As detailed in our blog last month, MoneyGram Payment Systems, Inc. (MoneyGram) is stuck in between a rock and a hard place as states continue to duel with Delaware over the proper classification of (and priority rules applicable to) MoneyGram’s escheat liability for uncashed “official checks.” The dispute hinges on whether the official checks are properly classified as third-party bank checks (as Delaware directed MoneyGram to remit them as) or are more similar to “money orders” (as alleged by Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and numerous other states participating in a recent audit of the official checks by third-party auditor TSG). If classified as third-party bank checks, the official checks would be subject to the federal common law priority rules set forth in Texas v. New Jersey, 379 U.S. 674 (1965) and escheat to MoneyGram’s state of incorporation (Delaware) since the company’s books and records do not indicate the apparent … [Read more...] about Unclaimed Property Hunger Games: States Seek Supreme Court Review in ‘Official Check’ Dispute
Cato supreme court review
Democracy Dies in Darkness Sections Home Subscribe Try 1 month for $1 Username Sign In Account Profile Newsletters & Alerts Gift Subscriptions Contact Us Help Desk Subscribe Account Profile Newsletters & Alerts Gift Subscriptions Contact Us Help Desk Accessibility for screenreader Courts & Law (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post) by Robert Barnes by Robert Barnes Email the author April 22 at 6:32 PM Email the author The Supreme Court’s final oral argument of the term will be one of its most important and potentially far-reaching, an examination of the president’s authority to protect the country by banning some foreigners who seek entry. But, similar to a debate that has consumed Washington for the past 15 months, a major issue for the court is separating “the president” from “this president.” The justices on Wednesday will consider President Trump’s … [Read more...] about In travel ban case, Supreme Court considers ‘the president’ vs. ‘this president’
Combative oral arguments were seen in two high profile federal court challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). The Supreme Court of the United States heard a vigorous oral argument concerning whether corporations must abide by the contraception mandate despite religious objections. Simultaneously, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit saw a lively argument regarding whether premium tax credits should be available to exchange consumers nationwide.The Supreme Court of the United States recently heard oral argument considering whether for-profit corporations must provide contraception coverage in their employee health insurance plans despite religious objections. Simultaneously, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit considered whether consumers purchasing health insurance coverage through the exchanges may qualify for premium tax credits, regardless the state in which the consumer … [Read more...] about The Assault on the ACA (Affordable Care Act) Continues in the Federal Appeals Courts
The U.S. Supreme Court begins three days of arguments today on the Obama administration’s health care law by considering whether the case was brought too soon.The law requires Americans to have health insurance by 2014 or to pay a penalty on April 2015 tax returns. The question for the justices today is whether the penalty is a tax and, if so, whether an 1867 federal law called the Anti-Injunction Act bars courts from hearing a challenge until the tax is paid. The New York Times, the Washington Post and ABAJournal.com report on the issue.Former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who represents states challenging the law, said in remarks earlier this month that he feels sorry for people who camp out to see today’s arguments, Bloomberg News reported at the time. “I think of that as a kind of practical joke that the court is playing on the public,” Clement said. “Some people are going to stand out all [Sunday] night trying to get a seat for the health care … [Read more...] about Day One of Health Arguments Is ‘Boring Jurisdictional Stuff’; Which Justices Are in Play?
It was a big term for little green booklets at the U.S. Supreme Court.Merits briefs at the high court are filed in booklet form, with an array of specified colors. Amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs have covers of either light green for those backing the petitioners or neither party, or dark green for the respondent’s side.With a 2012-13 term full of contentious cases on gay marriage, voting rights, race in college admissions and DNA, amicus briefs in light or dark green were filed at a seemingly unprecedented rate.“It’s the rare case anymore that doesn’t have any amicus briefs,” says Paul M. Collins Jr., a political science professor at the University of North Texas in Denton. “The numbers increase as interest groups view it as a strategy.”The role of amicus briefs in the Supreme Court is the subject of considerable study by political scientists and legal observers. “The court continues to cite amicus briefs with increasing … [Read more...] about It was another big term for amicus curiae briefs at the high court