Average Joe SCOTUS: FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project

Pretty simple case, here. Because there are limited radio waves, the FCC tries to make rules to ensure competition in the marketplace, restricting how many people can own one market area. Basically, they don’t allow one media giant to own too many TV or radio stations in that area, so that people get news and information from varied sources.

In 2017, the FCC was like, “Fuck it, we don’t care anymore. Do whatever the fuck you want at this point. No one even gives a fuck about radio or newsprint anymore anyway.” They eased all their “cross-ownership” rules accordingly. These rules initially were making sure that people heard opposing view points, but what’s the point now, with all these news hacks all over the internet, digital radio, YouTube, or whatever.

They instead, created an “incubator” program to encourage women and minorities to start up such stations.

The 3rd circuit was like, “Hey, FCC! What the fuck do you think you’re doing? This incubator program is cute and all, but repealing your cross-ownership rules will make it nearly impossible for women and minorities to get in the game, you dumb fucks.” So they killed FCC’s new rules.

Prometheus Radio Group is one of those small ass stations, and they’re pretty sure the FCC’s rules will fuck them squarely in the asshole.

So now we’re at SCOTUS deciding if the FCC or the 3rd circuit got it right. And in a unanimous decision, SCOTUS agreed with the FCC. Basically saying, “you fuckheads were charged with policing the airwaves, and within that context, you can make whatever rules you think serve that interest as long as you explain it well enough, and it isn’t some unreasonable or unconstitutional nonsense. Go forth and multiply.”

Read about the case, and hear oral arguments at Oyez.com. You can also check out SCOTUS Blog’s analysis.

Average Joe SCOTUS: Carr v. Saul

In a case that promises to be some boring technicality bullshit, Willie Carr was trying to get some Social Security scratch for a disability he has. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) told Willie to eat a bag of dicks. So Carr told them to fuck off, and went to a federal district court to see if they’d help.

While waiting for the federal district court to hear his case, SCOTUS decided in Lucia v. SEC that ALJs must be appointed by the president, a court, or the head of their agency, which they weren’t.

So, the Social Security Admin was like, “Fuck, we gotta appoint some new ALJs.” So that they did.

After SSA appointed new ALJs, Carr was like, “Wait a minute. Those assholes that told me to eat a bag of dicks were not even supposed to be there. So their decision is bullshit, and I want to talk about my claim again.”

The district court agreed, and told the SSA to try again. However, the SSA was like, “Carr should have brought this shit up during his appellate process.”

But Carr was like, “Fuck you, Lucia hadn’t even been decided yet. How the fuck was I supposed to know to raise that objection then, when the precedent hadn’t even been set yet? Are you serious with this shit?”

But the SSA went to the US Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit, and got them to agree with him, that Carr should have raised that issue earlier. So now that two courts disagreed as usual, here we are at SCOTUS to sort this shit out.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS decided Carr had a pretty valid fucking point. A person can challenge the constitutionality of the ALJ during appeal, regardless of whether they brought it up during adjudication.

Basically, on appeal, normally you’re supposed to address shit that was part of the initial review, not bring up new shit, or at least that’s what Saul wanted.

But SCOTUS was basically saying, that the administrative hearings weren’t adversarial, they were inquisitive in nature, and as such, Carr wouldn’t have any reason to make it adversarial by bringing up whether or not he thinks these assholes are unconstitutional. At that point, they’re just talkin’, bro.

Anyway, winner winner chicken dinner for Saul. Good on ya, man.

Read about the case and hear oral arguments on Oyez.com

You can also read about the case at SCOTUS Blog and National Law Review if you’re really interested.

Average Joe SCOTUS: Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court

In 2015, one Markkaya Jean Gullett was involved in a fatal crash involving a Ford Explorer. One of her tires gave up the ghost, and caused her to lose control of the car. Gullett’s estate sued Ford Motor Company (FoMoCo) in Montana, blaming a design flaw, which seems ironic since the tire failed and not the part FoMoCo actually designed and manufactured. Like seriously, why not go after the tire company?

Ford requested dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. They were like, “We didn’t design shit in Montana, we didn’t do anything that killed this person in Montana, we’ve never even fucking been to Montana. So no way is this shit for them to decide. Besides, you’re not even a real fucking state. What is it, like….50 people live here or some shit?”

As noted by Oyez:

Ford Motor Co. has its headquarters in Michigan and is incorporated in Delaware. Ford assembled the vehicle in Kentucky and first sold it to a dealership in Washington State. The dealership then sold it to an Oregon resident, who later sold the vehicle to a purchaser who brought it to Montana.

But Montana was like, “You run your stupid fucking ads in Montana. And, you have licensed dealers in Montana. So fuck you, you’re doing business here. We can handle this shit, and we have every right to.” Basically they were being the little state that could.

So here we are at SCOTUS to determine if a state court can give itself such jurisdiction when the actions that are in question, in this case the design of the car, didn’t take place in that state.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS decided with Montana over Ford. Saying essentially, “You fucking sell cars in Montana through licensed dealers, so you do business in the fucking state. It’s not like she took it somewhere illegally it wasn’t supposed to go. So go fuck yourself. Montana can have at it.

Now that this is settled, Montana can tell her family to sue the tire company, and leave Ford out of it.

Read about the case, and hear oral arguments at Oyez, here.

Average Joe SCOTUS: Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board

Here’s your basic snooze fest of a case. But since the government has a buttload of rules for the railroad industry, SCOTUS finds a lot of these on their docket.

Good ole Manfredo Salinas was a railroad worker, who eventually got injured on the job, fucked up his back big time, and argued he couldn’t work anymore after multiple surgeries.

As such, he applied for a disability annuity in 2006. But the board denied his application, because apparently a well-functioning back isn’t necessary to work on the railroad.

Then in 2013, Salinas filed again, and this time, was granted his benefits by the same board, arguing that in his advanced age with his injuries, he was basically fucked if he tried to find a job.

Salinas was like, “Thanks. Now let’s talk about that 2006 claim you assholes denied.”

So he sued in the 5th Circuit, but they were like, “A denial by the board is their decision to make, dipshit. We aren’t getting involved.” Their reason, is kinda contrived though. Because a decision to deny reopening an old decision isn’t a final decision that the court can review, although the decision to deny the claim is, but that decision had a time time bar, meaning if not decided within a certain time, it’s dead. Stupid, right?

So basically, SCOTUS is being asked to determine if the courts can in fact rule on a decision not to reopen.

In a 5:4 decision, not even remotely decided on party lines, SCOTUS ruled in favor of Salinas. They opined that a decision by the Railroad Board is in fact subject to judicial review, so they reviewed it. Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barrett sided against, basically saying that the language in the RRA limits judicial review to the board’s claims of rights or liabilities, and they considered this administrative action, and thus not subject for review.

Read about the case or hear oral arguments here at Oyez or read about it here at SCOTUS Blog



Average Joe SCOTUS: Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp

For reasons I’ll never understand, SCOTUS has opted to listen to two separate cases about the same fucking thing.

In Republic of Hungary v. Simon, we heard about a case involving those evil bastards in the Nazi regime stealing Jewish-owned artwork, and the Hungarian government just letting it happen.

Well, this case asks the same question, but this time involves Germany “buying” artwork from some Jewish people in the Netherlands that they had purchased after the 1929 stock market crash. But when we say “buying” we mean demanding it be sold at well below market value.

So heirs of the dealers who were screwed by Germany back then are filing a claim in D.C. Germany, feeling they can handle it themselves, requested the case be dismissed so they can address it in Germany.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS decided that Germany can deal with their own shit, and it’s none of our fucking business. That this issue is not a matter of international law when Germany as a country takes shit from citizens of Germany. They also told Simon to get fucked, for similar reasons, in Republic of Hungary v. Simon.

Read about the case here at Oyez, or here at SCOTUS Blog

Average Joe SCOTUS: Brownback v. King

James King, some rando 26-year-old college student was walking about town when two FBI agents accosted him, thinking he was a home invasion suspect, because he matched a basic description. Before you assume wrongly, he wasn’t black.

Initially, he complied when he spotted their badges, but when one of them pulled his wallet out of his pocket, he thought he was being mugged, and ran. So they tackled him and beat the fuck out of him.

Once he was out of the hospital, he was arrested for resisting arrest, which is fucking crazy, since officers had no cause to arrest him. The court agreed, and he was dismissed without any charges.

One of the issues at play here, is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). This law was passed in 1946 as a way of basically saying, if government agents wrong you, you can sue government, as opposed to the agents, for the bad things they did in the government’s name. However, there’s an older landmark case,  Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics from 1971 that allows people to sue federal officials for violating any constitutional rights. It also allows people to sue the federal government in federal court if they violated state laws.

Within the FTCA, is a “judgement bar” which basically says, if you sued once for this shit, and a judgement was issued, you can’t sue again elsewhere.

The federal officers are barred from being sued under the controversial principle of qualified immunity, unless certain qualifications are met.

A district court felt King didn’t meet those qualifiers for an FTCA claim, determining he wasn’t a victim under any Michigan law, and dismissed his case. They also dismissed his Bivens claim, citing qualified immunity for the officers.

King, realizing that his FTCA claim didn’t meet the burden he needed to make that claim, decided only to pursue the Bivens claim. But then the court said because his FTCA claim was dismissed, that the judgment bar applied, and therefore he couldn’t sue under the Bivens claim.

King was like, “Are you fucking serious right now?” So he took his case to the 6th circuit who sided with King, and allowed him to proceed suing these FBI dipshits.

So the FBI dipshits are suing in SCOTUS to try to say the judgement bar DOES apply since his FTCA claim was dismissed. King says the judgement bar only applies to actions and judgements, not dismissals on jurisdictional grounds.

In a unanimous decision, SCOTUS felt King was to be the loser, here. The stated that the bar does in fact get triggered by a dismissal.

You can read about the case in depth here at Oyez or here at SCOTUS Blog

Average Joe SCOTUS: Republic of Hungary v. Simon

Bringing up some old WW2 shit, Rosalie Simon and company are survivors of the holocaust from Hungary. They sued Hungary in the US for damages incurred during the holocaust. Weirdly, they opted to sue here in the US, and not in Hungary, claiming that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) expropriation exception which reads:

A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property or any property exchanged for such property is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or that property or any property exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States;
Basically saying that because these items were taken in violation of international law, they can be sued in our federal court. But the opposition argues that Hungarian courts should be given a crack at hearing this first, and they can’t just sue here in the US out of convenience.
The court enjoined this case with the Germany v. Philipp one, and kicked that shit back to Hungary, arguing this is basically none of our fucking business.
Read about the case here at Oyez

log·i·cal: capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion lib·er·tar·i·an: an advocate of the doctrine of free will; a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action

%d bloggers like this: