The Opinion in Murphy, Governor of New Jersey, et al v National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al , overturns the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) of 1992 and allows states to set their own rules for sport betting. Read the rest of this entry »Posted: May 14th, 2018 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Monmouth County News, Monmouth Park, New Jersey | Tags: Monmouth County News, Monmouth Park, New Jersey, NJ Sports Betting, SCOTUS, Sports Betting, U.S. Supreme Court | 6 Comments »
TRENTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday gave new hope to New Jersey’s years-long effort to legalize sports betting — and to the prospect that such wagering could soon be allowed throughout the country under incoming President Donald Trump. In an unexpected move, the nation’s highest court delayed issuing a decision on whether it will… Read the rest of this entry »Posted: January 17th, 2017 | Author: admin | Filed under: Horse Racing Industry, Monmouth County, Monmouth Park | Tags: Freehold Raceway, Gaming Industry, Horse Racing Industry, Monmouth County News, Monmouth Park, Sports Betting, U.S. Supreme Court | Comments Off on Did U.S. Supreme Court just boost hopes for N.J. sports betting?
New Jersey’s chances of getting the U.S. Supreme Court to consider its effort to legalize sports gambling hinge on how a bedrock constitutional principle is applied. The state argued in briefs this week that the federal government is barred from forcing states to repeal or reinstate their own laws. It’s an issue at the heart of… Read the rest of this entry »Posted: December 29th, 2016 | Author: admin | Filed under: New Jersey, Sport Betting | Tags: Monmouth Park, New Jersey, NJ Sports Betting, Sport betting, U.S. Supreme Court | 2 Comments »
TRENTON — A Wall Street rating agency called the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision not to hear an appeal on New Jersey’s pension contributions “credit positive” for the state. The Supreme Court late last month declined to review the case that pitted public labor unions against the Christie administration, which slashed billions of dollars in planned pension… Read the rest of this entry »Posted: March 11th, 2016 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Pensions | Tags: NJ Pension Crisis, NJ Pensions and Benefits, SCOTUS, U.S. Supreme Court | Comments Off on U.S. Supreme Court staying out of pension fight is good for N.J., Moody’s says
The death of Justice Antonin Scalia has already deepened the divide in American politics. Even when the president’s party controls the Senate, Supreme Court confirmations are difficult; just ask President George W. Bush about what happened with Harriet Miers. In the midst of an open-seat presidential election, and with the White House and Senate controlled by… Read the rest of this entry »Posted: February 16th, 2016 | Author: admin | Filed under: U.S. Supreme Court | Tags: Antonin Scalia, Opinion, President Barack Obama, Sandra Day O'Connor, SCOTUS, U.S. Supreme Court | 1 Comment »
Justice Antonin Scalia’s death isn’t the first time a president has faced a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year. In June 1968, just weeks after Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, and days after Robert Kennedy was gunned down, Chief Justice Earl Warren submitted his resignation to President Lyndon Johnson. An appointee of President Dwight… Read the rest of this entry »Posted: February 14th, 2016 | Author: admin | Filed under: SCOTUS | Tags: Antonin Scalia, LBJ, Lyndon Baines Johnson, SCOTUS, U.S. Supreme Court | 12 Comments »
The Supreme Court is poised to dent the political power of labor after conservative justices cast doubt Monday on public sector unions’ ability to collect fees even from workers who disagree with the union’s political or other demands. At stake are millions of labor dollars in “agency fees” that unions collect from teachers, police and other… Read the rest of this entry »Posted: January 12th, 2016 | Author: admin | Filed under: SCOTUS, U.S. Supreme Court | Tags: Abood v Detroit Board of Ed, First Amendment, news, SCOTUS, U.S. Supreme Court, Union dues, unions | Comments Off on Supreme Court’s conservative justices cast doubt on labor union fees
TRENTON — New Jersey’s public labor union leaders say they are intently watching a case before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that could strike down compulsory membership dues and threaten how they are funded. The outcome is of major consequence in the Garden State and about 20 other states where public workers are required to… Read the rest of this entry »Posted: January 11th, 2016 | Author: admin | Filed under: New Jersey, News | Tags: Communications Workers of America, CWA, Hetty Rosenstein, New Jersey, Public Employee Unions, U.S. Supreme Court | Comments Off on N.J. public unions defend mandatory dues challenged in U.S. Supreme Court
WASHINGTON — It’s clear now that any overhaul of the Affordable Care Act will have to come through the political system, not the court. And repeal-minded Republicans face trouble generating a mandate for change. Republicans were hoping the court would decide against this key part of the law — and in turn give the party momentum… Read the rest of this entry »Posted: June 25th, 2015 | Author: admin | Filed under: 2016 Presidential Politics, SCOTUS, U.S. Supreme Court | Tags: 2016 Presidential politics, Chief Justice John Roberts, Democrats, ObamaCare, republicans, SCOTUS, SCOTUSCare, U.S. Supreme Court | 3 Comments »
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on jurisdictional grounds that the Supreme Court of California had the right to overturn the Proposition 8 referendum to amended the State’s which made same sex marriage illegal.
The effect of the ruling is that same sex marriage is legal in California.
Posted: June 26th, 2013 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Marriage Equality, Same Sex Marriage, SCOTUS | Tags: Prop 8, Same Sex Marriage, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court | 1 Comment »
Here’s a Plain English take on Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage: After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case