Supreme Court Cases,
October Term 2018-2019
The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 1, 2018. Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in on October 6, 2018, to replace the retired Anthony Kennedy, bringing the court back to a full nine members.
See the sections below for additional information on the October 2018 term of the Supreme Court of the United States. Information is current as of September 27, 2018:
- Cases by circuit: This section lists the cases being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States by the court of origination (e.g., federal appellate courts, federal district courts, state courts, etc.).
- Cases by sitting: This section lists the cases being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States by date of oral argument.
- Term data: This section provides summary information on the cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, including case names, decisions, vote totals, opinion authors, and courts of origination.
ABC Test and Restricts Use of Independent Contractors.
On Monday, April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the matter of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles. In a voluminous, 82-page decision, the California Supreme Court reinterpreted and ultimately rejected the Borello ( S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal. 3d 341) test for determining whether workers should be classified as either employees or independent contractors for the purposes of the wage orders adopted by California’s Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) in favor of a worker-friendly standard that may upend the existing independent contractor labor market.
In particular, the Court embraced a standard presuming that all workers are employees instead of contractors, and placed the burden on any entity classifying an individual as an independent contractor of establishing that such classification is proper under the newly adopted “ABC test” which will be discussed in further detail. The question of whether an individual worker should be classified as an employee or independent contractor has considerable significance for workers, businesses, and the public generally. If a worker is classified as an employee, the employer bears the responsibility of paying Social Security and payroll taxes, unemployment insurance taxes and state employment taxes, providing worker’s compensation insurance, and of course, complying with the endless labyrinth of state and federal statutes governing the wages, hours, and working conditions of employees. Indeed, many businesses, particularly those operating in the “gig economy,” are fundamentally premised on the use of independent contractors. In light of this case, any businesses operating in California that treat workers as independent contractors should confer with their legal counsel to review the relationship under the “ABC test” and determine whether any or all such workers should be reclassified.
Lesson’s from The Bush Era Reflects on What has to Come of Trump Administration Lies
Our inner voice of reason has been extinguished and intuitively remote controlled. In both dystopian and utopian societies once ideas are imprinted in our brains and opinions formed, we become like horses with blinkers. Before the invasion of Iraq without substantiated evidence, Collin Powell presented a case that Iraq had the weapons of mass distractions. As here, fabrication of propaganda was used by those who exert power by distorting the historical development leading to the war and alter records to stomp out any contrary view from the one formulated by the Bush Administration coupled with ensuring absolute control over public opinion. With the aftermath of September 11, our nation was still in grief and vulnerable. In this setting, the public is emasculated and the administration preyed on our emotion and stopped at nothing to justify the means. Without factual knowledge, we bought into a distorted public opinion that Iraq has the weapon of mass destruction and waged our patriotic support for the invasion. Subsequently even after Powell reffed to his United Nation presentation about Iraqi’s weapon of mass destruction “as a lowest point in his life”, we still ignore the correction but rather maintain a sentiment by putting lipstick on a pig that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons, and yet today most Bush supporters still claim that WMD were hiding or moved before the invasion. ReadMore
The elections clause as a structural constraint on partisan gerrymandering of Congress
Richard H. Pildes is the Sudler Family Professor of Constitutional Law at NYU Law School.
The Supreme Court has struggled between seeing itself as an institution that only vindicates individual rights and as one that vindicates, at times, more structural or group-based interests. Partisan gerrymandering or vote dilution is obviously intended to advantage or disadvantage adherents of one political party. This is intrinsically a group-based injury, as are all vote-dilution injuries.
In the racial-vote-dilution context under the 14th Amendment, for example, the Supreme Court recognized from its earliest cases, including 1973’s White v. Regester, that the constitutional injury occurs when districts are designed “to cancel out or minimize the voting strength of racial groups.” Similarly, when the court drew on the racial-vote-dilution cases to hold for the first time, in 1986’s Davis v. Bandemer, that partisan vote dilution could also violate the 14th Amendment, the court recognized that “the question is whether a particular group has been unconstitutionally denied its chance to effectively influence the political process.” It makes no sense, either practically or conceptually, to “dilute” the vote of any individual voter in isolation. Vote dilution, whether racial or partisan, is about diminishing the overall political power of groups as groups, compared to the power those groups would have in a lawful plan. Read More
THIS MONTH BEST SELLERS
Please read terms and conditions carefully. By accessing this sites and any pages thereof, you agree to be bound by there terms and conditions. If you do not agree to the terms and conditions below, do not access this sites or any pages thereof. Visit site web declaimer page at; Site Disclaimer