U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Florida Ban on Judges Soliciting Campaign Contributions

Today, in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, the United States Supreme Court affirmed Florida Supreme Court's opinion upholding the Florida Bar's ban on judicial candidates soliciting campaign contribution. The opinion is broken into numerous parts, as described by the Court below:

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II. BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and GINSBURG, J., joined except as to Part II. BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which BREYER, J., joined as to Part II. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined. KENNEDY, J., and ALITO, J., filed dissenting opinions.

The majority opinion began as follows:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part II.

Our Founders vested authority to appoint federal judges in the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and entrusted those judges to hold their offices during good behavior. The Constitution permits States to make a different choice, and most of them have done so. In 39 States, voters elect trial or appellate judges at the polls. In an effort to preserve public confidence in the integrity of their judiciaries, many of those States prohibit judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their campaigns. We must decide whether the First Amendment permits such restrictions on speech.

 We hold that it does. Judges are not politicians, even when they come to the bench by way of the ballot. And a State’s decision to elect its judiciary does not compel it to treat judicial candidates like campaigners for political office. A State may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favor—and without having personally asked anyone for money. We affirm the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court.

And, the majority opinion concluded:

The desirability of judicial elections is a question that has sparked disagreement for more than 200 years. Hamilton believed that appointing judges to positions with life tenure constituted “the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” The Federalist No. 78, at 465. Jefferson thought that making judges “dependent on none but themselves” ran counter to the principle of “a government founded on the public will.” 12 The Works of Thomas Jefferson 5 (P. Ford ed. 1905). The federal courts reflect the view of Hamilton; most States have sided with Jefferson. Both methods have given our Nation jurists of wisdom and rectitude who have devoted themselves to maintaining “the public’s respect . . . and a reserve of public goodwill, without becoming subservient to public opinion.” Rehnquist, Judicial Independence, 38 U. Rich. L. Rev. 579, 596 (2004).

It is not our place to resolve this enduring debate. Our limited task is to apply the Constitution to the question presented in this case. Judicial candidates have a First Amendment right to speak in support of their campaigns. States have a compelling interest in preserving public confidence in their judiciaries. When the State adopts a narrowly tailored restriction like the one at issue here, those principles do not conflict. A State’s decision to elect judges does not compel it to compromise public confidence in their integrity.

The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is Affirmed.

Justice Breyer’s concurrence is found on page 29. Justice Ginsburg’s opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment, an opinion joined by Justice Breyer as to Part II, begins on page 28. Justice Scalia’s dissent, joined by Justice Thomas, begins on page 33. Justice Kennedy’s dissent begins on page 46. Finally, Justice Alito’s dissent begins on page 52.

Supreme Court: Notice of Removal Requires Only A Short and Plain Statement Regarding the Basis for Jurisdiction

In Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, a divided United States Supreme Court answered one question regarding the evidence needed to sustain a removal to federal court. The question was stated by the Court as follows:

To assert the amount in controversy adequately in the removal notice, does it suffice to allege the requisite amount plausibly, or must the defendant incorporate into the notice of removal evidence supporting the allegation? 

"That is the single question argued here and below by the parties and the issue on which we granted review,” and to answer that question the Court stated:

The answer, we hold, is supplied by the removal statute itself.  A statement “short and plain” need not contain evidentiary submissions.

(emphasis supplied). 

As for the comment above regarding it being a divided Court, the concurring and dissenting justices are shown below:

• GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined.
• SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KENNEDY and KAGAN, JJ., joined, and in which THOMAS, J., joined as to all but the final sentence.
• THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

The Solicitor General's Style Guide

The Solicitor General’s Style Guide has been published for the first time since 1941 and, according to the book, no copies of the 1941 edition are known to still exist. It is available from Amazon.com in both a print and a Kindle edition.

The Style Guide was published in November and, at that time, discussed by the Blog of Legal Times, SCOTUSblog, Legal Writing Pro, etc. If you write briefs, it is a good guide to add to your shelf. 

Supreme Court Reverses Florida Supreme Court in Takings Case

In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the United States Supreme Court revered THIS Florida Supreme Court decision. In conclusion, the Supreme Court stated:

We hold that the government’s demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the requirements of Nollan and Dolan even when the government denies the permit and even when its demand is for money. The Court expresses no view on the merits of petitioner’s claim that respondent’s actions here failed to comply with the principles set forth in this opinion and those two cases. The Florida Supreme Court’s judgment is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

From the opinion, "ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined."

A complete listing of the opinions below, briefs, and timeline is available from the SCOTUSblog.

"My Beloved World" by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is releasing a book this week titled "My Beloved World." You can buy the book from Amazon at the following links: Kindle Version OR Hardcover. If you prefer Apple's iBooks, HERE is a link to purchase it from Apple. There are a number of reviews available including by Andrew Cohen for The Atlantic, Jay Wexler for The Boston Globe, Dahlia Lithwick for The Washington Post, and Nina Totenberg for NPR.

Unanimous Supreme Court On One Person One Vote

In Tennant v. West Virginia Secretary of State, a unanimous Supreme Court reversed a three judge district court's decision that agreed with the plaintiff's "claim that West Virginia’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan violates the “one person, one vote” principle that we have held to be embodied in Article I, §2, of the United States Constitution."

Supreme Court's Health Care Opinion & "Who Joined What"

The opinion is below. If you are reading the opinion, here is a guide:

• 1-6: Syllabus;
• 7-21: Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan  (labeled pages 1-15 in the opinion);
• 22-38: Chief Justice Roberts alone (labeled pages 16-32 in the opinion);
• 
  

  39-50: Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan  (labeled pages 33-44 in the opinion);
• 50-51: Chief Justice Roberts alone (labeled pages 44-45 in the opinion);
• 51-65: Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan (labeled pages 45-59 in the opinion);
• 
  

  66-103: Justice Ginsburg joined by Justice Breyer, Justice Kagan, and Justice Sotomayor;
• 103-126: Justice Ginsburg joined by Justice Sotomayor;
• 127-191: Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito; and
• 191-192: Justice Thomas dissenting.

All of the page numbers refer to the page number in the .pdf and the red page numbers are clearly added by me.
HCA Opinion 11-393c3a2

C-SPAN Asks Supreme Court To Broadcast Health Care Oral Argument

Today, Brian P. Lamb, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of C-SPAN sent a letter to Chief Justice Roberts, and a copy to each Justice, asking the Court to broadcast the five and a half hours of oral argument the Court has scheduled in the various cases relating to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (prior post HERE). The request is copied below and you can click on it to make it larger:

I am sure the request will be denied as this is the same Court that entered a stay (see HERE) to prevent a California District Court from broadcasting its trial. The Court also denied THIS request from C-SPAN and CNN in 2000 asking to broadcast the Bush v. Gore oral argument (an article is available HERE). However, the Court did release the audio of the Bush v. Gore argument on an expedited basis and you can listen to the audio HERE and HERE. Of course, you could have watched the argument before the Florida Supreme Court live and can watch an archived copy HERE. 

Just last month THIS article references testimony by Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer that providing a video of oral argument is not important. You can view the actual testimony HERE. Justice Kagan, however, apparently supports the broadcast of oral arguments (according to THIS New York Times article). Assuming the request is denied, audio of the oral argument will be available on the Supreme Court's website (HERE), which states:

The audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court of the United States is available to the public at the end of each argument week. The audio recordings are posted on Fridays after Conference. The public may either download the audio files or listen to the recordings on the Court’s Web site. The audio recordings are listed by case name, docket number, and the date of oral argument. The Court began audio recording oral arguments in 1955. The recordings are maintained at The National Archives and Records Administration.  Prior to the 2010 Term, the recordings from one Term of Court were not available until the beginning of the next Term. The Archives will continue to serve as the official repository for the Court’s audio recordings. 

The Supreme Court's September 28, 2010 press release about releasing the audio recordings of oral arguments is below: 

For Immediate Release	For Further Information Contact:
September 28, 2010	Kathleen Arberg (202) 479-3211

Beginning with October Term 2010, the audio recordings of all oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court of the United States will be available free to the public on the Court’s Web site, www.supremecourt.gov, at the end of each argument week.  The audio recordings will be posted on Fridays after Conference.

The public may either download the audio files or listen to the recordings on the Court’s Web site.  The MP3 files of the audio recordings may be accessed by clicking on the “Oral Arguments” prompt on the home page, and selecting “Argument Audio.”  The audio recordings will be listed by case name, docket number, and the date of oral argument.  The recordings will also be accessible by clicking on “What’s New” on the site’s home page.

The Court began audio recording oral arguments in 1955.  The recordings are maintained at The National Archives and Records Administration.  Prior to the 2010 Term, the recordings from one Term of Court were not available until the beginning of the next Term.  The Archives will continue to serve as the official repository for the Court’s audio recordings. 

Supreme Court To Hear Exhausting 5.5 Hours Of Oral Argument On Health Care Law

There are many articles about the Supreme Court's order granting certiorari in the health care challenge cases. Some of the articles are linked below:

• New York Times - "Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Health Law;" 
• The Miami Herald - "Supreme Court Will Hear Health Care Case This Term;" 
• Wall Street Journal - "Supreme Court Agrees to Rule on Health Law;" 
• Boston Globe - "With national health law under review by Supreme Court, planning in MA 'full steam ahead';" 
• Detroit Free Press  - "Supreme Court justices poised to tackle health care;" and
• Washington Post - "Supreme Court hears health care case, but not Virginia’s."

The Supreme Court's order appears below and all of the briefs filed in the Supreme Court can be viewed at THIS link (via the Supreme Court's website):

U.S. Supreme Court Order List - 11-14-2011

Last week the D.C. Circuit released an opinion regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which was discussed HERE. In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Kavanaugh addressed whether jurisdiction is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act which the Supreme Court has now ordered counsel to address in case 11-398. 

The SCOTUSBlog has a lot of coverage as does the ACA Litigation Blog.

D.C. Circuit Upholds Constitutionality Of Health Care Act

In an opinion that begins by indicating the court would "be sparing in adding to the production of paper" already released by "our sister circuits," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit released a 103 page opinion upholding the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Senior Circuit Judge Silberman wrote the opinion for the court and Senior Circuit Judge Edwards concurred with an opinion. Circuit Judge Kavanaugh dissented with an opinion and would have held the court did not have jurisdiction and should not decide the merits. The Court's opinion can be viewed below:

Seven-Sky v. Holder (11-5047)

Articles about the opinion can be read on the Washington Times website, "Appeals Court upholds Obama's health care law," the ACA Litigation Blog, "Breaking News: D.C. Circuit Upholds ACA," and many others including Time Magazine's "In D.C. Circuit Health Reform Ruling, A Big Get For White House."

In the opinion, the court noted that other circuits have already addressed the issue: Thomas More Law Ctr. v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529, 534-35 (6th Cir. 2011); Florida v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., 648 F.3d 1235, 1249-62 (11th Cir. 2011) [HERE at page 3]. Additionally, the Fourth Circuit released opinions on the issue in Virginia v. Sebelius and Liberty University v. Geithner. Other circuit opinions can be viewed at the following links: Third Circuit (New Jersey Physicians v. President of the United States), Sixth Circuit (U.S. Citizens Assoc. v. Sebelius, pending), Ninth Circuit (Baldwin v. Sebelius).

If interested, the ACA Litigation Blog is a great resource and hosted by Santa Clara University Professor of Law Brad Joondeph and Brandon Douglass, Judicial Extern/Office of Staff, Attorneys United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The ACA Litigation Blog has a spreadsheet that updates the status of the 28 lawsuits involving challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That spreadsheet can be downloaded by clicking on the link at the top of the ACA Litigation Blog. The United States Department of Justice also has a page with the briefs and opinions from the various circuits. That page can be viewed HERE. Finally, the United States Supreme Court has a page, HERE, listing all of the filings in the Supreme Court relating to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The filings existing on the Supreme Court's page at the time of this blog post are copied below (click the "Read More" link if viewing this post on the main page):

U.S. Supreme Court Vacates 4th DCA Arbitration Opinion About Madoff Claims

On December 22, 2010, I posted about the Fourth DCA's decision in KPMG, LLP v. Cocchi, et al (4D09-4867 & 4D10-988). The post can be viewed HERE. Today, the United States Supreme Court released a unanimous opinion vacating the Fourth District's opinion. The Supreme Court's opinion in KPMG LLP v. Cocchi states, in part:

Agreements to arbitrate that fall within the scope andcoverage of the Federal Arbitration Act (Act), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., must be enforced in state and federal courts. State courts, then, “have a prominent role to play as enforcersof agreements to arbitrate.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U. S. 49, 59 (2009).

The Act has been interpreted to require that if a disputepresents multiple claims, some arbitrable and some not,the former must be sent to arbitration even if this will lead to piecemeal litigation. See Dean Witter Reynolds Inc. v. Byrd, 470 U. S. 213, 217 (1985). From this it follows that state and federal courts must examine with care the complaints seeking to invoke their jurisdiction in orderto separate arbitrable from nonarbitrable claims. A court may not issue a blanket refusal to compel arbitration merely on the grounds that some of the claims could beresolved by the court without arbitration. See ibid.

In this case the Fourth District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida upheld a trial court’s refusal to compel arbitration of respondents’ claims after determining thattwo of the four claims in a complaint were nonarbitrable.Though the matter is not altogether free from doubt, a fairreading of the opinion indicates a likelihood that the Court of Appeal failed to determine whether the other two claimsin the complaint were arbitrable. For this reason, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is vacated, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Constitutional Role of Judges

Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. C-SPAN's summary and video of the testimony is below:

Justices Breyer and Scalia testified on the role of judges in the American republic and democratic systems within the U.S. Question topics included the politicization of the judicial confirmation process, cameras in the courtroom, the role of juries, and the 14th Amendment.

SCOTUS Denies Stay of Florida Execution - Breyer Dissents

Approximately 2 hours and thirty minutes after the Miami Herald ran a story saying the State of Florida had executed Manuel Valle, a story picked up by news outlets around the country, the United States Supreme Court denied a stay of execution with a dissent by Justice Breyer. The News-Press, who ran the wire story, captures the timeline below along with the Herald's correction. Directly below that is the Supreme Court's Order [you will likely need to zoom in to view the Supreme Court's Order]:

Manuel Valle Corrections

Manuel Valle v. Florida, 564 U.S. _ (2011) Supreme Court Orders Denying Valle's Petitions

Supreme Court On Personal Jurisdiction, Part II

In a second opinion on personal jurisdiction released today, the Supreme Court reversed an opinion from the Supreme Court of New Jersey that held jurisdiction was permissible based upon the "stream of commerce theory." The Court's judgment was joined by 6 Justices, however, only 4 (including the author) joined the majority opinion. The Court stated:

Here, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, relying in part on Asahi, held that New Jersey’s courts can exercise jurisdiction over a foreign manufacturer of a product so long as the manufacturer “knows or reasonably should know thatits products are distributed through a nationwide distribution system that might lead to those products being sold inany of the fifty states.” Nicastro v. McIntyre Machinery America, Ltd., 201 N. J. 48, 76, 77, 987 A. 2d 575, 591, 592 (2010)....

That decision cannot be sustained. Although the New Jersey Supreme Court issued an extensive opinion with care-ful attention to this Court’s cases and to its own precedent, the “stream of commerce” metaphor carried the decision far afield. Due process protects the defendant’s right not to be coerced except by lawful judicial power. As a general rule, the exercise of judicial power is not lawfulunless the defendant “purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U. S. 235, 253 (1958). There maybe exceptions, say, for instance, in cases involving an intentional tort. But the general rule is applicable in this products-liability case, and the so-called “stream-of-commerce” doctrine cannot displace it.

Based upon the analysis, which is only partially included above, the Court held:

Due process protects petitioner’s right to be subject only to lawful authority. At no time did petitioner engage in any activities in New Jersey that reveal an intent to invoke or benefit from the protection of its laws. New Jersey is without power to adjudge the rights and liabilities of J. McIntyre, and its exercise of jurisdiction would violate due process. The contrary judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court is REVERSED.

The opinion in J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro can be viewed HERE. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion and was joined by  Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. Justice Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment which Justice Alito joined. Justice Ginsburg, who wrote the other personal jurisdiction opinion released today [see HERE], wrote a dissenting opinion and was joined by Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan.

Justice Breyer's opinion concurring in the judgment stated that "Because the incident at issue in this case does not implicate modern concerns, and because the factual record leaves many open questions, this is an unsuitable vehicle for making broad pronouncements that refashion basic jurisdictional rules." Therefore, in his view, "on the record present here, resolving thiscase requires no more than adhering to our precedents."

In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg states:

Under this Court’s pathmarking precedent in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945), and subsequent decisions, one would expect the answer to be unequivocally, “No.” But instead, six Justices of this Court, in divergent opinions, tell us that the manufacturer has avoided the jurisdiction of our state courts, except perhaps in States where its products are sold in sizeable quantities. Inconceivable as it may have seemed yesterday, the splintered majority today “turn[s] the clock back to the days before modern long-arm statutes when a manufacturer, to avoid being haled into court where a user is injured, need only Pilate-like wash its hands of a product by having independent distributors market it.” Weintraub, A Map Out of the Personal Jurisdiction Labyrinth,28 U. C. Davis L. Rev. 531, 555 (1995).

Supreme Court Issues Personal Jurisdiction Opinion Relating To Foreign Subsidiary Of US Corporation

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, held that three Goodyear USA subsidiaries, organized and operating, respectively, in Luxembourg, Turkey, and France, are not subject to personal jurisdiction in North Carolina. The specific question, as phrased by the Court, was: 

Are foreign subsidiaries of a United States parent corporation amenable to suit in state court on claims unrelated to any activity of the subsidiaries in the forum State?

"A bus accident outside Paris that took the lives of two 13-year-old boys from North Carolina gave rise to the litigation" that ended upon the Supreme Court. The court said

Because the episode-in-suit, the bus accident, occurred in France, and the tire alleged to have caused the accident was manufactured and sold abroad, North Carolina courts lacked specific jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy.The North Carolina Court of Appeals so acknowledged. Brown v. Meter, 199 N. C. App. 50, 57–58, 681 S. E. 2d 382, 388 (2009). Were the foreign subsidiaries nonetheless amenable to general jurisdiction in North Carolina courts? Confusing or blending general and specific jurisdictional inquiries, the North Carolina courts answered yes.

***

A connection so limited between the forum and the foreign corporation, we hold, is an inadequate basis for the exercise of general jurisdiction. Such a connection does not establish the “continuous and systematic” affiliation necessary to empower North Carolina courts to entertain claims unrelated to the foreign corporation’s contacts withthe State.

The Court's opinion in Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S. A. v. Brown can be viewed HERE.

New Supreme Court Website

The United States Supreme Court has a new website, still found at http://www.supremecourt.gov/.  The new site is also embedded below:

Chief Justice Roberts Remarks At The University Of Alabama Law School

C-SPAN posted Chief Justice Roberts remarks at the University of Alabama Law School [see HERE].  C-SPAN's description of the remarks, given March 9, 2010, are below and the video is directly below the remarks.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts addressed students at the University of Alabama Law School about the history of the U.S. Supreme Court. Following his remarks he responded to questions from audience members. In response to a student, Justice Roberts said the Senate's confirmation process for federal judges is "broken down" and stated that President Obama's State of the Union speech degenerated "into a political pep rally."

Additionally, Los Angeles Times Supreme Court reporter David Savage talked about the Chief Justice' speech in the video below [which can also be found HERE]:

Supreme Court Upholds Ban On Certain Lawyer Advice In Bankruptcy

The Supreme Court released its opinion today in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States.  Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion for the Court and stated:

Congress enacted the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA or Act) to correct perceived abuses of the bankruptcy system. Among the reform measures the Act implemented are anumber of provisions that regulate the conduct of “debt relief agenc[ies]”—i.e., professionals who provide bankruptcy assistance to consumer debtors. See 11 U. S. C. §§101(3), (12A). These consolidated cases present the threshold question whether attorneys are debt relief agencies when they provide qualifying services. Because we agree with the Court of Appeals that they are, we must also consider whether the Act’s provisions governing debt relief agencies’ advice to clients, §526(a)(4), and requiring them to make certain disclosures in their advertisements, §§528(a) and (b)(2), violate the First Amendment rights of attorneys. Concluding that the Court of Appeals construed §526(a)(4) too expansively, we reverse its judgment that the provision is unconstitutionally overbroad. Like the Court of Appeals, we uphold §528’s disclosure requirements as applied in these consolidated cases.

Articles can be found at the following links: Reuters; Wall Street Journal Law Blog; and the New York Times.

Chief Justice Roberts Denies Request To Stay D.C. Same-Sex Marriage Law

In  Jackson, et al v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics et al (09A807), Chief Justice Roberts released an in chambers opinion today refusing to block a District of Columbia law that will allow same-sex marriage.  Chief Justice Roberts stated:

The D. C. Charter specifies that legislation enacted by the D. C. Council may be blocked if a sufficient number of voters request a referendum on the issue. D. C. Code §1–204.102. The Council, however, purported in 1979 to exempt from this provision any referendum that would violate the D. C. Human Rights Act. See §§1–1001.16(b)(1)(C), 2–1402.73 (2001–2007). The D. C. Board of Elections, D. C. Superior Court, and D. C. Court of Appeals denied petitioners’ request for a referendum on the grounds that the referendum would violate the Human Rights Act.

Articles can be found at the following links: CBS News; Reuters; Washington Post;  Business Week; CNN; and Fox News.

Corporate Principal Place Of Business Is Where Executives Are Located

In Hertz Corporation v. Friend (08-1107), the United States Supreme Court held that a corporation's principal place of business is where the corporations executives are located.  Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Breyer stated:

The federal diversity jurisdiction statute provides that “a corporation shall be deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U. S. C. §1332(c)(1) (emphasis added). We seek here to resolve different interpretations that the Circuits have given this phrase. In doing so, we place primary weight upon the need for judicial administration of a jurisdictional statute to remain as simple as possible. And we conclude that the phrase “principal place of business” refers to the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities. Lower federal courts have often metaphorically called that place the corporation’s “nerve center.” See, e.g., Wisconsin Knife Works v. National Metal Crafters, 781 F. 2d 1280, 1282 (CA7 1986); Scot Typewriter Co. v. Underwood Corp., 170 F. Supp. 862, 865 (SDNY 1959) (Weinfeld, J.). We believe that the “nerve center” will typically be found at a corporation’s headquarters.

Articles can be found at: Reuters, ABC News, Wall Street Journal, and Business Week.