Missoulian: Yosemite celebrates 150th anniversary
Yellowstone
National Park; Its Exploration and Establishment
(Mansfield Library has a copy of this book located on Level 1, I 29.2:Y 3/3)
(Mansfield Library has a copy of this book located on Level 1, I 29.2:Y 3/3)
Harris v. Quinn
“PAs are much different from public employees. Unlike full-fledged public employees, PAs are almost entirely answerable to the customers and not to the State, do not enjoy most of the rights and benefits that inure to state employees, and are not indemnified by the State for claims against them arising from actions taken during the course of their employment. Even the scope of collective bargaining on their behalf is sharply limited. ..this Court has never viewed Abood and its progeny as based on Pickering balancing. And even assuming that Pickering applies, that case’s balancing test clearly tips in favor of the objecting employees’ First Amendment interests. Second, respondents err in contending that a refusal to extend Abood here will call into question this Court’s decisions in Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1, and Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth , 529 U. S. 217, for those decisions fit comfortably within the framework applied here. Pp. 34–40.
656 F. 3d 692, reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded”
“PAs are much different from public employees. Unlike full-fledged public employees, PAs are almost entirely answerable to the customers and not to the State, do not enjoy most of the rights and benefits that inure to state employees, and are not indemnified by the State for claims against them arising from actions taken during the course of their employment. Even the scope of collective bargaining on their behalf is sharply limited. ..this Court has never viewed Abood and its progeny as based on Pickering balancing. And even assuming that Pickering applies, that case’s balancing test clearly tips in favor of the objecting employees’ First Amendment interests. Second, respondents err in contending that a refusal to extend Abood here will call into question this Court’s decisions in Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1, and Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth , 529 U. S. 217, for those decisions fit comfortably within the framework applied here. Pp. 34–40.
656 F. 3d 692, reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded”
Missoulian: Obama seeks power to
return immigrant children
Presidential
Memorandum -- Response to the Influx of Unaccompanied Alien Children Across the
Southwest Border
“The influx of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) across the southwest border of the United States has resulted in an urgent humanitarian situation requiring a unified and coordinated Federal response. Accordingly, I have directed the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to establish an interagency Unified Coordination Group to ensure unity of effort across the executive branch in responding to the humanitarian aspects of this situation, consistent with the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (Management of Domestic Incidents)(HSPD-5), including coordination with State, local, and other nonfederal entities.”
“The influx of unaccompanied alien children (UAC) across the southwest border of the United States has resulted in an urgent humanitarian situation requiring a unified and coordinated Federal response. Accordingly, I have directed the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) to establish an interagency Unified Coordination Group to ensure unity of effort across the executive branch in responding to the humanitarian aspects of this situation, consistent with the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5 (Management of Domestic Incidents)(HSPD-5), including coordination with State, local, and other nonfederal entities.”
Missoulian: Aereo
suspends service after Supreme Court ruling
American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc.
“Held: Aereo performs petitioners’ works publicly within the meaning of the Transmit Clause. Pp. 4–18.
(a) Aereo “perform[s].” It does not merely supply equipment that allows others to do so.”
American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc.
“Held: Aereo performs petitioners’ works publicly within the meaning of the Transmit Clause. Pp. 4–18.
(a) Aereo “perform[s].” It does not merely supply equipment that allows others to do so.”
Missoulian: Feds mull Grand
Canyon, Iowa for relocating bison
Interior Department Releases Report on Bison Management, Reaffirming Commitment to Work With States, Tribes and Other Partners
“The report, “DOI Bison Report: Looking Forward” outlines plans to work cooperatively with tribes, states, landowners, conservation groups, commercial bison producers, agricultural interests and others interested in bison to restore the nation’s bison population to a proper ecological and cultural role on appropriate landscapes within its historical range.”
Interior Department Releases Report on Bison Management, Reaffirming Commitment to Work With States, Tribes and Other Partners
“The report, “DOI Bison Report: Looking Forward” outlines plans to work cooperatively with tribes, states, landowners, conservation groups, commercial bison producers, agricultural interests and others interested in bison to restore the nation’s bison population to a proper ecological and cultural role on appropriate landscapes within its historical range.”
Missoulian: USDA: Farmers plant
record soybean crop, less corn
Soybeans
& Oil Crops
Corn
Other Supreme Court Decisions
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
“Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49. (a) RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel. Pp. 16–31.
“Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49. (a) RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, Hobby Lobby, and Mardel. Pp. 16–31.
(1) HHS argues that the companies cannot sue because they
are for-profit corporations, and that the owners cannot sue because the regulations
apply only to the companies, but that would leave merchants with a difficult
choice: give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious
liberty or forgo the benefits of operating as corporations. RFRA’s text shows
that Congress designed the statute to provide very broad protection for religious
liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice. It employed the
familiar legal fiction of including corporations with in RFRA’s definition of
“persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect
the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders,
officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held
corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and
control them. Pp. 16–19.”
NLRB v. Noel Canning
“The Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or intersession—of sufficient length…The Clause should be interpreted as granting the President the power to make appointments during a recess but not offering the President the authority routinely to avoid the need for Senate confirmation….Because the Senate was in session during its pro forma sessions, the President made the recess appointments at issue during a 3-day recess. Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause, so the President lacked the authority to make those appointments”
“The Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or intersession—of sufficient length…The Clause should be interpreted as granting the President the power to make appointments during a recess but not offering the President the authority routinely to avoid the need for Senate confirmation….Because the Senate was in session during its pro forma sessions, the President made the recess appointments at issue during a 3-day recess. Three days is too short a time to bring a recess within the scope of the Clause, so the President lacked the authority to make those appointments”
