Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again.

"I found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who was eventually allowed to fly again, sued.

"I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did."

A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.

During an hour of oral arguments last year, the justices stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again.

"I found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who was eventually allowed to fly again, sued.

"I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did."

A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.

During an hour of oral arguments last year, the justices stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again.

"I found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who was eventually allowed to fly again, sued.

"I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did."

A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.

During an hour of oral arguments last year, the justices stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Supreme Court rejects damage claim in HIV privacy case

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
The Supreme Court limits "actual damages" under the Privacy ActA California man sued when the government publicly revealed his HIV statusThe 5-3 ruling pitted the court's conservative majority against the liberal minorityJustice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, did not participate

Washington (CNN) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday against a California pilot who sued after the federal government publicly revealed his HIV status.

In a 5-3 ruling, the high court decided Stanmore Cooper's claims of mental and emotional distress are not covered under the Privacy Act.

"The Privacy Act does not unequivocally authorize damages for mental or emotional distress and therefore does not waive the government's sovereign immunity for such harms," Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the conservative majority.

Three liberal justices dissented, while a fourth, former Solicitor General Elena Kagan, did not participate.

In a statement Wednesday, Cooper said it was "discouraging that a majority of the court sided with the government."

Cooper became a licensed recreational pilot in 1964, but two decades later, the San Francisco man was diagnosed with HIV. As his condition worsened, he let his private pilot's certificate and his airman medical certificate lapse.

In 1996, Cooper applied for long-term disability with the Social Security Administration.

"I was in bad shape, I didn't have long to live," he said last year. But his health improved thanks to a cocktail of anti-retroviral therapy. He went back to work and wanted to fly again.

"I found out they were issuing medicals (exemptions) and I reapplied" to the Federal Aviation Administration "without revealing my HIV status," he said. "Big mistake."

He received his new pilot's certificate but, unknown to him, a joint local-federal initiative called Operation Safe Pilot was launched in 2002. Using a spreadsheet, the agencies shared and compared the names and personal data of about 45,000 pilots in Northern California, looking for potentially medically unfit individuals who were also receiving federal benefits.

Cooper was among four dozen or so pilots tagged as a "person of interest." When confronted by government agents, he admitted to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false report.

He was sentenced to probation and fined, and his pilot's certificate was revoked. The retired business executive's name was listed in a federal press release and later, through his prosecution, Cooper's medical history suddenly was a matter of public record.

"I had been able to control those (with) whom I shared my information about my HIV status, limited to some co-workers, family, and close friends," he said "And suddenly that was out of my control."

Cooper, who was eventually allowed to fly again, sued.

"I chose not to reveal my HIV infection and that was a very bad thing," he said. "I took responsibility for it and I paid the price. I was punished. And I think now it's the government's turn to own up to breaking the law and take responsibility for what they did."

A federal judge found both the FAA and the Social Security Administration violated the Privacy Act with the information-sharing investigation, but said under the law, only "actual damages" could be collected by plaintiffs seeking redress.

Since Cooper made no claims for economic harm, such as lost wages or medical expenses, he was out of luck. The judge found "emotional injury" alone did not qualify and dismissed the lawsuit.

A federal appeals court reversed that decision, ruling for Cooper. The FAA then asked the high court to intervene.

During an hour of oral arguments last year, the justices stayed away from the specific claims of emotional harm made by Cooper, focusing instead on what the law says about qualifying for damages.

"The argument you have made -- and I certainly understand it, that this is the Privacy Act and so it's precisely these types of damages that you would be concerned about -- really cuts both ways," Chief Justice John Roberts said to Cooper's lawyer.

"What you are saying is this (law) covers a really big chunk of damages, because this is what the whole act was about," Roberts said. "And it seems to me that argument suggests that there is some weight to the government's point: That if you are going to get that, you really do need clearer" language in the law that would immunize the government to some extent, from a flood of hard-to-disprove lawsuits.

The ambiguity has divided lower courts for years, and privacy experts said the ease with which the government can collect and share information in the digital age makes the issue of personal privacy liability ripe for review.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg repeatedly hammered away at the government lawyer arguing for the FAA. She said the federal damages provision in question is similar to state tort claims that include both emotional and financial harm.

"The person who is subject to this, to this embarrassment, this humiliation, doesn't have out-of-pocket costs, but is terribly distressed, nervous, anxious, and all the rest," Ginsburg said. "The act that the Congress is reaching, the impact is of that nature. I mean, pecuniary (monetary) damages ordinarily attend conduct that embarrasses, humiliates you, causes mental distress."

Eric Feigin of the Justice Department said the Privacy Act's language may be interpreted as allowing damages for such things as "humiliation, embarrassment and mental anguish," but said because the phrase "actual" damages remains vague, the government should get the benefit of the doubt, tipping the case in its favor.

"Simply because a plaintiff may have suffered an adverse effect" from the privacy violation, argued Feigin, "doesn't mean that the plaintiff suffered actual damages."

Raymond Cardozo, Cooper's lawyer, pointed out during the hearing that his client's information was made public and his name and HIV status are still posted on a federal government database. He also made a larger argument, that his client's dilemma is one that may affect all Americans.

"Congress passed this act to restore the citizens' faith in their government, and it made a solemn promise to the American citizens that in cases of intentional and willful violation, the United States shall be liable for actual damages," Cardozo said. "Today, the government is proposing that "actual damages" be read in a way that renders this act virtually irrelevant. That makes a mockery of that solemn promise."

Cooper attended the public session at the court and expressed optimism afterward he would prevail.

"They've betrayed my trust and I can't get that back," Cooper said at the time. "There was nothing to lose here. I had to do it. It was the right thing to do."

The case is Cooper v. FAA (10-1024).

CNN's Tom Cohen and Kate Bolduan contribute to this report.

View the original article here

Obama lawyer asks Supreme Court to save healthcare law - Reuters

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

1 of 14. Paul Clement (centre R, with blue tie and brown briefcase), who argued on behalf of the 26 states challenging the Obama health care law before the Supreme Court, departs with a group of state attorneys general after the third and final day of legal arguments over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at the Supreme Court in Washington, March 28, 2012.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

By James Vicini and Joan Biskupic

WASHINGTON | Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:33pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration's top courtroom lawyer made an impassioned plea on Wednesday for the Supreme Court to save President Barack Obama's healthcare law, capping three days of historic arguments that left it unclear how the nine justices would rule.

Having peppered lawyers for and against the law with questions for more than six hours over the three days, the justices withdrew to their chambers to begin up to three months of deliberation expected to yield a decision by late June.

Obama's healthcare overhaul, signed into law two years ago, is his signature domestic policy achievement. It remains a divisive issue among Americans and is likely to be a key issue ahead of the November 6 election in which he seeks a second term.

The justices took up two issues on the last day of arguments on Wednesday: whether the rest of the law could stand if the centerpiece requirement that most Americans get insurance or face a penalty is struck down; and the validity of expanding the state-federal Medicaid healthcare program for the poor.

After what critics called a poor performance on Tuesday, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing for the administration, closed his case with an emotional request that the justices uphold the law. Verrilli cited millions of people with chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and breast cancer who would get health insurance under the law.

Congress made a judgment in passing the law, Verrilli said. "Maybe they were right, maybe they weren't." But he said the court should respect the policy judgment made by democratically elected lawmakers in their decades-long struggle to help millions of uninsured.

The law, which constitutes the $2.6 trillion U.S. healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years, seeks to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans and to slow down soaring medical costs.

Unlike healthcare in other rich countries, the U.S. system is a patchwork of private insurance and restrictive government programs that has left tens of millions of people uninsured. The United States pays more on healthcare per person than any other country.

Critics of the law say it meddles too much in the lives of individuals and in the business of the states. They say that if the federal government can force people to buy health insurance, it would be able to force people to, for example, purchase American-made cars or join health clubs.

'FUNNY CONCEPTION OF LIBERTY'

Twenty-six of the 50 U.S. states and a small business trade group challenged the law in court. The lawyer for the states fighting the law, Paul Clement, told the court: "I would respectfully suggest that it's a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not."

The fate of the wide-ranging law, including the mandate that most Americans buy health insurance by 2014, likely is in the hands of two key justices - Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the decisive vote.

The court appeared sharply divided along ideological lines, with the five Republican-appointed conservatives doubting the law would survive and the four Democratic-appointed liberals offering a strong defense for the statute.

If even one of the conservative justices joins the liberal wing on the court, the law would be upheld. If the conservatives stay united, the law would fall.

The states challenging the law say the rest of Obama's healthcare overhaul must go if the court strikes the insurance requirement. Clement, their lawyer, told the justices that the so-called individual mandate to obtain insurance or face a penalty was "essential to the entire scheme."

'TAKE THE HEART OUT'

That sentiment was shared by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that if the individual mandate was struck down, the entire law must go. "My approach would be if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute is gone," he said.

Chief Justice Roberts said the court would have difficulty figuring out what Congress really wanted to survive from the law because of horse-trading that went on when lawmakers crafted the legislation. The law was passed when Obama's fellow Democrats controlled both houses of Congress after a contentious fight with Republicans dead set against it.

Roberts also noted that the law had two purposes in its title, "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," and said it would be tough if not impossible to discern Congress' intent.

"That's just an inquiry that you can't carry out," he said.

Kennedy voiced concern about possible unintended consequences in the form of huge costs to insurance companies if the mandate - which would bring millions of healthy young people into the healthcare system and spread out costs - was invalidated alone.

"We would be exercising the judicial power if one ... provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended," Kennedy said. "By reason of this court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider."

The four liberal justices expressed deep reservations about tossing out the sweeping law that has hundreds of other provisions, some of them already in effect.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the four and an Obama appointee to the court, asked whether the court should allow Congress to decide what to do next. "What's wrong with leaving it in the hands of people who should be fixing this, not us?"

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg went further. She said many parts of the law had not been challenged in court. "Why make Congress redo those?"

Another Obama administration lawyer, Edwin Kneedler, told the court that if the mandate was struck down, only two key provisions would also have to fall, those related to coverage for people's pre-existing conditions and limiting costs for those patients with a past medical history.

The justices are expected to meet in private on Friday to discuss the issues heard during the arguments this week and take a preliminary secret vote on how they plan to rule. The justices then will begin drafting their written opinions in the private confines of their chambers.

The justices also reviewed whether Congress violated the Constitution by prodding states to dramatically expand the state-federal Medicaid healthcare program for the poor, providing coverage for an estimated 17 million Americans.

There did not appear to be a majority supporting the challenge to that expansion but like all of the issues in the case, the court appeared deeply divided along ideological lines.

Ginsburg said that while 26 states oppose the expansion, other states welcome it. Scalia asked the politics of the states for and against the federal healthcare funds, to which Clement acknowledged the Republican-led states were against it and Democratic-led states favored it.

A Reuters/Ipsos online poll released on Wednesday found that 65 percent of respondents favored some kind of U.S. healthcare overhaul - 44 percent of them backing the Obama healthcare law and an additional 21 percent wishing it went further.

The rest, 35 percent, said they opposed the law and major changes to healthcare generally.

The crowd of supporters and opponents of the law outside the court was smaller and more subdued on Wednesday compared to the noisy demonstrations on Monday and Tuesday.

There are many more provisions in the law aside from the mandate that people obtain insurance. It prohibits insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, dropping coverage when people get sick or imposing higher costs on women and older people.

It extends coverage to the uninsured through federally subsidized health insurance exchanges and a dramatic expansion of Medicaid. It bans lifetime limits on insurance coverage, allows young adults to remain on parents' insurance plans through age 26 and requires preventive services including free mammograms for women.

The White House said on Wednesday it was not working on a contingency plan in the event that the court strikes down all or part of the law, saying it is confident that the statute is constitutional.

Shares of health insurers were mixed in afternoon trading, with the Morgan Stanley Healthcare Payor index of insurers down 1.1 percent, generally in line with declines for the broader market. Shares of hospital chains were lower, with Community Health Systems down 2.5 percent and Tenet Healthcare off 3.9 percent.

The Supreme Court cases are National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 11-400.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky, Ian Simpson, David Ingram and David Morgan in Washington and Lewis Krauskopf in New York; Editing by Howard Goller and Will Dunham)

View the original article here

Obama lawyer asks Supreme Court to save healthcare law

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration's top courtroom lawyer made an impassioned plea on Wednesday for the Supreme Court to save President Barack Obama's healthcare law, capping three days of historic arguments that left it unclear how the nine justices would rule.

Having peppered lawyers for and against the law with questions for more than six hours over the three days, the justices withdrew to their chambers to begin up to three months of deliberation expected to yield a decision by late June.

Obama's healthcare overhaul, signed into law two years ago, is his signature domestic policy achievement. It remains a divisive issue among Americans and is likely to be a key issue ahead of the November 6 election in which he seeks a second term.

The justices took up two issues on the last day of arguments on Wednesday: whether the rest of the law could stand if the centerpiece requirement that most Americans get insurance or face a penalty is struck down; and the validity of expanding the state-federal Medicaid healthcare program for the poor.

After what critics called a poor performance on Tuesday, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, arguing for the administration, closed his case with an emotional request that the justices uphold the law. Verrilli cited millions of people with chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and breast cancer who would get health insurance under the law.

Congress made a judgment in passing the law, Verrilli said. "Maybe they were right, maybe they weren't." But he said the court should respect the policy judgment made by democratically elected lawmakers in their decades-long struggle to help millions of uninsured.

The law, which constitutes the $2.6 trillion U.S. healthcare system's biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years, seeks to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans and to slow down soaring medical costs.

Unlike healthcare in other rich countries, the U.S. system is a patchwork of private insurance and restrictive government programs that has left tens of millions of people uninsured. The United States pays more on healthcare per person than any other country.

Critics of the law say it meddles too much in the lives of individuals and in the business of the states. They say that if the federal government can force people to buy health insurance, it would be able to force people to, for example, purchase American-made cars or join health clubs.

'FUNNY CONCEPTION OF LIBERTY'

Twenty-six of the 50 U.S. states and a small business trade group challenged the law in court. The lawyer for the states fighting the law, Paul Clement, told the court: "I would respectfully suggest that it's a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not."

The fate of the wide-ranging law, including the mandate that most Americans buy health insurance by 2014, likely is in the hands of two key justices - Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy, who often casts the decisive vote.

The court appeared sharply divided along ideological lines, with the five Republican-appointed conservatives doubting the law would survive and the four Democratic-appointed liberals offering a strong defense for the statute.

If even one of the conservative justices joins the liberal wing on the court, the law would be upheld. If the conservatives stay united, the law would fall.

The states challenging the law say the rest of Obama's healthcare overhaul must go if the court strikes the insurance requirement. Clement, their lawyer, told the justices that the so-called individual mandate to obtain insurance or face a penalty was "essential to the entire scheme."

'TAKE THE HEART OUT'

That sentiment was shared by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who said that if the individual mandate was struck down, the entire law must go. "My approach would be if you take the heart out of the statute, the statute is gone," he said.

Chief Justice Roberts said the court would have difficulty figuring out what Congress really wanted to survive from the law because of horse-trading that went on when lawmakers crafted the legislation. The law was passed when Obama's fellow Democrats controlled both houses of Congress after a contentious fight with Republicans dead set against it.

Roberts also noted that the law had two purposes in its title, "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," and said it would be tough if not impossible to discern Congress' intent.

"That's just an inquiry that you can't carry out," he said.

Kennedy voiced concern about possible unintended consequences in the form of huge costs to insurance companies if the mandate - which would bring millions of healthy young people into the healthcare system and spread out costs - was invalidated alone.

"We would be exercising the judicial power if one ... provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended," Kennedy said. "By reason of this court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider."

The four liberal justices expressed deep reservations about tossing out the sweeping law that has hundreds of other provisions, some of them already in effect.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the four and an Obama appointee to the court, asked whether the court should allow Congress to decide what to do next. "What's wrong with leaving it in the hands of people who should be fixing this, not us?"

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg went further. She said many parts of the law had not been challenged in court. "Why make Congress redo those?"

Another Obama administration lawyer, Edwin Kneedler, told the court that if the mandate was struck down, only two key provisions would also have to fall, those related to coverage for people's pre-existing conditions and limiting costs for those patients with a past medical history.

The justices are expected to meet in private on Friday to discuss the issues heard during the arguments this week and take a preliminary secret vote on how they plan to rule. The justices then will begin drafting their written opinions in the private confines of their chambers.

The justices also reviewed whether Congress violated the Constitution by prodding states to dramatically expand the state-federal Medicaid healthcare program for the poor, providing coverage for an estimated 17 million Americans.

There did not appear to be a majority supporting the challenge to that expansion but like all of the issues in the case, the court appeared deeply divided along ideological lines.

Ginsburg said that while 26 states oppose the expansion, other states welcome it. Scalia asked the politics of the states for and against the federal healthcare funds, to which Clement acknowledged the Republican-led states were against it and Democratic-led states favored it.

A Reuters/Ipsos online poll released on Wednesday found that 65 percent of respondents favored some kind of U.S. healthcare overhaul - 44 percent of them backing the Obama healthcare law and an additional 21 percent wishing it went further.

The rest, 35 percent, said they opposed the law and major changes to healthcare generally.

The crowd of supporters and opponents of the law outside the court was smaller and more subdued on Wednesday compared to the noisy demonstrations on Monday and Tuesday.

There are many more provisions in the law aside from the mandate that people obtain insurance. It prohibits insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions, dropping coverage when people get sick or imposing higher costs on women and older people.

It extends coverage to the uninsured through federally subsidized health insurance exchanges and a dramatic expansion of Medicaid. It bans lifetime limits on insurance coverage, allows young adults to remain on parents' insurance plans through age 26 and requires preventive services including free mammograms for women.

The White House said on Wednesday it was not working on a contingency plan in the event that the court strikes down all or part of the law, saying it is confident that the statute is constitutional.

Shares of health insurers were mixed in afternoon trading, with the Morgan Stanley Healthcare Payor index of insurers down 1.1 percent, generally in line with declines for the broader market. Shares of hospital chains were lower, with Community Health Systems down 2.5 percent and Tenet Healthcare off 3.9 percent.

The Supreme Court cases are National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; and Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 11-400.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky, Ian Simpson, David Ingram and David Morgan in Washington and Lewis Krauskopf in New York; Editing by Howard Goller and Will Dunham)

View the original article here

Mirkarimi's Lawyer Wants Court to Reinstate Him - NPR

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Ross Mirkarimi after his Mar 19 sentencing (Mina Kim/KQED)

Suspended San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi is trying to get the Superior Court to reinstate him.

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee suspended Mirkarimi without pay last week on grounds of official misconduct after the sheriff plead guilty to false imprisonment — a charge stemming from a domestic violence case.

This morning, Mirkarimi's attorney David Waggoner filed a petition for a writ of mandate, arguing Mayor Ed Lee had no right to suspend Mirkarimi because the alleged domestic abuse happened before he became sheriff. The petition also claims the incident didn't happen at work and didn't stop him from doing his job.

"Ultimately, the mayor, exceeded his authority," said Waggoner. "It's without precedent and we're asking the court to overturn the suspension."

View the original article here

John Payton, a lawyer who argued bias cases before Supreme Court, dies at 65 - Washington Post

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
- The Washington Post Print SubscriptionConversationsToday's PaperGoing Out GuideJobsCarsReal EstateRentalsClassifiedsShoppingHomePoliticsCampaign 2012CongressCourts &LawThe Fed PageHealth CarePollingWhite HouseBlogs & ColumnsIssues: EnergyTop Blogs

Election 2012 | Felicia SonmezThe Fix | Chris CillizzaFederal Eye | Ed O’KeefeFact Checker | Glenn KesslerOpinionsAll OpinionsPostPartisanLeft-LeaningRight-LeaningTolesCartoonsTelnaesAnimationsLocalColumnist IndexLocalDC: Politics| NewsMD: Politics| CommunitiesVA: Politics| CommunitiesCrimeEducationOn Faith/LocalObituariesTraffic & CommutingWeatherBlogs & ColumnsThe Root DCTop Blogs

Post NowThe BuzzCapital Weather GangDr. GridlockSportsRedskins/NFLCapitals/NHLWizards/NBANationals/MLBDC United/SoccerCollegesAllMetSportsOther SportsBlogs & ColumnsTop Blogs

The Insider| Mike JonesCapitals Insider| Katie CarreraWizards Insider | Michael LeeNationals Journal| Adam KilgoreNationalCorrectionsEnergy & EnvironmentHealth & ScienceHigher EducationNational SecurityOn FaithOn LeadershipInnovationsOn GivingBlogs & ColumnsTop Blogs

Ideas@InnovationsPost LeadershipUnder GodCheckpoint WashingtonWorldAfricaTheAmericasAsia &PacificEuropeMiddle EastNational SecurityWar ZonesSpecial ReportsCheckpoint WashingtonBusinessEconomyIndustriesLocal BusinessMarketsPolicy&RegulationTechnologyWorldBusinessBlogs & ColumnsInnovationsOn Small BusinessTop Blogs

Wonkblog | Ezra KleinPost Tech | Cecilia KangFaster ForwardWhere We LiveInvestigationsLifestyleAdviceCarolyn HaxFoodHome & GardenStyleTravelWeddingsWellnessMagazineKidsPostTop Blogs

The Style BlogAll We Can EatReliable Source | Roxanne Roberts & Amy ArgetsingerOn Parenting | Janice D’ArcyEntertainmentBooksCelebritiesComicsGoing Out GuideHoroscopesMoviesMuseumsPuzzlesTheater & DanceTVTop Blogs

TV Column | Lisa de MoraesCelebritology | Jen ChaneyComic Riffs | Michael CavnaClassical Beat | Anne MidgetteMultimediaInnovationsPhotosVideosThe Washington PostMake us your start pagePersonalizeThe Washington PostD.C. MarylandVirginiaCrimeEducationOn Faith/LocalObituariesTraffic & CommutingWeatherBlogs & ColumnsThe Root DCIn the NewsFreeze watch Death threat Md. privatization Montgomery transit Milloy apology ???initialComments:true! pubdate:03/24/2012 10:34 EDT! commentPeriod:14! commentEndDate:4/7/12 10:34 EDT! currentDate:3/25/12 8:0 EDT! allowComments:true! displayComments:true!Behind the scenes at the White House

The art and innovation of the real ‘Mad Men’

Venus and Jupiter, meet the moon

Climbing to the top of the National Cathedral

John Payton, a lawyer who argued bias cases before Supreme Court, dies at 65Text SizePrintE-mailReprints By T. Rees Shapiro, The Washington Post

John Payton, a lawyer and civil rights advocate who argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court involving discrimination in the workplace and the rights of universities to include race as a factor in admissions, died March 22 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He was 65.

He had complications from multiple myeloma, said his wife, Gay McDougall, a civil and human rights activist.

Loading...

Comments

Weigh InCorrections?

Personal Post(Alex Brandon/ASSOCIATED PRESS) - NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund President and Director-Counsel John Payton died March 22 at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He was 65.

At his death, Mr. Payton was president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, a civil rights legal organization.

Mr. Payton’s appointment to the fund in 2008 capped a five-decade career devoted to the protection of minorities. During the early 1990s, he was the District’s corporation counsel, or chief legal officer. The position is now called the D.C. attorney general.

In a statement, President Obama called Mr. Payton “a true champion of equality” who will be remembered for his “courage and fierce opposition to discrimination in all its forms.”

While a student at Pomona College in the 1960s, Mr. Payton helped establish the California school’s first black student association. He also successfully lobbied Pomona’s parent institution, the Claremont Colleges consortium, for the creation of a black studies program.

After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1977, he clerked for a year for Judge Cecil F. Poole of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, before joining the D.C. law firm Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering.

He contributed to the firm’s representation of the NAACP in various legal matters. In a 1982 case before the U.S. Supreme Court, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., he helped the civil rights organization avoid paying a financial penalty after organizing a 1960s boycott against white merchants in Mississippi.

In 1988, Mr. Payton represented the city of Richmond in a Supreme Court case involving a city program in which 30 percent of municipal construction jobs had to be given to minority-owned businesses. The court ruled that Richmond’s law was unconstitutional because it violated white-owned construction firms’ right to equal protection.

In the late 1990s, Mr. Payton served as the lead counsel for the University of Michigan in two
cases involving its use of race in admissions. One concerned admissions at the undergraduate level and the other at the law school.

The cases were split once they reached the Supreme Court. Mr. Payton led the defense in Gratz v. Bollinger, the 2003 case involving the undergraduate admission policy.

The Supreme Court upheld the law school’s affirmative action process — in which applicants received a more individualized review — and rejected Mr. Payton’s defense of the undergraduate policies, which utilized a point system that was considered unfair by its opponents.

In 2008, Mr. Payton left Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering — now known as WilmerHale — to lead the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Mr. Payton successfully represented a group of black firefighters in a Supreme Court case against the city of Chicago. In that case, the city’s fire department had used test scores for hiring purposes. Because of the way the test was graded, no black applicants had qualified. The court found that the city had discriminated against the black recruits by not using a different system for grading the tests.

Continued12Next PageEmailTumblrRedditStumbleuponDiggDeliciousDiscussion Policy | FAQ | About DiscussionsLoading...

Comments

Add your comment
Read about the changes to comment thread appearance, moderation. ?Read what others are sayingAbout Badges SuperFan Badge

SuperFan badge holders consistently post smart, timely comments about Washington area sports and teams.

More about badges | Request a badge

Culture Connoisseur Badge

Culture Connoisseurs consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on the arts, lifestyle and entertainment.

More about badges | Request a badge

Fact Checker Badge

Fact Checkers contribute questions, information and facts to The Fact Checker.

More about badges | Request a badge

Washingtologist Badge

Washingtologists consistently post thought-provoking, timely comments on events, communities, and trends in the Washington area.

More about badges | Request a badge

Post Writer Badge

This commenter is a Washington Post editor, reporter or producer.

Post Forum Badge

Post Forum members consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on politics, national and international affairs.

More about badges | Request a badge

Weather Watcher Badge

Weather Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on climates and forecasts.

More about badges | Request a badge

World Watcher Badge

World Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on international affairs.

More about badges | Request a badge

Post Recommended

Washington Post reporters or editors recommend this comment or reader post.

You must be logged in to report a comment.

Sign in here

You must be logged in to recommend a comment.

Sign in here

Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: . Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers.

All comments are posted in the All Comments tab.

More about badgesGet a badge

To pause and restart automatic updates, click "Live" or "Paused". If paused, you'll be notified of the number of additional comments that have come in.

Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: . Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers. + SHARE THIS DEBATE WP Social Reader Hide this

Friends' Activity Most Popular in local Most Popular in local

Most Popular Right Now

Your Friends’ Most Recent Activity

View More Activity

Powered byThe Post Most: LocalMost-viewed stories, videos and galleries int he past two hours

Most PopularBatman pulled over in Silver SpringIndian Sikhs in Loudoun say death threat is a rarity amid lives of suburban successFive universities that really are up-and-comersFreeze watch Monday night for most of Washington, D.C. areaApologies to black fathersTop VideosAA flight attendant's 9/11 rant (0:56)Protests nationwide over birth control mandate (1:36)John Kelly's home movies (0:57)D.C. cherry blossoms blooming early (2:12)Apple store footage during Lululemon murder (3:12)Top GalleriesClimbing to the top of the National CathedralDeath threat shocks Loudoun's SikhsD.C.'s cherry blossomsNonbelievers rally in D.C. for recognition, respectNorwood sentenced to life in prison in Lululemon killingFeatured Advertiser Links for L U N G C A N C E R V I C T I M S>>HIP REPLACEMENT -- did you get one after '03?>>Help Barack stand up for working Americans. Join our campaign now.>>The only candidate fighting for the middle class: Pres. Obama. Join us.>>Sign up for email updates from President Obama's 2012 campaign.>>Sign up for official email updates from Barack Obama's campaign.>>Looking to buy a home? Visit TWP Real Estate section for the latest open houses.>>Make Your Vanguard Investing More Profitable - Free Research Report Reveals Best & Worst Funds>>Top local Stories People Also ReadMost Popular VideosBatman pulled over in Silver SpringKatie Rogers?

Indian Sikhs in Loudoun say death threat is rarity amid lives of suburban successPamela Constable?

Five universities that really are up-and-comersDaniel De Vise?

Freeze watch Monday night for most of Washington, D.C. areaJason Samenow?

Apologies to black fathersCourtland Milloy?

4 killed in Route 50 crash::unspecified::?

‘There is no joy in education these days’Valerie Strauss?

Task force: Montgomery County rapid bus system to require property tax increaseVictor Zapana?

Bag fee dead in Prince George’sMiranda S. Spivack?

Bill would let Maryland seek out private partners for public projectsAaron C. Davis?

What the latest revelations on test cheating really meanValerie Strauss?

Defense Dept.’s longest-serving general and African American retiresVa. governor’s chef leaves amid investigationAnita Kumar?

Motorists scoop up armored car money, in scene witness calls ‘snow globe of cash’Dan Morse?

NASA waits for clear skies to launch rockets from Wallops IslandMartin Weil?

Ignoring a reform that worksValerie Strauss?

Answer Man solves the mystery of the sad Shirlington buildingJohn Kelly?

Brittany Norwood receives life, no parole, for killing Jayna Murray in Lululemon yoga storePaul Duggan?

For CIA family, a deadly suicide bombing leads to painful divisionsIan Shapira?

Fairfax teacher placed on leaveEmma Brown?

Ways you can get us

Mobile Apps Newsletter & alerts RSS Post Store Facebook Washington Post Live Twitter The Washington Post

Work for us Community Relations PostPoints Corrections/Suggestions Archive Contact the Ombudsman Report a problem Web site

Make us your homepage Digital Guidelines Ask The Post Newspaper

Subscribe Home delivery service e-Replica Advertise

In the newspaper On the web site Mobile Events The Washington Post Company

Post Company web sites Partners Slate Express Night Out Captial Business El Tiempo Latino The Root Foreign Policy Trove Post Tickets Capitol Deal Service Alley Post Master Class WP Live Student Advisor College Reviews ? 1996- The Washington Post Terms of Service Privacy Policy Reprints and Permissions RSS Terms of Service Help Contact Us Ad Choices Section:/local/obituaries

View the original article here

Health care lawyer Clement as high court regular

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
WASHINGTON (AP) — Paul Clement used to argue for the federal government's power until he started arguing against it.

But he's no flip-flopping political candidate; he's a lawyer. Changes like this are part of his job.

Clement is playing a key role in three politically charged Supreme Court cases in which Republican-led states object to Obama administration policies or federal laws on health care, immigration and redrawing political boundaries.

In the biggest of those, the 45-year-old law school acquaintance of President Barack Obama will be trying to sink Obama's health care overhaul.

Not that long ago, Clement would regularly stand before the justices and defend even the most aggressive uses of federal power, making his case without written notes and parrying questions with an easy banter.

He argued for the Bush administration's policy on detaining suspected terrorists, a federal law outlawing a medical procedure called "partial-birth abortion" by opponents, the McCain-Feingold law aimed at limiting the influence of money in politics and a federal ban on the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Clement was President George W. Bush's top Supreme Court lawyer, the solicitor general, the last government job on his impeccable conservative resume. He was a law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, then worked for John Ashcroft, both when Ashcroft was a senator and attorney general.

If a Republican wins the White House, expect to find Clement among the top potential Supreme Court nominees, said Curt Levey, who heads the conservative Committee for Justice. "It's unimaginable that any Republican president wouldn't have him on their short list."

His recent run of cases hasn't hurt his chances.

"There's no doubt that Paul has become the leading advocate for the most deeply conservative causes in the law. That is a reputation he has worked hard to earn," said David Frederick, a Supreme Court lawyer who often represents consumers.

Clement is scheduled to argue seven cases at the high court this term, roughly 10 percent of the total and a staggering figure for a lawyer in private practice. Supreme Court lawyer Thomas Goldstein jokingly introduced Clement at a recent event as having "the distinction of arguing every case in the Supreme Court this term, or nearly so."

The last of those will be a defense of Arizona's immigration law in the face of a challenge from the White House.

He already scored at least a partial victory when the court threw out interim Texas electoral maps that were drawn by federal judges and opposed by the Republicans Clement represented.

But the centerpiece of Clement's work, and of the high court term, is the election-year fight over the law that is intended to extend health care coverage to more than 30 million people. Clement will carry the bulk of the argument among several attorneys with clients opposing the law.

Representing Florida and 25 other states, Clement's central argument is that Congress went too far in requiring nearly every American to purchase insurance or pay a penalty.

"There have been a lot of crises in this country over the years, economic, other, where Congress might have thought that forcing individuals to purchase a particular good or a particular service might have been a useful means of government action. But the government never did," he said.

Born and reared in Cedarburg, Wis., Clement was a year behind Obama at Harvard Law School and worked under him on the Harvard Law Review. He was the youngest solicitor general, at 38, in 115 years.

Clement's unassuming, buttoned-down image provides little hint of his fondness for alternative rock bands he sometimes sees at Washington's 9:30 Club. He lives in suburban Virginia with his wife and three sons.

He has maintained a heavy workload despite an upheaval in his professional life that took him from the 800-lawyer King & Spalding firm to tiny Bancroft LLC. Atlanta-based King & Spalding spent a reported $5 million to lure Clement after he left government in 2008. Clement won't confirm the figure, but he does not dispute it.

Clement easily attracted deep-pocketed clients, including National Football League owners in their dispute with players.

But his representation of House Republicans in support of the Defense of Marriage Act prompted an internal struggle at the firm. The Obama administration is no longer defending the 1996 law that defines marriage as a union between a man and woman, and prohibits the government from granting benefits to same-sex couples.

King & Spalding eventually withdrew from the case, leaving Clement in the uncomfortable position of having to quit his clients or the firm. He chose the latter, which drew criticism from some gay rights groups but praise from lawyers across the political spectrum, including Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court.

At Georgetown University last year, Kagan spoke of Clement's "integrity, professionalism and honor" and said Clement's critics "misunderstand the traditions and ethics of the legal profession."

Clement himself says the experience bolstered his view that he would not choose clients out of fear of taking on unpopular causes. "It seems like a formula for a really uninteresting legal practice," he said.

And despite his ties to Republicans, Clement insists that when he stands before any court, "you have to really buy into the notion that positions are taken on behalf of a client. They're not your positions."

He notes that he has been on the liberal side sometimes — arguing for California prison inmates seeking better medical and mental health care and seeking higher fees for lawyers who won changes in Georgia's foster care program.

Still, when he left King & Spalding, he, along with many of his clients, ended up at Bancroft, run by Harvard law classmate Viet Dinh. The 13-lawyer firm is heavy with former Bush administration officials, including Dinh, and law clerks to Chief Justice John Roberts.

EDITOR'S NOTE _ This is part of a weeklong package of stories previewing the Supreme Court's consideration of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law

View the original article here

John Payton, a lawyer who argued bias cases before Supreme Court, dies at 65 - Washington Post

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota
- The Washington Post Print SubscriptionConversationsToday's PaperGoing Out GuideJobsCarsReal EstateRentalsClassifiedsShoppingHomePoliticsCampaign 2012CongressCourts &LawThe Fed PageHealth CarePollingWhite HouseBlogs & ColumnsIssues: EnergyTop Blogs

Election 2012 | Felicia SonmezThe Fix | Chris CillizzaFederal Eye | Ed O’KeefeFact Checker | Glenn KesslerOpinionsAll OpinionsPostPartisanLeft-LeaningRight-LeaningTolesCartoonsTelnaesAnimationsLocalColumnist IndexLocalDC: Politics| NewsMD: Politics| CommunitiesVA: Politics| CommunitiesCrimeEducationOn Faith/LocalObituariesTraffic & CommutingWeatherBlogs & ColumnsThe Root DCTop Blogs

Post NowThe BuzzCapital Weather GangDr. GridlockSportsRedskins/NFLCapitals/NHLWizards/NBANationals/MLBDC United/SoccerCollegesAllMetSportsOther SportsBlogs & ColumnsTop Blogs

The Insider| Mike JonesCapitals Insider| Katie CarreraWizards Insider | Michael LeeNationals Journal| Adam KilgoreNationalCorrectionsEnergy & EnvironmentHealth & ScienceHigher EducationNational SecurityOn FaithOn LeadershipInnovationsOn GivingBlogs & ColumnsTop Blogs

Ideas@InnovationsPost LeadershipUnder GodCheckpoint WashingtonWorldAfricaTheAmericasAsia &PacificEuropeMiddle EastNational SecurityWar ZonesSpecial ReportsCheckpoint WashingtonBusinessEconomyIndustriesLocal BusinessMarketsPolicy&RegulationTechnologyWorldBusinessBlogs & ColumnsInnovationsOn Small BusinessTop Blogs

Wonkblog | Ezra KleinPost Tech | Cecilia KangFaster ForwardWhere We LiveInvestigationsLifestyleAdviceCarolyn HaxFoodHome & GardenStyleTravelWeddingsWellnessMagazineKidsPostTop Blogs

The Style BlogAll We Can EatReliable Source | Roxanne Roberts & Amy ArgetsingerOn Parenting | Janice D’ArcyEntertainmentBooksCelebritiesComicsGoing Out GuideHoroscopesMoviesMuseumsPuzzlesTheater & DanceTVTop Blogs

TV Column | Lisa de MoraesCelebritology | Jen ChaneyComic Riffs | Michael CavnaClassical Beat | Anne MidgetteMultimediaInnovationsPhotosVideosThe Washington PostMake us your start pagePersonalizeThe Washington PostD.C. MarylandVirginiaCrimeEducationOn Faith/LocalObituariesTraffic & CommutingWeatherBlogs & ColumnsThe Root DCIn the NewsFiery crash Batman stopped Trayvon protests D.C. fun experts Atheists ???initialComments:true! pubdate:03/24/2012 10:34 EDT! commentPeriod:14! commentEndDate:4/7/12 10:34 EDT! currentDate:3/24/12 8:0 EDT! allowComments:true! displayComments:true!Behind the scenes at the White House

10 ways Washingtonians are better (or worse)

Photos: Marching for Trayvon

Your photos: Spring is in bloom

John Payton, a lawyer who argued bias cases before Supreme Court, dies at 65Text SizePrintE-mailReprints By T. Rees Shapiro, The Washington Post

John Payton, a lawyer and civil rights advocate who argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court involving discrimination in the workplace and the rights of universities to include race as a factor in admissions, died March 22 at the Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He was 65.

He had complications from multiple myeloma, said his wife, Gay McDougall, a civil and human rights activist.

Loading...

Comments

Weigh InCorrections?

Personal Post(Alex Brandon/ASSOCIATED PRESS) - NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund President and Director-Counsel John Payton died March 22 at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He was 65.

At his death, Mr. Payton was president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, a civil rights legal organization.

Mr. Payton’s appointment to the fund in 2008 capped a five-decade career devoted to the protection of minorities. During the early 1990s, he was the District’s corporation counsel, or chief legal officer. The position is now called the D.C. attorney general.

In a statement, President Obama called Mr. Payton “a true champion of equality” who will be remembered for his “courage and fierce opposition to discrimination in all its forms.”

While a student at Pomona College in the 1960s, Mr. Payton helped establish the California school’s first black student association. He also successfully lobbied Pomona’s parent institution, the Claremont Colleges consortium, for the creation of a black studies program.

After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1977, he clerked for a year for Judge Cecil F. Poole of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in San Francisco, before joining the D.C. law firm Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering.

He contributed to the firm’s representation of the NAACP in various legal matters. In a 1982 case before the U.S. Supreme Court, NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., he helped the civil rights organization avoid paying a financial penalty after organizing a 1960s boycott against white merchants in Mississippi.

In 1988, Mr. Payton represented the city of Richmond in a Supreme Court case involving a city program in which 30 percent of municipal construction jobs had to be given to minority-owned businesses. The court ruled that Richmond’s law was unconstitutional because it violated white-owned construction firms’ right to equal protection.

In the late 1990s, Mr. Payton served as the lead counsel for the University of Michigan in two
cases involving its use of race in admissions. One concerned admissions at the undergraduate level and the other at the law school.

The cases were split once they reached the Supreme Court. Mr. Payton led the defense in Gratz v. Bollinger, the 2003 case involving the undergraduate admission policy.

The Supreme Court upheld the law school’s affirmative action process — in which applicants received a more individualized review — and rejected Mr. Payton’s defense of the undergraduate policies, which utilized a point system that was considered unfair by its opponents.

In 2008, Mr. Payton left Wilmer, Cutler and Pickering — now known as WilmerHale — to lead the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Mr. Payton successfully represented a group of black firefighters in a Supreme Court case against the city of Chicago. In that case, the city’s fire department had used test scores for hiring purposes. Because of the way the test was graded, no black applicants had qualified. The court found that the city had discriminated against the black recruits by not using a different system for grading the tests.

Continued12Next PageEmailTumblrRedditStumbleuponDiggDeliciousDiscussion Policy | FAQ | About DiscussionsLoading...

Comments

Add your comment
Read about the changes to comment thread appearance, moderation. ?Read what others are sayingAbout Badges SuperFan Badge

SuperFan badge holders consistently post smart, timely comments about Washington area sports and teams.

More about badges | Request a badge

Culture Connoisseur Badge

Culture Connoisseurs consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on the arts, lifestyle and entertainment.

More about badges | Request a badge

Fact Checker Badge

Fact Checkers contribute questions, information and facts to The Fact Checker.

More about badges | Request a badge

Washingtologist Badge

Washingtologists consistently post thought-provoking, timely comments on events, communities, and trends in the Washington area.

More about badges | Request a badge

Post Writer Badge

This commenter is a Washington Post editor, reporter or producer.

Post Forum Badge

Post Forum members consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on politics, national and international affairs.

More about badges | Request a badge

Weather Watcher Badge

Weather Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on climates and forecasts.

More about badges | Request a badge

World Watcher Badge

World Watchers consistently offer thought-provoking, timely comments on international affairs.

More about badges | Request a badge

Post Recommended

Washington Post reporters or editors recommend this comment or reader post.

You must be logged in to report a comment.

Sign in here

You must be logged in to recommend a comment.

Sign in here

Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: . Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers.

All comments are posted in the All Comments tab.

More about badgesGet a badge

To pause and restart automatic updates, click "Live" or "Paused". If paused, you'll be notified of the number of additional comments that have come in.

Comments our editors find particularly useful or relevant are displayed in Top Comments, as are comments by users with these badges: . Replies to those posts appear here, as well as posts by staff writers. + SHARE THIS DEBATE WP Social Reader Hide this

Friends' Activity Most Popular in local Most Popular in local

Most Popular Right Now

Your Friends’ Most Recent Activity

View More Activity

Powered byThe Post Most: LocalMost-viewed stories, videos and galleries int he past two hours

Most PopularDemonstrators at Freedom Plaza rally in memory of Trayvon MartinBatman pulled over in Silver SpringLoudoun County in hot seat on approving Metro's Silver Line decision2 teens killed in crash after police pursuit through Chevy ChaseTrayvon Martin rally in D.C.: Live tweetsTop VideosAA flight attendant's 9/11 rant (0:56)Pope departs for Mexico and Cuba (1:21)The science of cherry blossoms (3:00)Apple store footage during Lululemon murder (3:12)Drawing crowds with song and an open door (1:06)Top GalleriesNonbelievers rally in D.C. for recognition, respectD.C. home to accurate, overblown and absurd superlativesClimbing to the top of the National CathedralNorwood sentenced to life in prison in Lululemon killingOur WashingtonFeatured Advertiser Links for L U N G C A N C E R V I C T I M S>>HIP REPLACEMENT -- did you get one after '03?>>Help Barack stand up for working Americans. Join our campaign now.>>The only candidate fighting for the middle class: Pres. Obama. Join us.>>Sign up for email updates from President Obama's 2012 campaign.>>Sign up for official email updates from Barack Obama's campaign.>>Looking to buy a home? Visit TWP Real Estate section for the latest open houses.>>Make Your Vanguard Investing More Profitable - Free Research Report Reveals Best & Worst Funds>>Top local Stories People Also ReadMost Popular VideosDemonstrators at Freedom Plaza rally in memory of Trayvon MartinOvetta Wiggins?

Batman pulled over in Silver SpringKatie Rogers?

Loudoun County in hot seat on approving Metro’s Silver Line decisionFredrick Kunkle; Caitlin Gibson?

2 teens killed in crash after police pursuit through Chevy ChaseDan Morse; Erica W. Morrison?

Trayvon Martin rally in D.C.: Live tweetsKatie Rogers?

Mansion chef departs amid police investigationAnita Kumar?

Reason Rally on the Mall is a milestone event for the growing atheist movementRick Wingrove?

Forecast: Showers and some rumbles possible through the weekendIan Livingston?

Newborn’s death ruled homicide, police sayMartin Weil?

Defense Dept.’s longest-serving general and African American retiresRedskins talk gets cold reception in Hill EastMike Debonis?

John Payton, a lawyer who argued bias cases before Supreme Court, dies at 65T. Rees Shapiro?

Attack in NW Washington Rec CenterClarence Williams?

Maryland House passes budget, setting up a debate with Senate over size of tax hikeAaron C. Davis?

Five universities that really are up-and-comersDaniel De Vise?

Motorists scoop up armored car money, in scene witness calls ‘snow globe of cash’Dan Morse?

Transformer explosion damages one carWashington Post Editors?

In Texas, a revolt brews against standardized testingValerie Strauss?

What would a 0.5 percent raise mean?::unspecified::?

Amid Trayvon Martin killing, Hill staffers gather to shine a brighter light on racial profilingRachel S. Karas?

Ways you can get us

Mobile Apps Newsletter & alerts RSS Post Store Facebook Washington Post Live Twitter The Washington Post

Work for us Community Relations PostPoints Corrections/Suggestions Archive Contact the Ombudsman Report a problem Web site

Make us your homepage Digital Guidelines Ask The Post Newspaper

Subscribe Home delivery service e-Replica Advertise

In the newspaper On the web site Mobile Events The Washington Post Company

Post Company web sites Partners Slate Express Night Out Captial Business El Tiempo Latino The Root Foreign Policy Trove Post Tickets Capitol Deal Service Alley Post Master Class WP Live Student Advisor College Reviews ? 1996- The Washington Post Terms of Service Privacy Policy Reprints and Permissions RSS Terms of Service Help Contact Us Ad Choices Section:/local/obituaries

View the original article here

Health care by the high court on a regular basis, Clement

WASHINGTON (AP) — Paul Clement used to represent the Federal Government in power until he started arguing against it.

But he does not flip-flopping a political candidate; He is a lawyer. In this way, the changes in his job.

Clement will play a major role in the politically charged the three with the highest cases of Republican Guard led the States object to the Obama administration policies or federal law, health care, immigration, and the display of political boundaries.

The majority of the 45-year-old law school, buddy, President Barack Obama is trying to sink Obama's health care overhaul.

Not long ago, on a regular basis, to stand before the justices, and Clement to defend even the most aggressive uses of federal power, in his case, without written notes and parrying questions about the easy banter.

He claimed the Bush administration policy, detaining suspected terrorists and the serious medical procedure opponents call "partial birth Abortion", the Federal law on the McCain-Feingold law designed to limit the money policy and the use of the medical purposes of Federal marijuana prohibition of influence.

Clement was President George w. Bush senior Supreme Court lawyer, solicitor general in the last Government, his fitness will be continued. He was a law clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia and John Ashcroft, British Columbia, and then when the Senator and attorney general Ashcroft had worked.

If the Republican Guard to win the White House, expect to find among the top the lists of candidates, the highest possible Clement, said Curt Levey, the conservative Council. "It is the will of the Republican President, is it not to him in their short list."

His recent Run of cases does not hurt his chances.

"There is no doubt that Paul has become the leader in the opinion of the Advocate General, the majority of the deeply conservative causes. David Frederick, the Supreme Court lawyer who represents the often consumers have reputation, he has worked very hard to earn, "said.

Clement is scheduled according to the claims of seven cases in the high court that the term around 10% of the total quantity, and a huge picture of a private practice lawyer. The Supreme Court lawyer Thomas Goldstein on the last event to jokingly Clement "is the difference between arguing always at the highest level in this period of time, or nearly so."

Of these, the last is the defense of the Arizona immigration law: the challenge from the White House.

He preparoitujen already, at least in part, the Court threw out the profit when the interim Texas election maps-that's the federal judges and the Republicans Clement represented.

But the centerpiece of the work, and the high court of Clement-the term is the election year legislative control, the purpose of which is to extend health care coverage to more than 30 million people. Clement to run more than one lawyer in the middle of the argument in the opposition to the law with the customers.

Florida and 25 other States representative Clement's central argument is that Congress went too far in requiring almost all American to buy insurance or pay a penalty.

"Has had a lot of crises in this country during the year, the economy, the other, which may have thought about the Congress that forcing individuals to buy a particular good or service has been the Government's actions in an effective way. But the Government has ever had, "he said.

Born and raised in Cedarburg Bryggare Clement was the year of Obama's Harvard Law School and worked in his Harvard law review. He is the youngest solicitor general, 38, at 115 years.

Clement's unassuming, buttoned-down picture contains his fondness alternative rock bands, he can see sometimes in Washington, a little tip for the 9: 30 Club. He lives in suburban Virginia with his wife and three sons.

He has maintained a heavy burden, despite the upheaval in the new dress, which took him to the 800-lawyer firm King & Spalding, a small Bancroft LLC. Atlanta-based King & Spalding spent a reported $ 5 million, maybe after he left Government to Clement in 2008. Clement did not confirm the figure, but he does not deny it.

Clement deep pocketed customers attracted easily, including the NFL owners in the event of a dispute over the players.

But his representation of the House Republicans in support of the Defense of Marriage Act prompt internal battle. The Obama administration no longer defends the 1996 law, defined as marriage between a man and a woman, and the Union shall be prohibited to grant same-sex couples the benefits to the Government.

King & Spalding will ultimately withdrew from the case, leaving Clement to stop his clients or the firm's uncomfortable position. He chose the latter, which drew some criticism in the case of a gay rights groups, but the lawyers praise political spectrum, including Elena Kagan, Obama's nominee for President to the highest level.

Georgetown University last year, Kagan spoke of Clement's "integrity, professionalism and honor" and understand the critics, "said Clement's abuse of the traditions and law ethics."

Clement, in fact, says, the experience of a visit to the degrees of his Show that he did not choose the fear of the customers, taking unpopular causes. "It feels really uninteresting legal practice, with the formula," he said.

And his ties to the Republicans, though Clement claims that when he stands before the Court, "you have to really buy into understanding that the activities carried out on behalf of the client. They have their own positions. "

He finds that he has been the liberal side, sometimes arguing, as the California prison facility inmates to seek better medical health care, mental health services, and for higher fees for lawyers, who won the Georgia changes contribute to the care program.

Still, when he left the King and Spalding, he, along with many of his customers have ended at the Bancroft, Harvard Law classmate Viet Dinh. 13-the former Bush administration lawyer, business is heavy, the officials, including the Dinh and the officers of the Supreme Court John Roberts law.

Editor's note _ is part of a weeklong package of stories, a preview of the Supreme Court for the President Barack Obama health care overhaul law

View the original article here