SUMMARY: In her new book, "The Roberts Court," Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal and regular NewsHour contributor takes a look at the landmark decisions that have reached the Supreme Court during the tenure of Chief Justice John Roberts. She talks to Jeffrey Brown about her observations and interviews with the justices.
A loose coalition of Democratic elected officials, shareholder activists and pension funds has flooded the Securities and Exchange Commission with calls to require publicly traded corporations to disclose to shareholders all of their political donations, a move that could transform the growing world of secret campaign spending.
S.E.C. officials have indicated that they could propose a new disclosure rule by the end of April, setting up a major battle with business groups that oppose the proposal and are preparing for a fierce counterattack if the agency’s staff moves ahead. Two S.E.C. commissioners have taken the unusual step of weighing in already, with Daniel Gallagher, a Republican, saying in a speech that the commission had been “led astray” by “politically charged issues.”
A petition to the S.E.C. asking it to issue the rule has already garnered close to half a million comments, far more than any petition or rule in the agency’s history, with the vast majority in favor of it. While relatively few petitions result in action by the S.E.C., the commission staff filed a notice late last year indicating that it was considering recommending a rule.
In response to the growing pressure, House Republicans introduced legislation last Thursday that would make it illegal for the commission to issue any political disclosure regulations applying to companies under its jurisdiction. Earlier this month, the leaders of three of Washington’s most powerful trade associations — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Business Roundtable — issued a rare joint letter to the chief executives of Fortune 200 companies, encouraging them to stand against proxy resolutions and other proposals from shareholder activists demanding more disclosure of political spending.
Tax-exempt groups and trade associations spent hundreds of millions of dollars on political advertising during 2012 elections, but they are not required to disclose their donors. Evidence has mounted that a significant portion of the money came from companies seeking to intervene in campaigns without fear of offending their customers, their shareholders — or the lawmakers they target for defeat.
SUMMARY: The Supreme Court ruled against trying foreign human rights cases in U.S. courts. The justices decided that a 1789 tort statute enacted by the first Congress didn't apply to conduct outside of the U.S. Gwen Ifill talks to National Law Journal's Marcia Coyle about why the court's ruling is a huge blow for human rights activists.
RAY SUAREZ (Newshour): The little girl at the center of this case is known as Baby Veronica. She's caught in a custody battle, the kind normally heard in local courts. But the case was heard today by high court justices since it raises larger questions about federal law because the girl is part Cherokee Indian.
The Indian Child Welfare Act was passed in 1978 to protect children and the stability of Indian tribes. It allows tribal involvement in custody decisions, so Indian children aren't unnecessarily removed from their ethnic origins.
Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal was in the courtroom this morning, and is back with us tonight.
And, Marcia, when people hear custody battle, they tend to think mother vs. father, but this was kind of a three- or even four-way legal argument, wasn't it?
MARCIA COYLE, National Law Journal: Absolutely, Ray.
You had the lawyer for the adoptive couple here who had custody of the child for about 27 months. You had the lawyer for the guardian ad litem for the child. And then on the other side, you had a lawyer for the biological father of the child and a lawyer for the United States arguing.
JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): Today, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case at the intersection of law and science, specifically, genetic research, one that may well have major consequences for the future of medicine. The question, can human genes be patented?
We turn, as always, to Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal, who was in the courtroom today and is back with us tonight.
Marcia, first, some background on this case.
MARCIA COYLE, National Law Journal: OK.
Myriad is a Utah-based genetic research company. And Myriad holds patents on two genes with mutations that are linked to a very high risk of breast and/or ovarian cancer. Its patents also give it exclusive control over diagnostic testing for those genes.
About four years ago, a group of scientists, researchers, civil rights organizations, women's health organizations decided to challenge Myriad's patents in federal court. They filed a lawsuit. They lost. Two courts, two lower courts have upheld Myriad's patents. Today, they brought -- the challengers brought the case to the Supreme Court.
SUMMARY: Sandra Day O'Connor made Supreme Court history as the first female justice to serve on the bench. In her new book, "Out of Order," she explores other aspects of history at the high court, as well as her own approach to service. O'Connor talks with Judy Woodruff about making tough decisions and women in the legal profession.
SUMMARY: The Supreme Court took up whether same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples. Kwame Holman offers history on the Defense of Marriage Act and reactions from outside the court. Ray Suarez talks to National Law Journal's Marcia Coyle, who helps compare proceedings on both same-sex marriage cases.
SUMMARY: The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, a ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage. Kwame Holman reports on reactions from supporters on both sides of the debate. Judy Woodruff talks to Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal, who analyzes the arguments inside the courtroom.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: If same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label.
THEODORE OLSON, Former U.S. Solicitor General: The label marriage means something. Even our opponents ...
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Sure.
If you tell -- if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend. But it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. And that is, it seems to me, what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here. You're taking -- all you're interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label.
He had just flown across the country after an exhausting campaign day in Oregon and South Dakota, landing at the White House after dark. But President Bill Clinton still had more business before bed. He picked up a pen and scrawled out his name, turning a bill into law.
It was 10 minutes before 1 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 21, 1996, and there were no cameras, no ceremony. The witching-hour timing bespoke both political calculation and personal angst. With his signature, federal law now defined marriage as the union of a man and woman. Mr. Clinton considered it a gay-baiting measure, but was unwilling to risk re-election by vetoing it.
For nearly 17 years since, that middle-of-the-night moment has haunted Mr. Clinton, the source of tension with friends, advisers and gay rights supporters. He tried to explain, defend and justify. He asked for understanding. Then he inched away from it bit by bit. Finally this month, he disavowed the Defense of Marriage Act entirely, urging that the law be overturned by the Supreme Court, which takes up the matter on Wednesday on the second of two days of arguments devoted to same-sex marriage issues.
Rarely has a former president declared that an action he took in office violated the Constitution. But Mr. Clinton’s journey from signing the Defense of Marriage Act to repudiating it mirrors larger changes in society as same-sex marriage has gone from a fringe idea to one with a majority.
“President Clinton has evolved on this issue just like every American has evolved,” said Chad Griffin, who worked as a junior press aide in Mr. Clinton’s White House and now heads the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s most prominent gay rights organization.
Not every American has evolved in the same way Mr. Clinton has. A sizable proportion of Americans still oppose same-sex marriage, and to them Mr. Clinton’s turnabout is a betrayal of sorts. But neither supporters nor opponents find it entirely surprising since both sides assumed the former president had actually signed the bill out of politics rather than principle.
In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.
On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.
Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes, contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.
When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.
We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo, even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar. We have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or old-fashioned but alien. I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society.
Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values. One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question we face today: “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we all do better?’?”
The answer is of course and always yes. In that spirit, I join with the Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor, and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.
JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): They begin as often grisly tales of murder, the stuff of the tabloids and nightly news, but some of these crime stories end up in the Supreme Court, part of a continuing and evolving debate in this country about the death penalty, its methods, its effectiveness, its morality.
A new book explores this history. It's titled "Murder at the Supreme Court: Lethal Crimes and Landmark Cases." Its authors are veteran journalists Martin Clancy and Tim O'Brien.
GWEN IFILL (Newshour): Today's Supreme Court arguments pitted a national law against a state law, Arizona's 2004 voter registration statute. The case explores the extent of state powers against the controversial backdrop of voting restrictions.
Arizona's Proposition 200 requires state residents to provide either a driver's license, passport, birth certificate, or physical proof of citizenship before they can vote. But an existing federal law requires only a sworn statement of citizenship on a voter registration form.
Supporters say the Arizona measure cuts down on voter fraud by keeping non-citizens from voting. But opponents argue the law unfairly targets minorities, immigrants, and the elderly. The case is only the most recent dispute between Arizona and the federal government related to immigration issues.
Over the summer, the Supreme Court upheld part of a tough state law that allows police to check for immigration papers. Other states, including Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Tennessee, have similar laws on the books and a number of other states are also considering comparable measures. The Obama administration supports the challenge to the Arizona law.
And today's arguments on the heels of another case that could roll back a key portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
For more on today's arguments, we turn as always to Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal. She was in the courtroom this morning, and is back with us again tonight.
SUMMARY: A man was arrested in Maryland and police officers took a DNA sample that connected him to an unrelated crime. The Supreme Court is now weighing whether the Fourth Amendment should protect him from that kind of search. Ray Suarez gets analysis and context on the case from Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal.
Dozens of prominent Republicans — including top advisers to former President George W. Bush, four former governors and two members of Congress — have signed a legal brief arguing that gay people have a constitutional right to marry, a position that amounts to a direct challenge to Speaker John A. Boehner and reflects the civil war in the party since the November election.
The document will be submitted this week to the Supreme Court in support of a suit seeking to strike down Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative barring same-sex marriage, and all similar bans. The court will hear back-to-back arguments next month in that case and another pivotal gay rights case that challenges the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The Proposition 8 case already has a powerful conservative supporter: Theodore B. Olson, the former solicitor general under Mr. Bush and one of the suit’s two lead lawyers. The amicus, or friend-of-the-court, brief is being filed with Mr. Olson’s blessing. It argues, as he does, that same-sex marriage promotes family values by allowing children of gay couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual freedom.”
Legal analysts said the brief had the potential to sway conservative justices as much for the prominent names attached to it as for its legal arguments. The list of signers includes a string of Republican officials and influential thinkers — 75 as of Monday evening — who are not ordinarily associated with gay rights advocacy, including some who are speaking out for the first time and others who have changed their previous positions.
Among them are Meg Whitman, who supported Proposition 8 when she ran for California governor; Representatives Ileana Frostiness of Florida and Richard Hanna of New York; Stephen J. Hadley, a Bush national security adviser; Carlos Gutierrez, a commerce secretary to Mr. Bush; James B. Comey, a top Bush Justice Department official; David A. Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s first budget director; and Deborah Pryce, a former member of the House Republican leadership from Ohio who is retired from Congress.
Ms. Pryce said Monday: “Like a lot of the country, my views have evolved on this from the first day I set foot in Congress. I think it’s just the right thing, and I think it’s on solid legal footing, too.”
Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former Utah governor, who favored civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage during his 2012 presidential bid, also signed. Last week, Mr. Huntsman announced his new position in an article titled “Marriage Equality Is a Conservative Cause,” a sign that the 2016 Republican presidential candidates could be divided on the issue for the first time.
SUMMARY: Justice Sonia Sotomayor is the first Hispanic justice -- and one of the youngest ever -- to serve on the Supreme Court. Her new memoir, "My Beloved World," talks about her early life and difficult childhood. Justice Sotomayor talks with Gwen Ifill about her adjustment to "the bench" and the importance of an open mind.
GWEN IFILL (Newshour): One of the Supreme Court's most junior members, Sonia Sotomayor, steps from behind the black robe to tell the story of her rise from an impoverished childhood to the nation's premier bench. The memoir is "My Beloved World."
I sat down with the justice after the court handed down decisions today to talk about how her life informs her jurisprudence.
SUMMARY: A suit between biotech giant Monsanto and an Indiana farmer has reached the high court. Gwen Ifill dissects the case with Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal. Ray Suarez discusses broader implications with Bert Foer of the American Antitrust Institute and Todd Dickinson of the American Intellectual Property Law Association.
SUMMARY: Supreme Court justices heard arguments on whether police officers could force a drunk driving suspect to take a blood alcohol test without a warrant. Jeffrey Brown talks to National Law Journal's Marcia Coyle for more on the arguments, which centered on interpretation of warrant requirements.
MARGARET WARNER (Newshour): The justices agreed to hear arguments in two cases.
One is California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, adopted by voters as referendum Proposition 8 in 2008. It was challenged on grounds that gay citizens have the same constitutional right to marry as heterosexuals. The justices will also review a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA.
That deprives legally married gay couples of federal benefits that are available to heterosexual couples.
Same-sex marriage is legal or will be soon in nine states and the District of Columbia. But 31 other states have amended their constitutions to bar gay unions.
Here with us to explain today's decisions and where they could lead is Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal.
JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): ..... Who qualifies as a supervisor in the workplace? That might seem obvious most of the time, but as a legal matter, courts have come to different conclusions, some saying it's confined to someone with powers such as hiring and firing, others deciding on a broader definition.
The Supreme Court looked at the issue today in a case where a woman claims a co-worker harassed her because of her race.
Marcia Coyle of "The National Law Journal" was in the courtroom to hear the arguments and is here with us tonight.
