The podcast from Christopher Finney’s appearance today on 55 WKRC regarding Susan B. Anthony List and COAST cases against the Ohio Elections Commission is below:
https://www.bsontheissues.com/shows
Monday morning at 10 AM, we have oral argument on Motions to Dismiss filed by the IRS, Lois Lerner, Holly Paz, Douglas Schulman and the rest of the rogue’s gallery of characters in the IRS scandal in front of U.S. District Court Judge Susan Dlott on one of the several suits that have been filed against the IRS over its targeting of pro-Israel and Tea Party groups seeking tax treatment under IRC 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4). Our case is captioned NorCal Tea Party v. IRS, was the first suit filed, and is here because the scandal initially arose from actions of Cincinnati IRS agents.
The oral argument is on the IRS position that “it can do whatever it wants” and that no actions it takes, regardless of how outrageous, how targeted and how discriminatory, are subject to a suit under statute or the Constitution. That seems pretty incredible, huh?
It does, but the IRS fears mightily the case proceeding beyond a Motion to Dismiss, because at that stage private litigants can proceed with documentary discovery and depositions, allowing the actions and motivations of the IRS to be thoroughly explored, all the way up to White House involvement.
So, a lot is at stake before Judge Dlott, starting with the oral argument at 10 AM tomorrow.
By the way, I ran across this June 13 blog entry from the “Cincinnati Tax Guy,” Steve Hamilton, that pretty accurately covers the legal issues in the “Z Street case,” which overlap the Cincinnati NorCal case pretty well.
The end of the October 2013 term of the U.S. Supreme Court is Monday, and they have two major decisions remaining on the docket:
1) Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (originally Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby), which addresses the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage in the Affordable Care Act, and more broadly the right of businesses owners to express their their religious beliefs through their business policies.
2) A case that we find even more compelling and consequential, Harris v. Quinn, which well could establish a right-to-work (i.e., the right not to be forced to pay dues to a labor union) in the United States Constitution, at least for public sector employees. The raging legal and political debate about forced union membership of public employees that has roiled the Country for decades, and even more intensely for the past five years (e.g., pitched political and legal battles over reform of forced unionization in Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan), could come to a stunning conclusion on Monday.
If the Court takes a bold stance for liberty (i.e., freedom of choice for America’s public-sector workers of where their paycheck is spent and with whom they are required to associate), the consequences will be far-reaching. Indeed, depending on the language of the decision, it could spell the end to forced unionization in the private sector as well.
We anxiously await both rulings. Hobby Lobby is getting the most buzz; we think Harris could be the most important decision not just of this term, but of the entire Roberts Court.
[For more reading on the Harris v. Quinn case, the Illinois Policy Center has some perspectives : “Harris v. Quinn: Everything you need to know.“]
Please note: Finney Law Firm blog contributors have major Court appearances and transactional work throughout the day Monday, so it will be Monday night before we will report — other than perhaps on Twitter — of the developments in these two landmark cases. So, we will write more by Tuesday morning. In the meantime, we recommend the live blog on the www.Scotusblog.Com, which is linked here, beginning at 9:15 AM.
In a remarkable decision, the United States Supreme Court today unanimously struck down President Obama’s recess appointments of three members to the National Labor Relations Board. The invalidation of the appointments was notable in itself, but the Court at the same time swept away a year and a half of decisions of the NLRB, as the Board had no quorum without the new members.
From one perspective, the decision shows a certain boldness of the Supreme Court in challenging — unanimously — unfettered executive authority, including a willingness to throw a bit of chaos into labor law. From another view, however, the decision was substantially nuanced and cautious, as this analysis explains.
The decision is NLRB v. Noel Canning.
When the book is written on the legacy of the Roberts era at the United States Supreme Court, there will many chapters weaving together the cases presented over its years. But, if the Court continues its present trajectory, one very thick chapter of that tome will be its expansive First Amendment jurisprudence.
Today, in McCullen v. Coakley, the high Court struck down as unconstitutional the Massachusetts law establishing a thirty-five-foot fixed buffer zone around abortion clinics, a clear vindication of First Amendment rights. Indeed, it gives much more free speech elbow room than provided in a similar context in 2000 in Hill v. Colorado. (Read an analysis of that contrast here.)
The McCullen decision comes, of course, on the heels of the twin First Amendment wins by Finney Law Firm client, COAST against the Ohio Elections Commission this past week and the expansive campaign finance decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decided in April.
In 2010, the Court released its landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.
This blog entry from one year ago explores the Roberts legacy (so far) on the First Amendment.
Whatever else this Court stands for, it clearly has embraced the First Amendment.
The Finney Law Firm is pleased to be a practice leader in the First Amendment arena.
More than $3.2 billion in construction projects have been put on ice by the Cincinnati Metropolitan Sewer District as a result of mandates imposed by Cincinnati City Council at the behest of labor unions that were opposed by the Hamilton County Commissioners.
That impasse was broken today by U.S. District Court Magistrate Karen Litkovitz with a 29-page decision siding with the County under their joint operating agreement creating the sewer district.
You can read more about the decision here.
Congratulations to the Hamilton County Commissioners, the Dinsmore & Shohl law firm, their outside counsel, and Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters for this important win.
Christopher Finney appeared yesterday with Brian Thomas of 55 WKRC to discuss his twin wins at the United States Supreme Court against the Ohio Elections Commission challenging the constitutionality of the Ohio False Claims statute.
The link is below. Listen in starting at 80:35.
The Finney Law Firm is proud to represent a group of property owners in the Cincinnati suburb of Mt. Healthy in fighting their unconstitutional rental licensing program. It has joined with Maurice Thompson of the non-profit 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in that fight.
The 1851 Center has a profile of that legal battle here.
The Finney Law Firm has joined with Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law in filing suit to challenge the rental housing inspection program in the City of Portsmouth, Ohio. The suit alleges that the program mandates warrantless searches of rental property in violation of the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Finney law Firm is representing eight Plaintiffs owning 82 properties in the City of Portsmouth in challenging the program.
In Portsmouth, the City has targeted more than 2,100 properties under the program, although City fathers have acknowledged in media reports that problem properties are fewer than 10 in the entire City.
You can read the Complaint and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order below.
Portsmouth Complaint by Finney Law Firm, LLC
Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction against City of Portsmouth by Finney Law Firm, LLC
It has been simply remarkable month for the Finney Law Firm.
We won two separate cases for our client, COAST at the United States Supreme Court, Susan B. Anthony List and COAST v. Ohio Elections Commission announced on June 16th and COAST Candidates PAC v. Ohio Elections Commission announced on June 23.
They are two cases brought one year apart, dealing with two separate “False Claims” statutes of the state of Ohio. The Supreme Court’s decisions did not strike the offending statutes, but rather simply ruled that COAST had “standing” to be in Court raise the constitutional arguments.
The first case is now back in front of U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Black and the second is in front of U.S. District Court Judge Michael Barrett. We expect both will take an additional two-to-three years to fully adjudicate.