpful as our society becomes more religious and culturally diverse in faith.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [Michael Peligro via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Considers Prayer in Public Life appeared first on Law Street.