Your monthly support provides voters the knowledge they need to make confident decisions at the polls. Donate today.

Daily Brew: June 27, 2019

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

June 27, 2019

Get your daily cup of news




%%subject%%

 Today's Brew highlights the participants in tonight’s second Democratic presidential debate + summarizes yesterday’s Supreme Court decisions  
The Daily Brew
ADVERTISEMENT

Welcome to the Thursday, June 27, Brew. Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

  1. First set of presidential debates concludes tonight
  2. Supreme Court limits how Auer deference is applied
  3. One year ago - Janus court decision

First set of presidential debates concludes tonight

The first Democratic presidential debate was held last night in Miami and the second half of this initial set of debates takes place tonight. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) used a random drawing to distribute candidates across both debate nights. For more detailed information about last night’s debate, you can subscribe to our free Daily Presidential News Briefing and have today’s edition in your mailbox in a few hours. Just click the link below to sign up.

Sign up now

In the meantime, here’s a quick reminder of tonight’s 10 participants:

The candidates that polled the highest in qualifying polls—Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders—will be positioned in the center of the stage. The debate will be hosted by NBC, MSNBC, and Telemundo and streamed on NBCNews.com, MSNBC.com, and Telemundo digital platforms from 9 p.m. to 11 p.m. ET.


Forward This blank    Tweet This blank blank    Send to Facebook
blank

Supreme Court limits how Auer deference is applied 

The Supreme Court issued rulings in three cases yesterday—United States v. Haymond, Kisor v. Wilkie, and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd.

In Kisor v. Wilkie, the Court upheld what’s known as Auer deference and restated the limited circumstances in which courts should defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous regulations. The vote was unanimous to vacate and remand the judgment of the Federal Appeals Court, but the justices disagreed about the future of judicial deference to agencies. Buckle up, because this gets complicated. In total, four judges wrote distinct opinions or concurrences in this case.

Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the court, outlining which regulatory interpretations qualify for Auer deference. Justices Roberts and Kavanaugh wrote separate concurring opinions noting that the decision does not apply to Chevron deference, which compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer. Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion arguing that the limitations placed on Auer in this case might mean that regulations rarely qualify for deference. For more details about this case and other aspects of the administrative state, subscribe to our monthly Checks & Balances newsletter.

The court will release its final five decisions of the current term today. This includes opinions in: 

  • Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, which concern whether the congressional district plans of North Carolina and Maryland, respectively, constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander. 

  • Department of Commerce v. New York, regarding a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.

  • Mitchell v. Wisconsin, which concerns whether a state statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist violates the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and,

  • Carpenter v. Murphy, regarding the location of territorial boundaries of an Indian reservation in Oklahoma, and thus whether the state or federal government has jurisdiction over crimes committed.
ADVERTISEMENT

One year ago today - SCOTUS rules on Janus

Today is the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. That ruling held that public sector unions cannot require non-member employees to pay agency fees covering the costs of non-political union activities, overturning precedent previously established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. The court's majority found that compelling people to pay union fees of any kind violates their First Amendment free-speech and associational rights.

In case you missed it, I hosted a webinar yesterday discussing the Janus decision and its after-effects. Topics covered included state-level responses, union membership data, and the intricacies of understanding the data. Additionally, we explained the methodology—published Wednesday morning—that Ballotpedia will use to produce its own union membership data set. 

If you weren’t able to attend that webinar, or just want to watch it a second time, you can click the link below. And for more background about the case itself, click here.


See also

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Daily_Brew:_June_27,_2019&oldid=8439319"