|
saintonan posted:If someone used that "terrorist" designation to deny credit or put you on a no-fly list, or disclose it to current or potential employers, that's a clear harm, and it looks like 1600+ people were harmed in that way. That part of the case will continue. But if I create a database that says "AtomikKrab is a butthole", but you're the only one who can see it, how are you being harmed? You may not like me very much, but you didn't suffer any actual harm. You aren't someone that matters. TransUnion, on the other hand, has more information on you than nearly any other organization on the planet. TransUnion labeling you a terrorist is necessarily damaging as they are in a special position of trust. Even if they haven't disclosed that label to anyone, yet, that's just because no one has asked for that person's report which could happen at any time.
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
saintonan posted:if I create a database that says "AtomikKrab is a butthole", but you're the only one who can see it, how are you being harmed? You may not like me very much, but you didn't suffer any actual harm. Kagan posted:why is it so speculative that a company in the business of selling credit reports to third parties will in fact sell a credit report to a third party?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 20:15
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You aren't someone that matters. This is the crux, Transunion could at ANY MOMENT sell that data to a third party who would take it as reliable, Transunion also faces people who would hack it for that data and distribute it as well. I think it places me at a risk of EMINENT HARM.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
Yeah I was going to say, can you not sue when it can be reasonably inferred that there is a very real threat of future harm? If you know TransUnion has wrongly stamped [TERRORIST] on your credit report and refuses to change it, you know that even if they haven't shared it yet they will share it the second you need to apply for something like a lease or loan. And not only will you most likely get rejected, there's a stigma attached to that now being out there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:01
|
|
|
AtomikKrab posted:This is the crux, Transunion could at ANY MOMENT sell that data to a third party who would take it as reliable, Transunion also faces people who would hack it for that data and distribute it as well. And a credible threat of eminent harm nearly always causes immediate harm, both psychologically and in the sense of any time and resources wasted trying to mitigate that eminent harm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
That's why I sue every Maryland driver I see for all the imminent theoretical damage they're doing to my car
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 22:00
|
|
|
Does it being a class action have a big impact here? FCDPA awards costs to the winner after all… sounds like a situation where the plaintiffs say “ok” and file 7000 individual small claims actions just like Uber’s mess with having to pay for a bunch of arbitration’s after the class action was tossed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Does it being a class action have a big impact here? FCDPA awards costs to the winner after all… sounds like a situation where the plaintiffs say “ok” and file 7000 individual small claims actions just like Uber’s mess with having to pay for a bunch of arbitration’s after the class action was tossed. its an FCRA case, not FDCPA, but they're both fee shifting so minor point bigger point is a lot of plaintiffs in those cases just disappear, because a lot of them are bullshit claims and people that have a bunch of negative remarks on their credit reports tend to have them for a reason, mostly for not being reliable. you can see how many of these consumer cases are filed - https://webrecon.com/webrecon-stats-for-may-2021-hunsteinmania/. a lot end up in federal court for $1000 claims and a big part of the standing push back in federal courts getting tired of dealing with them Ironically, in this case, If you wanted to file a bunch of individual suits, you’d need the individuals to request their credit file, which would get rid of the speculative part EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jun 25, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2021 22:46
|
|
|
Transunion used the “I’m not touching you!” defence and it loving worked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 01:51
|
|
|
I think the real problem here is that Congress continues to try and use the civil courts for what should be criminal violations. Transunion should be slapped down for actively planning on distributing these false reports they made, even if they haven't gotten around to it yet, because it violated the explicit regulations they operate under.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 03:31
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Justice I actually hope that it was really for baseball tickets because that makes the story even crazier.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 04:59
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:I actually hope that it was really for baseball tickets because that makes the story even crazier. It was most likely gambling or other general boomer debt. Marco Rubio was similarly underwater before he started his first senate run. A billionaire sugar daddy paid off his debt as well and now he’s working to make sure that guy’s agenda gets passed into law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 13:19
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It was most likely gambling or other general boomer debt. Well obviously, but baseball tickets would be a much funnier reason to be $300k in the hole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 13:44
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:You aren't someone that matters. wow, rude
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 15:23
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It was most likely gambling or other general boomer debt. It's amazing how cheap it is to buy off people. $300,000 is nothing to someone worth 1B. Or even 100M. Especially if the rate of return on your 300K investment is like even ~1% of your 1B wealth. A friend of mine was buddies with a son (ie: the term should be "an inheritor of wealth" amrite) of someone worth like ~1B. This son had zero concept of money growing up in that household, and they would routinely have like $800 dollar lunches or other crazy poo poo. The guy would ask my friend "wait, is that a lot?" If you did the math the very generous $90K a year they paid for their live-in personal chef/diet manager/grocery buyer/personal trainer was like, less than a single $5 Starbux drink for someone making 50K a year. (My math: 90,000/1,000,000,000 versus 5/50,000, correct me if I'm wrong)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
jeeves posted:If you did the math the very generous $90K a year they paid for their live-in personal chef/diet manager/grocery buyer/personal trainer was like, less than a single $5 Starbux drink for someone making 50K a year. The math is even more in favor of the billionaire’s chef because now the billionaire is a job creator and the government promotes that in various ways. The java frappuccino* is pure consumption. It’s like avocado toast. You monster. *Pretty sure they’re more than five dollars now, but whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 18:42
|
|
|
jeeves posted:It's amazing how cheap it is to buy off people. $300,000 is nothing to someone worth 1B. Or even 100M. Especially if the rate of return on your 300K investment is like even ~1% of your 1B wealth. IIRC Sheldon Adelson spent hundreds of millions of dollars of GOP congressional and presidential races while the tax breaks he'd see from them was worth billions. Sure, the money he spent to get Romney elected in 2012 didn't (directly) pay off but overall he and people like him consistently would come out ahead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
See also: bloomberg blowing a huge wad on a nonstarter campaign just on the off chance that without him a wealth tax would happen
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
Listening to episodes of Mic Dicta (podcast that had the ALAB and 5-4 folks on it but blew up for some undisclosed reason awhile back) and one of the hosts had a friend who clerked for the Court and during the lunch Thomas hosted (every Justice hosts all the clerks for a lunch) someone brought up Harry Reid and Thomas made a face. Said clerk mentioned he thought Thomas and Reid were on good terms so Thomas said he'd show the clerk something when they got back to the Court. Thomas took the clerk into his office and pulled a piece of paper out of the top drawer of his desk. It was the a list of his confirmation vote (Reid voted nay). This was over a decade after he got on the Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2021 23:03
|
|
|
Hypothetical question due to my sister believing that AZ is about to show massive fraud with their election and this is going to be the set up to Trump coming back into office. Let’s say that the AZ audit falsely claims that there was tens of thousands of fraudulent votes. I am assuming that the DOJ will then get involved and this leads to a lawsuit that would eventually be sent to the SC. How does this thread think that the SC? Would it even have four judges that would be willing to hear it? What sort of reasoning would the judges be looking for?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 04:55
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Hypothetical question due to my sister believing that AZ is about to show massive fraud with their election and this is going to be the set up to Trump coming back into office. Even if actual evidence came out that the 2020 election was completely rigged from top to bottom in favor of the Dems there's nothing that allows for a certified presidential election to be nullified after the fact when the winner was eligible to be POTUS. The SC would probably refuse to grant cert to a case because they have no authority to removing elected officials from office. What you'd likely see happen is voting laws that crack down on voting rights (for Dems) severely and the GOP would sweep both chambers next year and the WH in 2024. After that, the winning Republican would probably seize power for life and start jailing Dems en masse as part of a 'crackdown' on the corruption. Given (recent) history with election fraud, if any evidence of riggng does come up it'll probably be from the GOP's end because they're constantly caught doing so and get away with it because they project their guilty onto the Dems and millions of idiots buy it while millions more believe the truth must be in the middle. We're almost guaranteed that the AZ audit will turn up 'evidence' of fraud because the audit is being headed by a QAnon true believer and the chain of custody of the ballots has been irrevocably tainted to the point that I'm not sure any ballot evidence would be accepted as valid in a courtroom. Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jun 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 05:03
|
|
|
EDIT: This just popped up in my feed, and I didn't realize it was from earlier this week. Sorry. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1408999051828371456
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 05:51
|
|
|
The best part of that decision was  of all people writing a concurrence that was just "please for the love of god somebody else sue specifically about college athlete pay so we can break up the NCAA's bullshit racket for good."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 06:46
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Hypothetical question due to my sister believing that AZ is about to show massive fraud with their election and this is going to be the set up to Trump coming back into office. At worst its gonna be the same thing as the Texas lawsuit. Thomas and Alito would want to take it because they're insane and don't care about anything but their side winning no matter how blatantly bullshit it is, the other conservatives don't take it because they aren't willing to be that blatantly nonsensical Piell fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Jun 27, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 14:34
|
|
|
The supreme court literally cannot overturn the vote of the electoral college once it has happened and been certified by Congress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 14:49
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The supreme court literally cannot overturn the vote of the electoral college once it has happened and been certified by Congress. If their gonna rig the election they need to do it before the count or recount finishes ala everyone's favorite case Bush v. Gore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:The supreme court literally cannot overturn the vote of the electoral college once it has happened and been certified by Congress. Right. You can't unring a bell. Even if it turns out that Joe Biden personally went to each state he won and cast enough fraudulent votes in each of him to win the state, that doesn't mean Trump becomes President. Congress could impeach him, of course, but other than that, well...
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 06:24
|
|
|
Epicurius posted:Right. You can't unring a bell. Even if it turns out that Joe Biden personally went to each state he won and cast enough fraudulent votes in each of him to win the state, that doesn't mean Trump becomes President. Congress could impeach him, of course, but other than that, well... How quickly do you think the impeachments will come once Repubz take back the House in 2022?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 07:06
|
|
|
jeeves posted:How quickly do you think the impeachments will come once Repubz take back the House in 2022? If they do, I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if you saw something, although that depends on what the final results are and what sort of Republicans they are.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 12:50
|
|
|
lol we live in hell https://twitter.com/nikobowie/status/1405479081592770561?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 13:46
|
|
|
this means "the lower court decision was so loving stupid we're not even going to have briefing and arguments on this, they're reversed, try again" which is appropriate for a case where the circuit court held that it was always constitutional to have six officers sit on the back of a prisoner until he died, if he resisted at some point, so clearly constitutional you don't even need to bother to look into the facts it is of course surprising there were 6 votes on the supreme court for that holding. it is less surprising that alito, thomas, and gorsuch dissented - thought their dissent is mostly be "look you actually need to rule on this, one way or another, not just kick it back to the 8th circuit to try again" which is less unreasonably monstrous than i expected
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 15:31
|
|
|
quote:The decision not to take up the Gloucester County case (over dissents from Thomas & Alito) I'm 100% unsurprised. Gargle my entire cock and balls, Sam&Clarence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1409510571175780352
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 16:00
|
|
|
As a note - Thomas actually bit the bullet in Raich originally, agreeing that his and Scalia's interpretation of the commerce clause could not be squared with a weed ban (Scalia was less willing to be consistent, and developed an "except for weed" exception to his doctrine). So basically this is one of this issues that Thomas's absolutely insane jurisprudence actually produces results that are not what you would expect. It is not a good opinion - he would hold the government could not ban the sale of weed entirely within a state, but would also hold that virtually all federal regulation similarly contained an "im not touching you!!!" exception - but it is just illuminating for how Thomas approaches stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it is of course surprising there were 6 votes on the supreme court for that holding. It’s per curiam with a 3 justice dissent, so you only know there were 5 votes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 16:15
|
|
|
 Opinions! 1-2 of 2 for June 28. 5 opinions left after today. Today was just garbage per curiam decisions.JODY LOMBARDO, ET AL. v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, ET AL. TLDR: The Eighth Circuit should have looked at how the police killed a prisoner in more detail before deciding the police were entitled to qualified immunity. Holding / Majority Opinion (Per Curiam) On the afternoon of December 8, 2015, St. Louis police officers arrested Nicholas Gilbert for trespassing in a condemned building and failing to appear in court for a traffic ticket.1 Officers brought him to the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department’s central station and placed him in a holding cell. At some point, an officer saw Gilbert tie a piece of clothing around the bars of his cell and put it around his neck, in an apparent attempt to hang himself. Three officers responded and entered Gilbert’s cell. One grabbed Gilbert’s wrist to handcuff him, but Gilbert evaded the officer and began to struggle. The three officers brought Gilbert, who was 5’3” and 160 pounds, down to a kneeling position over a concrete bench in the cell and handcuffed his arms behind his back. … [The police killed Gilbert in the process of restraining him from his suicide attempt. His parents sued.] The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the officers, concluding that they were entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the incident. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed on different grounds, holding that the officers did not apply unconstitutionally excessive force against Gilbert. In assessing a claim of excessive force, courts ask “whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them.” “A court (judge or jury) cannot apply this standard mechanically.” Rather, the inquiry “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Those circumstances include “the relationship between the need for the use of force and the amount of force used; the extent of the plaintiff ’s injury; any effort made by the officer to temper or to limit the amount of force; the severity of the security problem at issue; the threat reasonably perceived by the officer; and whether the plaintiff was actively resisting.” Although the Eighth Circuit cited the Kingsley factors, it is unclear whether the court thought the use of a prone restraint—no matter the kind, intensity, duration, or surrounding circumstances—is per se constitutional so long as an individual appears to resist officers’ efforts to subdue him. … Having either failed to analyze [evidence in the record] or characterized it as insignificant, the court’s opinion could be read to treat Gilbert’s “ongoing resistance” as controlling as a matter of law. Such a per se rule would contravene the careful, context-specific analysis required by this Court’s excessive force precedent. fn3: While the dissent suggests we should give the Eighth Circuit the benefit of the doubt, in assessing the appropriateness of review in this factbound context, it is more prudent to afford the Eighth Circuit an opportunity to clarify its opinion rather than to speculate as to its basis. We express no view as to whether the officers used unconstitutionally excessive force or, if they did, whether Gilbert’s right to be free of such force in these circumstances was clearly established at the time of his death. We instead grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Eighth Circuit, and remand the case to give the court the opportunity to employ an inquiry that clearly attends to the facts and circumstances in answering those questions in the first instance. It is so ordered. Lineup: Unknown, but includes 5 justices who aren’t Alito, Thomas, or Gorsuch. Dissent by Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch.. Dissent (Alito, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch) I cannot approve the Court’s summary disposition because it unfairly interprets the Court of Appeals’ decision and evades the real issue that this case presents: whether the record supports summary judgment in favor of the defendant police officers and the city of St. Louis. The Court of Appeals held that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment because a reasonable jury would necessarily find that the police officers used reasonable force in attempting to subdue petitioner Lombardo’s son, Nicholas Gilbert, when he was attempting to hang himself in his cell. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals applied the correct legal standard and made a judgment call on a sensitive question. This case, therefore, involves the application of “a properly stated rule of law” to a particular factual record, and our rules say that we “rarely” review such questions. But “rarely” does not mean “never,” and if this Court is unwilling to allow the decision below to stand, the proper course is to grant the petition, receive briefing and argument, and decide the real question that this case presents. That is the course I would take. I do not think that this Court is above occasionally digging into the type of factbound questions that make up much of the work of the lower courts, and a decision by this Court on the question presented here could be instructive. The Court, unfortunately, is unwilling to face up to the choice between denying the petition (and bearing the criticism that would inevitably elicit) and granting plenary review (and doing the work that would entail). Instead, it claims to be uncertain whether the Court of Appeals actually applied the correct legal standard, and for that reason it vacates the judgment below and remands the case. This course of action may be convenient for this Court, but it is unfair to the Court of Appeals. If we expect the lower courts to respect our decisions, we should not twist their opinions to make our job easier. When the Court of Appeals’ opinion is read in the way we hope our opinions will be interpreted, it is clear that the Court of Appeals understood and applied the correct standard for excessive-force claims. The per curiam acknowledges that the Court of Appeals correctly cited the factors that must be taken into account in determining whether the officers’ actions were objectively reasonable. But the per curiam finds it “unclear whether the [Court of Appeals] thought the use of a prone restraint—no matter the kind, intensity, duration, or surrounding circumstances—is per se constitutional so long as an individual appears to resist officers’ efforts to subdue him.” Can the Court seriously think that the Eighth Circuit adopted such a strange and extreme position—that the use of prone restraint on a resisting detainee is always reasonable no matter how much force is used, no matter how long that force is employed, no matter the physical condition of the detainee, and no matter whether the detainee is obviously suffering serious or even life-threatening harm? … Without carefully studying the record, I cannot be certain whether I would have agreed with the Eighth Circuit panel that summary judgment for the defendants was correct. The officers plainly had a reasonable basis for using some degree of force to restrain Gilbert so that he would not harm himself, and it appears that Gilbert, despite his slight stature, put up a fierce and prolonged resistance. On the other hand, the officers’ use of force inflicted serious injuries, and the medical evidence on the cause of death was conflicting. We have two respectable options: deny review of the factbound question that the case presents or grant the petition, have the case briefed and argued, roll up our sleeves, and decide the real issue. I favor the latter course, but what we should not do is take the easy out that the Court has chosen. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-391_2c83.pdf PEYMAN PAKDEL, ET UX. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, ET AL TLDR: You don’t have to go through every possible administrative remedy to sue in federal court for a regulatory taking of your property. Holding / Majority Opinion (Per Curiam) When a plaintiff alleges a regulatory taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, a federal court should not consider the claim before the government has reached a “final” decision. After all, until the government makes up its mind, a court will be hard pressed to determine whether the plaintiff has suffered a constitutional violation. In the decision below, however, the Ninth Circuit required petitioners to show not only that the San Francisco Department of Public Works had firmly rejected their request for a property-law exemption (which they did show), but also that they had complied with the agency’s administrative procedures for seeking relief. Because the latter requirement is at odds with “the settled rule . . . that exhaustion of state remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under 42 U. S. C. §1983,” we vacate and remand. Petitioners are a married couple who partially own a multi-unit residential building in San Francisco. When petitioners purchased their interest in the property, the building was organized as a tenancy-in-common. Under that kind of arrangement, all owners technically have the right to possess and use the entire property, but in practice often contract among themselves to divide the premises into individual residences. Owners also frequently seek to convert tenancy-in-common interests into modern condominium-style arrangements, which allow individual ownership of certain parts of the building. When petitioners purchased their interest in the property, for example, they signed a contract with the other owners to take all available steps to pursue such a conversion. Until 2013, the odds of conversion were slim because San Francisco employed a lottery system that accepted only 200 applications per year. When that approach resulted in a predictable backlog, however, the city adopted a new program that allowed owners to seek conversion subject to a filing fee and several conditions. One of these was that non-occupant owners who rented out their units had to offer their tenants a lifetime lease. Although petitioners had a renter living in their unit, they and their co-owners sought conversion. As part of the process, they agreed that they would offer a lifetime lease to their tenant. The city then approved the conversion. But, a few months later, petitioners requested that the city either excuse them from executing the lifetime lease or compensate them for the lease. The city refused both requests, informing petitioners that “failure to execute the lifetime lease violated the [program] and could result in an enforcement action.” Petitioners sued in federal court under §1983. Among other things, they alleged that the lifetime-lease requirement was an unconstitutional regulatory taking. But the District Court rejected this claim without reaching the merits. Instead, it relied on this Court’s since-disavowed prudential rule that certain takings actions are not “ripe” for federal resolution until the plaintiff “seek[s] compensation through the procedures the State has provided for doing so.” Because petitioners had not first brought “a state court inverse condemnation proceeding,” the District Court dismissed their claims. While petitioners’ appeal was pending before the Ninth Circuit, this Court repudiated Williamson County’s requirement that a plaintiff must seek compensation in state court. We explained that “[t]he Fifth Amendment right to full compensation arises at the time of the taking” and that “[t]he availability of any particular compensation remedy, such as an inverse condemnation claim under state law, cannot infringe or restrict the property owner’s federal constitutional claim.” Any other approach, we reasoned, would conflict with “[t]he general rule . . . that plaintiffs may bring constitutional claims under §1983 without first bringing any sort of state lawsuit.” Rather than remand petitioners’ claims in light of Knick, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit simply affirmed. Noting that Knick left untouched Williamson County’s alternative holding that plaintiffs may challenge only “final” government decisions, the panel concluded that petitioners’ regulatory “takings claim remain[ed] unripe because they never obtained a final decision regarding the application of the Lifetime Lease Requirement to their Unit.” Although the city had twice denied their requests for the exemption—and in fact the “relevant agency c[ould] no longer grant” relief—the panel reasoned that this decision was not truly “final” because petitioners had made a belated request for an exemption at the end of the administrative process instead of timely seeking one “through the prescribed procedures.” … We...think that the Ninth Circuit’s view of finality is incorrect. The finality requirement is relatively modest. All a plaintiff must show is that “there [is] no question . . . about how the ‘regulations at issue apply to the particular land in question.’” In this case, there is no question about the city’s position: Petitioners must “execute the lifetime lease” or face an “enforcement action.” And there is no question that the government’s “definitive position on the issue [has] inflict[ed] an actual, concrete injury” of requiring petitioners to choose between surrendering possession of their property or facing the wrath of the government. The rationales for the finality requirement underscore that nothing more than de facto finality is necessary. This requirement ensures that a plaintiff has actually “been injured by the Government’s action” and is not prematurely suing over a hypothetical harm. Along the same lines, because a plaintiff who asserts a regulatory taking must prove that the government “regulation has gone ‘too far,’” the court must first “kno[w] how far the regulation goes.” Once the government is committed to a position, however, these potential ambiguities evaporate and the dispute is ripe for judicial resolution. The Ninth Circuit’s contrary approach—that a conclusive decision is not “final” unless the plaintiff also complied with administrative processes in obtaining that decision—is inconsistent with the ordinary operation of civil-rights suits. Petitioners brought their takings claim under §1983, which “guarantees ‘a federal forum for claims of unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials.’” That guarantee includes “the settled rule” that “exhaustion of state remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under . . . §1983.”In fact, one of the reasons Knick gave for rejecting Williamson County’s state-compensation requirement is that this rule had “effectively established an exhaustion requirement for §1983 takings claims.” … Of course, Congress always has the option of imposing a strict administrative-exhaustion requirement—just as it has done for certain civil-rights claims filed by prisoners. But it has not done so for takings plaintiffs. Given that the Fifth Amendment enjoys “full-fledged constitutional status,” the Ninth Circuit had no basis to relegate petitioners’ claim “‘to the status of a poor relation’ among the provisions of the Bill of Rights.” For the foregoing reasons, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, and remand the case for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Lineup: Per Curiam. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-1212_3204.pdf ulmont fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jun 28, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 16:28
|
|
|
The per curiams were cases that hadn't been argued; we still have five left on the term.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Thranguy posted:The per curiams were cases that hadn't been argued; we still have five left on the term. I guess we’re getting 5 opinions on Wednesday. Gonna be a long morning at the Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:53 |
|
|
Leave it to Alito to take every opportunity available to him to polish police boots spotless with his tongue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2021 17:46
|
|