Oct. 10, 2013: The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to Southeastern Legal Foundation's appeal in the challenge against the Obama administration's EPA greenhouse gas rules, the so-called "climate change" regulatory regime. The Court's decision signals the critical importance of this case on the question of the limits of executive authority.
All News Stories
[ sort articles by tag ]
June 25, 2013: The Supreme Court of the United States today struck down Sect. IV of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional, citing the fact that the formula used to determine which local government units should be subject to ongoing enforcement by the U.S. Justice Department is based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. SLF argued that Sect. IV formula was not rational and not based on current data - and that ongoing, costly pre-clearance and review by the Justice Department threatens equal sovereignty under the Constitution. As noted, Congress will now have to develop a new formula that will undoubtedly result in many jurisdictions being released from ongoing enforcement -
June 24, 2013: The Supreme Court of the United States today gets it absolutely right in Fisher v. UT-Austin, et al. - not a 'punt,' as many early analysts suggest. SLF argued as amicus in this case that the lower court got it wrong by not applying the 'strict scrutiny' standard, which shifts the burden to the government agency (here, the state university system) to show that its race-based admissions policy is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest. The Supreme Court today held that the lower court decision was "incorrect" precisely because it failed to apply the strict scrutiny standard in what SLF describes as "well-settled law" when dealing with affirmative action and race-based government policies.
May 20, 2013: The United States Supreme Court today unanimously agreed that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) overstepped its discretionary authority and improperly rejected tax credit claims sought by the company for taxes it paid in a foreign country, so-called “double taxation.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the unanimous Court, held that the foreign windfall tax falls into a category of income tax recognized in the U.S. and is therefore entitled to credit against U.S. taxes.
Southeastern Legal Foundation, joined by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Goldwater Institute, argued as amici that the IRS Commissioner’s decision to deny the protection against double-taxation broke with decades of administrative decisions and legal precedent favoring tax credits – what the Supreme Court has described as the purpose behind existing federal law “to mitigate the evil of double taxation.” The “new interpretation” by the IRS Commissioner, which was today rejected by the Court, marked another in a long line of administrative and regulatory overreaching by current Executive branch offices, said Shannon L Goessling, SLF executive director and chief legal counsel.
Counsel of record for the joint amicus brief is Steven G. Bradbury, a Washington, DC- based partner of Dechert LLP and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel for the U.S. Justice Department.
PPL Corp. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Case No. 12-43.
SLF submits formal comments in a blockbuster U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules docket that proposes radical changes to 36 states' State Implementation Rules (SIPs) governing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) under the Clean Air Act:
- EPA has not demonstrated that SIPs used for decades are inadequate - therefore, EPA has no authority to enact new, harsher rules.
- The "sue and settle" maneuver, starting with a seemingly unrelated federal court lawsuit in the Northern District of California filed by Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians and resulting in new rules docket in Washington, DC designed to cover nearly 80% of the United States, is designed to "fly under the radar" of accepted rulemaking scrutiny.
- For decades, EPA has approved startup, shutdown, and malfunction provisions in SIPs without interruption - until now.
- 36 states are now under threat of new, harsh rules that are without precedent - or justified by proof of violation of existing rules.
- Once again, as with the EPA greenhouse gas emissions (climate change) regulations now before the U.S. Supreme Court, EPA has ignored precedent and grabbed executive/regulatory power beyond that allowed under the Clean Air Act - and without Congressional authorization.
May 8, 2013 - Click here for article
Southeastern Legal Foundation today filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court challenging the Obama Administration's EPA regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, the so-called "global warming/climate change" regulations - SLF represents 12 members of Congress, 15 companies and associations, and has been joined in the appeal by Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks, and the Science and Environmental Policy Project - $1 trillion and millions of job at stake as SLF challenges the power of the EPA to enact new regulations under the Clean Air Act without congressional authorization - see inside for full brief -
VOTING RIGHTS ACT CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT - Shelby County and Clash of the Titans - TownHall.com, 2-18-13
TownHall.com, one of the nation's leading internet news and opinion sites, publishes article by Shannon Goessling, SLF Executive Director and Chief Legal Counsel, on the upcoming United States Supreme Court case challenging enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act (Shelby County, AL v. Holder), which will be heard at the end of February 2013. Goessling discusses the burdens set by ongoing Justice Department oversight of many states and hundreds of local government jurisdictions, despite the failure to present compelling evidence to Congress that voter disenfranchisement and intimidation continue in these jurisdictions. SLF is participating in the case as amicus. 2-18-13
Florida Justices' Case: National Review says, "Won Election, But Not Qualified to be on Ballot" 1-26-13
National Review's Michael James Barton offers on-point analysis about the legal merits in the case filed by Southeastern Legal Foundation on behalf of a Florida citizen against the Florida Secretary of State for qualifying three state Supreme Court Justices to appear on the November 2012 statewide ballot for merit retention despite clear errors in the qualifying process - National Review has followed the cases since filing in mid-2012, and sheds light on the differences between a clear reading of the law and the reticence of some in the Florida judiciary to take action - Click here for the story coverage on January 26, 2013
VOTING RIGHTS ACT, SECT. V UNCONSTITUTIONAL? SLF SUBMITS BRIEF TO U.S. SUPREME COURT IN IMPORTANT CASE
VOTING RIGHTS ACT - SECT. V REAUTHORIZATION UNCONSTITUTIONAL? U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEWS 2006 CONGRESSIONAL REAUTHORIZATION OF SECT. V IN SHELBY COUNTY, AL v. ERIC HOLDER, et al.
In 2006, Congress reauthorized Sect. V of the Voting Rights Act using the controversial pre-existing coverage formula found in Sect. IV B of the Act - which, as was laid out by the high court in a 2009 decision, continues to give the federal government powerful oversight over many state and local jurisdictions in the United States despite profound evidence that past discrimination against minorities in voting no longer exists. SLF, whose brief was cited three times in the 2009 decision by Justice Clarence Thomas, submits an amicus curiae brief in this important case, which will be heard this Spring...