Today’s Same-Sex Marriage Arguments In Plain English
Posted: April 28, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentAmy Howe, writing for SCOTUSblog, has this helpful “plain english” post on today’s arguments in the United States Supreme Court concerning same-sex marriage. Bottom line: The justices are divided on this hot button issue. We’ll have to wait until the end of June for what could be a socially transformative decision.
Is Connecticut’s Spending Cap Judicially Enforceable?
Posted: April 28, 2015 Filed under: Appellate Law, General Law | Tags: article third, political question, spending cap Leave a commentShort answer: No. Long answer: No. Short explanation: The “political question” doctrine. Longer explanation: See below.
State Republicans Propose Moving Watchdog Agencies To Judicial Branch
Posted: April 24, 2015 Filed under: General Law | Tags: freedom of information, watchdog agencies Leave a commentThe House and Senate Republicans released their own budget proposal today, called the “Blueprint for Prosperity.” As a lawyer with a strong interest in open government, page 21 of the report caught my eye. It contains a section entitled “Safeguarding Connecticut’s Watchdog Agencies.” The section states:
Random Thoughts On Statutory Interpretation
Posted: April 23, 2015 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: 1-2z, king v. burwell, plain meaning rule, statutory construction Leave a commentWhile doing some research this morning, I happened upon a wonderful quote by the great Second Circuit judge Learned Hand on the issue of statutory interpretation. The quote seemed particularly apt with King v. Burwell still very much on my mind. Here’s the quote (from Cabell v. Markham, 148 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1945)):
The decisions are legion in which [courts] have refused to be bound by the letter, when it frustrates the patent purpose of the whole statute. . . . As Holmes, J., said in a much-quoted passage from Johnson v. United States, 163 F. 30, 32, 18 L.R.A., N.S., 1194: “it is not an adequate discharge of duty for courts to say: We see what you are driving at, but you have not said it, and therefore we shall go on as before.” . . . Of course it is true that the words used, even in their literal sense, are the primary, and ordinarily the most reliable, source of interpreting the meaning of any writing: be it a statute, a contract, or anything else. But it is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary; but to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish, whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning. (Emphasis supplied.)
[UPDATE: 4/28/15] A learned member of the bar points out, quite accurately, that the approach to statutory interpretation described above is difficult to reconcile with General Statutes section 1-2z, about which I’ve blogged at length in the past.
Open Meetings: Asset Or Albatross
Posted: April 20, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentOn April 10, 2015, about 150 state and local government officials attended the state Freedom of Information Commission’s annual conference, an educational program featuring a number of panel discussions on various aspects of our state FOI law. The theme of this year’s conference was “Open Meetings: Asset or Albatross.” I had the honor and pleasure to moderate a panel discussion concerning the benefits (and costs) of requiring government to conduct its business in public. I had the support of three terrific panelists: WNPR’s Jeff Cohen, Durham First Selectman Laura Francis, and Stamford Assistant Corporation Counsel (and former FOIC Commissioner) Amy LiVolsi. CT-N taped the conference. The panel discussion I moderated starts at approximately 2:31:00 into the program.
Inside The Connecticut Supreme Court
Posted: April 16, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentThis Sunday (April 19), on WFSB’s Face the State, Dennis House will present an “exclusive, rare look inside a place few people in Connecticut have been: the State Supreme Court.” Although politics and specific cases are off limits, House’s interview of Chief Justice Chase Rogers and justices Richard Palmer, Dennis Eveleigh, Richard Robinson and Andrew McDonald should be enlightening to viewers unfamiliar with the way the state’s high court works.
Hat tip: Proloy Das
The General Assembly’s Constitutional Authority To Sanction Or Expel Its Own Members
Posted: April 15, 2015 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentWith the Hartford Courant calling on the General Assembly to sanction Hartford Representative Minnie Gonzalez for an email she wrote the other day, I was curious about what the Connecticut Constitution says about the authority of the House or Senate to punish its own members. Article III, section 13, entitled “Powers of each house”, states:
Each house shall determine the rules of its own proceedings, and punish members for disorderly conduct, and, with the consent of two-thirds, expel a member, but not a second time for the same cause; and shall have all other powers necessary for a branch of the legislature of a free and independent state.
Supreme Court Releases Written Decision In Cassandra C. Case
Posted: April 15, 2015 Filed under: Appellate Law, General Law | Tags: cassandra c., mature minor, mature minor doctrine 4 CommentsOn January 8, 2015, the Supreme Court heard expedited oral arguments in In re: Cassandra C, the case involving a 17-year-old adolescent who claimed the right to refuse life-saving chemotherapy for her Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Only minutes after the oral argument concluded, the court issued a brief oral ruling from the bench in which the justices unanimously rejected Cassandra C.’s argument that the court should adopt the so-called “mature minor” doctrine. The court said that a formal written opinion would follow. Today, the court issued its written opinion.
State Moves For Reconsideration In Controversial Lapointe Case
Posted: April 13, 2015 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: blumberg, sua sponte Leave a commentLast Friday the State filed a motion asking the Connecticut Supreme Court to reconsider, en banc, its 4-2 decision in Lapointe v. Comm’r of Correction, which generated four opinions: the majority opinion (Palmer, J.), a concurring opinion (Rogers, C.J.) and two dissents (Espinosa, J. and Zarella, J.). The case has generated considerable controversy for several reasons, including the unjudicial tone of some of the opinions and footnotes and, perhaps more importantly, the majority’s resolution of the case based on an issue that was neither briefed nor argued.
An A+ For Rep. Jutila On Police Transparency
Posted: March 31, 2015 Filed under: General Law | Tags: foi, freedom of information, raised bill 6750 Leave a commentKudos to Representative Ed Jutila (D-East Lyme) and eight other members of the Government Administration and Elections (GAE) committee for voting to send Raised Bill 6750 to the floor of the House for consideration. (Read CT News Junkie’s story about the vote.)
I’ve written about the importance of Raised Bill 6750 in a previous post; it would overrule a bad Connecticut Supreme Court decision that substantially curtailed public access to arrest-related records. The proposed bill would restore the Freedom of Information Commission’s longstanding interpretation of state law, which allowed greater access to such records, subject to important exemptions, including protecting the identity of witnesses and avoiding disclosures that would prejudice a prospective law enforcement action. The bill strikes the proper balance between the public’s right to know and law enforcement’s need to avoid premature disclosure of certain information in order to protect the integrity of investigations and potential prosecutions..
Appealingly Brief! 