By Janette Ansolabehere
The Court is working to conclude the 2022-2023 session. As is usually the case, the most anticipated case opinions are now coming.
Allen v. Milligan (Alabama)
Allen is a voting rights case revolving around interpretation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) in connection with a redistricting challenge. Alabama’s redrawn congressional district map was challenged by voters and voting rights groups as violating the VRA by intentionally drawing seven districts in a particular manner to weaken the collective rights of black voters who make up 27% of Alabama’s population. In recent years the Court has issued opinions such as Shelby County v. Holder, weakening the VRA. Conservatives have aimed weaken Section 2 by asserting that individuals and groups do not have the right to bring a challenge under section 2 of the VRA, arguing that only the federal government can do so.
Petitioners argued that legislators intentionally weakened the power of black voters by “packing” a large number of black voters into a single district in the state’s center while distributing the rest of black voters into several other districts dominated by white voters. A three-judge panel of the 11th Court of Appeals (two judges appointed by Trump) ruled that the map did violate the VRA. However, upon petition by Alabama to the Court, the Court put the lower court ruling on hold allowing the 2022 mid-terms to go forward under the new map pending the Courts’s decision on Alabama’s petition for review.
In a 5-4 vote, the Court found that the lower court had correctly applied the three-part test set out in Thornburg v. Gingles to evaluate the Section 2 claim of the petitioner in concluding that the redrawn map did violate the VRA. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kavanaugh. There were multiple concurring and dissenting opinions including a 48 page dissent written by Justice Thomas joined by Justices Alito and Coney Barrett.
Court watchers were surprised by the outcome of the case noting that during oral arguments in October the conservative Justices seemed ready to strike down the lower court’s ruling. Due to the Court’s ruling upholding the lower court, Alabama now must redraw its new map before the 2024 elections. Stay tuned.
United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. and United States v. Safeway
This case involved the knowledge standard in lawsuits brought under the False Claims Act (FCA), the federal government’s principal anti-fraud statute. The majority of these cases involve health care and defense contractors. (Note that many fraud cases brought under the FCA are originally filed as Qui Tam cases filed by individual whistleblowers, not by the government.)
Under the FCA, a defendant is liable if the defendant “knowingly” submits a false claim. The FCA defines “knowingly” as acting with actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or reckless disregard. The issue before the Court was whether “the defendant’s subjective belief is relevant in determining knowledge if [defendant’s] conduct represented an objectively reasonable interpretation of the relevant issue.” The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had found that a defendant’s subjective belief is “never” relevant. On review, in an unanimous opinion the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, stated,“[w]hat matters for an FCA case is whether the defendant knew the claim was false. Thus, if [the defendants] correctly interpreted the relevant phrase and believed their claims were false, then they could have known their claims were false.” (direct quote)
If the Court had upheld the lower court’s interpretation a defendant could not be held liable under the FCA if the defendant could present an objectively reasonable interpretation after the fact even if the defendant never believed the interpretation. In other words, it is not what the “objectively reasonable person” might believe, but what the defendant believed.
Sackett et ux. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.
The EPA charged the Sacketts with violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants into “the water of the United States” when they back filled a lot with dirt preparatory to building a house. Their lot was near a ditch that fed into a stream which ultimately fed into a navigable, interstate lake.
The EPA argued that the wetlands on the lot were “water of the United States” because it was near the ditch. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which found for the EPA). The Court established a two-part test. First, the adjacent body of water must be a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable water (“water of the United States”). Second, the wetland must have a continuous surface connection with that water so that it is not obvious where the “water” ends and the “wetlands” begin.
Kommentit