Supreme Court Has First Tie Vote Since Scalia's Death

[silverscreenselect]

The Supreme Court had its first 4-4 tie since the death of Justice Scalia in a case involving a somewhat obscure federal regulation. The case was Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore in which the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of two women who signed as guarantors for their husbands on loans that ultimately went into default. The Federal Reserve Board extended the statutory language of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to apply to guarantors of loans as well as the applicants themselves, and the bank opposed that. The Eighth Circuit's decision conflicted with other Circuits' decisions, and based on oral arguments, it was believed that Scalia would have sided with the Court's other conservatives in favor of the bank (as is customary, the Supreme Court does not reveal which justices voted which way in the 4-4 decision). As it is, the decision stands but only applies to the small population states of the Eighth Circuit.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... ans-221089.

If the Senate confirms Merrick Garland, it's likely that some of the more important cases on the Court's agenda will be set for re-argument next term. However, if the Senate waits until a lame duck session or until Obama's successor nominates a justice, then it's quite possible that the Court may make most or all of next term's decisions with only eight members as well.

[Bob78164]

The Supreme Court had its first 4-4 tie since the death of Justice Scalia in a case involving a somewhat obscure federal regulation. The case was Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore in which the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of two women who signed as guarantors for their husbands on loans that ultimately went into default. The Federal Reserve Board extended the statutory language of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to apply to guarantors of loans as well as the applicants themselves, and the bank opposed that. The Eighth Circuit's decision conflicted with other Circuits' decisions, and based on oral arguments, it was believed that Scalia would have sided with the Court's other conservatives in favor of the bank (as is customary, the Supreme Court does not reveal which justices voted which way in the 4-4 decision). As it is, the decision stands but only applies to the small population states of the Eighth Circuit.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... ans-221089.

If the Senate confirms Merrick Garland, it's likely that some of the more important cases on the Court's agenda will be set for re-argument next term. However, if the Senate waits until a lame duck session or until Obama's successor nominates a justice, then it's quite possible that the Court may make most or all of next term's decisions with only eight members as well.

According to the linked story, the Eighth Circuit decided in favor of the bank, not the two women, and only one other Circuit has reached a definitive resolution of the issue (which conflicts with the Eighth Circuit's ruling). --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

The Supreme Court had its first 4-4 tie since the death of Justice Scalia in a case involving a somewhat obscure federal regulation. The case was Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore in which the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of two women who signed as guarantors for their husbands on loans that ultimately went into default. The Federal Reserve Board extended the statutory language of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act to apply to guarantors of loans as well as the applicants themselves, and the bank opposed that. The Eighth Circuit's decision conflicted with other Circuits' decisions, and based on oral arguments, it was believed that Scalia would have sided with the Court's other conservatives in favor of the bank (as is customary, the Supreme Court does not reveal which justices voted which way in the 4-4 decision). As it is, the decision stands but only applies to the small population states of the Eighth Circuit.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the ... ans-221089.

If the Senate confirms Merrick Garland, it's likely that some of the more important cases on the Court's agenda will be set for re-argument next term. However, if the Senate waits until a lame duck session or until Obama's successor nominates a justice, then it's quite possible that the Court may make most or all of next term's decisions with only eight members as well.

According to the linked story, the Eighth Circuit decided in favor of the bank, not the two women, and only one other Circuit has reached a definitive resolution of the issue (which conflicts with the Eighth Circuit's ruling). --Bob

You're correct. I misread the article I looked up that discussed the case in a bit more depth.

[silverscreenselect]

There's another split vote in the Supreme Court today, and this time, it's a major case in which his death in all likelihood affected the outcome. The Court by a 4-4 vote upheld the decision of the Ninth Circuit in favor of the California Teachers' Association in a suit brought by a group of teachers who claimed that forcing them to pay dues to public unions that supported positions to which they were opposed violated their First Amendment rights. A ruling in favor of the individual teachers would have greatly weakened public unions, since a lot of other teachers could easily object to paying of dues simply to get out of paying them, since all employees still get the benefit of whatever terms the union is able to negotiate.

Justice Scalia would in all probability have ruled in favor of the teachers, and a definitive Supreme Court decision would have had a major effect on public unions across the country. As it is, this affects California and the Ninth Circuit only (the tie vote has no precedential effect), but the issue could arise in another case before a full Supreme Court. As usual, the Supreme Court did not list which justices voted which way in the tie vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/us/po ... .html?_r=0

[Bob78164]

There's another split vote in the Supreme Court today, and this time, it's a major case in which his death in all likelihood affected the outcome. The Court by a 4-4 vote upheld the decision of the Ninth Circuit in favor of the California Teachers' Association in a suit brought by a group of teachers who claimed that forcing them to pay dues to public unions that supported positions to which they were opposed violated their First Amendment rights. A ruling in favor of the individual teachers would have greatly weakened public unions, since a lot of other teachers could easily object to paying of dues simply to get out of paying them, since all employees still get the benefit of whatever terms the union is able to negotiate.

Justice Scalia would in all probability have ruled in favor of the teachers, and a definitive Supreme Court decision would have had a major effect on public unions across the country. As it is, this affects California and the Ninth Circuit only (the tie vote has no precedential effect), but the issue could arise in another case before a full Supreme Court. As usual, the Supreme Court did not list which justices voted which way in the tie vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/us/po ... .html?_r=0

The effect is more wide-ranging that you've stated. It's true that the Ninth Circuit decision is binding only in the Ninth Circuit. But to reverse, the Supreme Court would have had to explicitly overrule one of its own decisions, Abood, and that decision, of course, is binding nationwide. --Bob