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:
http://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.
Litigation is expensive; however, the cost of failing to retain experienced counsel may be devastating to your case. The 8th District Court of Appeals in Cuyahoga County recently issued a decision that provides a cautionary tale for litigants who proceed with inexperienced counsel or decide to represent their own interests.
In Provident Funding Associates, LP v. Turner, 2014-Ohio-2529, homeowners appealed the trial court’s decision of foreclosure in favor of the bank. While the appeal was pending the foreclosed property was sold at a sheriff’s sale, and the court entered a decree of confirmation of the sale. The homeowners then filed a timely notice of appeal of the court’s judgment confirming the sale.
Although the homeowners had two valid appeals pending before the appellate court, they never filed a separate motion to stay the foreclosure proceedings, nor did they file a motion to stay the distribution of the proceeds from the sheriff’s sale. Before their appeal was heard, the property was sold and the proceeds of the sale were disbursed pursuant to court order.
When the appellate court reviewed the homeowners’ appeal, it determined that the case was “moot.” In other words, the appellate court determined that there was no remedy it could provide to the homeowners regardless of whether their appeal had merit, because the property was already sold to a third party and the sale proceeds were disbursed. As a result, the appellate court dismissed the appeal.
At first blush this seems like a harsh result. The homeowners timely appealed the trial court decisions and were set to present arguments to an appellate court in an effort to reverse the decree of foreclosure. Despite complying with the requirements for appealing a decision to the district court, however, the homeowners failed to preserve their potential remedies by failing to file separate motions to stay the foreclosure proceedings and to stay the distribution of the sale proceeds. By failing to file these simple motions, the homeowners rendered their appeal “moot” meaning there was no basis for the appellate court to review the merits of the appeal, regardless of whether the homeowners’ claims were valid.
The world of litigation is complex and detailed. If the homeowners had retained qualified counsel they would have at least had their day in court before the 8th District. The attorneys at the Finney Law Firm are experienced litigators who will guide you through the difficult litigation process. Please do not hesitate to contact our firm if you are in need of legal representation.
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.
Many of our clients have experienced the frustrations of dealing with the local zoning codes and zoning authorities. A recent case out of the Second District Court of Appeals in Montgomery County underscores the complexities of the zoning process and the importance of understanding how your local zoning code restricts the use of your commercial or residential property.
In Dayton Properties, LLC v. Jefferson Twp. Bd. Of Zoning Appeals, 2014-Ohio-2209, a property owner purchased an auto salvage business that had been in operation for over 60 years. At some point during the prior operation of the business, the township had changed the zoning classification of the property to “light industrial,” which did not permit the operation of an auto salvage business under the township’s zoning code. However, the business was permitted to continue as a nonconforming prior use.
When the owner purchased the property and business, he met with the township’s zoning director and disclosed his intent to add a scrap metal line of business to the auto salvage business already established at the property. The zoning officials told the property owner that his proposed line of business would comply with the zoning code based on the continuation of the property’s nonconforming use.
One year later, the property owner received a Legal Notice of Violation for operating the business outside the scope of allowable uses. The property owner appealed the Notice to the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Montgomery County Common Pleas Court, and finally to the Second District Court of Appeals, losing his case at each stop.
In reviewing the appeal, the Second District noted that the right to continue a nonconforming use is based upon the concept that one should not be deprived of a substantial investment which existed prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance. However, the rights of a nonconforming user are limited, and the clear intent and purpose is to eliminate such uses as rapidly as possible. With respect to the subject property, the Second District found that the original nonconforming use of the property was only for the sale of parts from junked automobiles, and that to extend the nonconforming use to include the purchase of scrap metal is prohibited under the township’s zoning resolutions.
The Second District’s Decision highlights the importance of fully vetting any property you intend to purchase. It is imperative that you understand how the zoning resolutions will limit the use of your property. In the case discussed above, the property owner was found to be in violation of the zoning code despite the fact that the zoning officials advised him that his scrap metal business would be acceptable under the code.
The Finney Law Firm has years of experience advising clients on zoning issues. We represent clients in zoning hearings and we have appealed adverse decisions through the courts. Our firm has also been successful in defeating zoning provisions on both First and Fifth Amendment grounds. If you need help navigating the complexities of the zoning code or the appeals process, please do not hesitate to contact one of our qualified attorneys.