JuridicsUSA: School Choice: Stops ACLU manoeuvre trying to halt tax breaks for sending kids to free schools

Supreme Court dismisses case challenging 

school choice groups

by Caroline May - The Daily Caller | Published: 5:31 PM 04/04/2011 | Updated: 12:18 AM 04/05/2011

By Caroline May - The Daily Caller

Bio | Archive | Email Caroline May

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/04/supreme-court-dismisses-case-challenging-school-choice-groups/#ixzz1IemuJUvK

In a decision that school choice advocates are cheering, the Supreme Court dismissed an American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) lawsuit against an Arizona school program, which allows residents to get a tax break for donations to organizations that grant scholarships to private schools.

Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the 5-4 majority opinion for the Court, saying that the ACLU and its clients did not have standing to challenge the private donations of others.

“When Arizona taxpayers choose to contribute to STOs [school tuition organizations], they spend their own money, not money the State has collected from respondents or from other taxpayers,” Kennedy wrote. “[R]espondents and other Arizona taxpayers remain free to pay their own tax bills, without contributing to an STO. Respondents are likewise able to contribute to an STO of their choice, either religious or secular… Respondents’ contrary position assumes that income should be treated as if it were government property even if it has not come into the tax collector’s hands. That premise finds no basis in standing jurisprudence.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/04/supreme-court-dismisses-case-challenging-school-choice-groups/#ixzz1IemO1O8N


-- Daily Caller materials posted by Lawt

JuridicsUSA: Immigration: State laws to shut biz that h+rz undocumenteds = illegals

US Supreme Court Considers 

Immigration Law

Voice of America reports on  Questions law raised against Arizona that allows state to close down businesses h+ring illegal immigrants
Jim Malone | Washington (Dec8,2k10) VOA News.com (English)

The U.S. Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in an important immigration case from the southwestern state of Arizona. At issue is whether Arizona has the right to punish employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and whether that conflicts with the federal government's responsibility to enforce immigration laws.   

Under a state law approved in Arizona in 2007, the state has the right to sanction employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.   

But an unusual mix of civil rights and business groups is challenging the state law in court, and the case was presented for oral argument before the Supreme Court.

Share This

• Digg
• Facebook
• StumbleUpon
• Yahoo! Buzz
• del.icio.us

Related Articles

• Illegal Immigrants in US Push for Passage of DREAM Act
• Mexican-American Artist Brings Immigrant Experience Out of Shadow

AP

The US Supreme Court is hearing the US Chamber of Commerce's challenge of the law that allows Arizona to suspend the license of a company that employs illegal immigrants.

Voice of America's blogs+t, VOA News.com (English) reports impartially on the SCOTUS case where one s+d brings suit against the State of Arizona in order to sanction and discipline a state for enforcing Federal law.

-- Lawt

JuridicsUSA: Arbitration: AT&T Mobility tries to sucker clients out of their day in court, proper payback

NYT carries an editorial (Nov26,2k10) decrying AT&T's apparent attempted fraud in California over the provision of Arbitration to AT&T Mobility cl+ents:

The Arbitration War

Published: November 26, 2010

• RECOMMEND
• TWITTER
• COMMENTS (11)
• SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• SHARE

Unexpected wireless charges are a chronic affliction of life on the grid. The industry triggers more complaints from consumers than any other. AT&T Mobility, by consumer rankings, is the worst. Its performance in a case the Supreme Court heard recently has done nothing to improve that reputation.

Readers' Comments

Share your thoughts.

• Post a Comment »
• Read All Comments (11) »

This is the latest in the arbitration war — a battle over whether the United States will increasingly have a privatized system of justice that bars people from enforcing rights in court and, if so, what will be considered fair in that system. It would be grossly unfair for the court to let the corporation get away with what it wants to in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion — a case that involves a small amount of money and a huge principle.

When Vincent and Liza Concepcion signed up for AT&T cellphone service, they received two new phones in exchange for making a two-year agreement. To their consternation, AT&T charged them $30.22 in sales tax for the phones. The Concepcions sued the company for fraud in Federal District Court and their case and another were consolidated as a class action.

Because of an arbitration clause in its customer agreement, AT&T insisted that the Concepcions had to submit their claim to individual arbitration. The federal district judge said no. The judge ruled that the agreement is “unconscionable” under California law — imposed by the company harshly, coerced and not consented to. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit forcefully upheld the decision.

Click the t+mstamp to Read more ...

JuridicsUSA: Health / Illegals: Alliance of 20 states allowed to sue Feds re Obamacare

Reuters reporter, Tom Brown, presents the action by a US District Judge, Roger Vinson, to let states sue the Fed gov over the new healthcare law. Brown:

Opponents of Obama's overhaul of the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system have said it violates the Constitution by imposing what they consider unlawful taxes and requiring citizens to obtain healthcare coverage, among other issues.

A fascinating Constitutional case has also been admitted continuance, altho most other of 6 claims have been thrown out. The Supreme Court USA (SCOTUS) need not accept cases, but with 20 of 50 states now joining the suit, it seems unlikely that SCOTUS will turn down this one.

Another case brawt by the Fed gov Department of Justice under Attorney General, Eric Holder, regarding Arizona's new illegals law, has been joined by a bevvy of Latin American countries -- "Mexico, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Chile — [which want] to submit friend-of-the-court briefs in Justice’s challenge to SB 1070, which [Arizona Gov Jan]Brewer signed into law in April and is considered one of the nation’s toughest immigration-enforcement measures [against illegals]."

-- Lawt