Cultivated Compendium

The U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of a Florida judicial candidate who argues the state's ban on letting candidates for the bench directly seek campaign contributions violates her First Amendment rights, the Associated Press reports. "The Florida Supreme Court upheld the ban in May, saying it was justified because such conduct raises an appearance of impropriety and may lead the public to question a judge's impartiality," AP further reports. The candidate argues the law is meaningless because campaign committees can directly seek contributions.

Adam Liptak, writing in the New York Times, prognosticates that this term of the U.S. Supreme Court could define Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.'s legacy with possible cases about whether gay Americans have a constitutional right to marry and about federal subsidies to consumers who purchase health-care coverage through federally run insurance exchanges. "Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is entering his 10th term, and it is one that could define the legacy of the court he leads. Should the court establish a right to same-sex marriage, it would draw comparisons to the famously liberal court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, said David A. Strauss, a law professor at the University of Chicago," Liptak reports. The justices have not decided whether to take up cases involving same-sex marriage or Obamacare yet.

Robert Barnes, writing in the Washington Post, says the possibility of a landmark ruling for same-sex marriage and LGBT rights is looming large over the Supreme Court's upcoming term. A ruling in favor of same-sex marriage "could serve as a surprising legacy of an otherwise increasingly conservative court," Barnes notes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who has authored the most important decisions in protecting the rights of LGBT Americans, likely would be the swing vote in that decision.

Barnes also notes that the court could take up challenges to state laws restricting access to abortion and challenges to the federal subsidies for consumers who bought health insurance on federally run Affordable Care Act exchanges.

The Ninth Circuit has ruled that past criminal convictions in American Indian courts can't count as proof of a defendant's criminal history if defendants weren't guaranteed the right to an attorney, The Guardian reports. Michael Bryant Jr. was convicted of domestic assault in Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court but didn't have an attorney. While the Eighth and Tenth Circuits have found that tribal convictions aren't governed by the American Constitution, the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Bryant's conviction wasn't legal because the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to an attorney.

Marshall Erwin, writing in Just Security this week, makes the case that technology should thwart government access to user data just as it has been facilitating government surveillance until Apple and Google decided to start encrypting user data when devices are locked. "The arguments made by critics of Apple and Google assert that these changes will result in damage to the public interest by protecting criminals and those who want to do us harm. More importantly, they suggest that warrant protections are necessary and sufficient to safeguard the public interest and to adjudicate the circumstances under which the government may access data," Erwin writes. He says it's wrong to suggest that only legal mechanisms, not technical mechanisms, should restrict government access to user data.

The Wall Street Journal's Emily Chasan reports that a "surge" in investors focusing on socially responsible investing and issues like human rights, protecting forests and disclosing political spending could push the Securities and Exchange Commission to change how it handles investor proposals: "Companies can try to exclude such proposals from their proxy ballots by asking SEC staff for permission, but Commissioner Daniel Gallagher said Thursday that the agency should reconsider procedures for granting exemptions." Chasan cites a study that found that 48 percent of shareholder proposals made this year focused on policy issues.

Laurie Garrett, writing in Foreign Policy, has an interesting an piece suggesting that Obamacare may be the key to stopping an Ebola epidemic in the United States. She notes that uninsured Americans are the "greatest vulnerability" because they "routinely tough out the flu, fever, aches, and pains because seeking medical care is prohibitively expensive. If they become sick enough to feel desperate, the uninsured and underinsured of America go to public hospital emergency rooms for care, where waiting times in often-crowded settings can stretch on for hours." No one suffering from the primary symptoms of Ebola should be turned away from care because they lack insurance, she says.

The New York Times' Julie Creswell reports on how doctors are finding barriers to sharing electronic health records because computer programs made by different companies don't share records with each other: "Doctors and hospital executives across the country say they are distressed that the expensive electronic health record systems they installed in the hopes of reducing costs and improving the coordination of patient care — a major goal of the Affordable Care Act — simply do not share information with competing systems." Doctors who are getting federal funds in support of their electronic health records must show that they can share patient data or face cuts in their Medicare reimbursements, Creswell further reports. 

One of those companies is Epic Systems, which charges a fee to send data to some non-Epic systems, Creswell notes. Epic's founder, in a rare interview, "offered muted criticism of regulators for, essentially, failing to create what she did — a contract to help providers connect to one another and a way to authenticate that only the correct person could view the patient information." Regulators are in the process of developing a standard to make health information technology interoperable.

New York City has reached a settlement to provide better "evacuation and sheltering" for people with disabilities during disasters, according to the New York Law Journal. The lawsuit was filed after Hurricane Irene and then was punctuated by Superstorm Sandy. Judge Jesse Furman found the city liable for violating the American with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the New York City Human Rights law. The parties settled instead of going to trial over remedies.

New York City has reached a settlement to provide better "evacuation and sheltering" for people with disabilities during disasters, according to the New York Law Journal. The lawsuit was filed after Hurricane Irene and then was punctuated by Superstorm Sandy. Judge Jesse Furman found the city liable for violating the American with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act and the New York City Human Rights law. The parties settled instead of going to trial over remedies.

Read more: http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202672056170/City-Settles-Litigatio...