Thread: MISLEADING INFORMATION - I was sent an Instagram post "exposing" Ruth Bader Ginsburg so took it upon myself to read the judgments in question myself and boyyyyyy

This is the post for reference - I’m gonna break down all of the cases for you

1. Integrity Staffing Solutions v Busk - this case DID NOT prohibit overtime pay - the period in question was a 25 minute wait before anti-employee staff screenings which was held not to be "integral and indispensable" to their work under the Fair Labour Standards Act

the distinction between what falls within the course of a persons employment duties and what doesn't is one which is questioned in every jurisdiction. This isn't any different. This was a term of employment and not deemed as labour - this was a unanimous decision, not just RBG

2. Dept of Homeland Security v Thuraissigiam - this judgment did not extend any deportation laws whatsoever it just interpreted pre-existing ones. A Sri Lankan man was apprehended 25 yards from the border in accordance with the 1996 Act

The Court assessed the compatibility of the Illegal Immigrant Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act 1996 with the Suspension Clause of Article 1 of the US Constitution which limits the habeas corpus judicial review of immigrant officer decisions

The decision turned on the fact that if the applicant's claim was successful, it "would extend the writ of habeas corpus far beyond its scope when the Constitution was drafted and ratified" (Samuel Alito). Again, emphasising that this was merely interpretative

3. City of Sherill v Oneida Indian Nation of New York - In this case a tax exemption was sought when land which was originally possessed by Indian Americans 200 years ago was rebought as an open market purchase. The Second Circuit held that the land was exempt from taxation

RBG never overruled this part. She noted that the land in question was occupied by 99% non-natives, and raised floodgates concerns in light of the general upheaval (this was Central New York in question). She also noted that 200 years had lapsed with no attempt to regain title

For these reasons, "tribal sovereignty" could not be reinstated, but the land was still exempt from local & state taxes. Statutes of Limitations exist in probably every jurisdiction as well as floodgates and public policy concerns which are widely widely widely used

4. Heien v North Carolina - here a car was pulled over for having a broken break light and due to subsequent suspicion searched. This led to an admission of guilt for drug trafficking. The court interpreted the law as only requiring *one* working break light

Ms Justice Kagan noted that this law "poses a quite difficult question of interpretation" and so held that reasonable mistake is permissible. This is the case in almost every jurisdiction. Next.

5. Taylor v Barkes - an inmate underwent a mental health screening before entering a prison where only 2 out of a required 8 risk factors were identified. He committed suicide while serving his sentence and his family tried to sue the prison

their claim failed because of 'qualified immunity'. This means that legal action can't be taken where the law at the time was unclear. There were no statutory guidelines defining extent of supervisory obligations or suicide prevention measures in general

no failure in legal duty = no liability. Very sad case but even if the judges wanted to do something about this they couldn't - reform has to be legislative and this case actually identified a gap in the legislative matrix in this area to be filled which is GOOD

6. Plumhoff v Richard - you literally learn on day 1 of law school that you cannot sue the police ok this isn't some groundbreaking terrible thing she did exposing herself as a bigot its universal you cannot do it 99.9% of the time

I absolute DO NOT agree with the outcome of this decision and I will ALWAYS advocate against the use of excessive force of police officers on citizens but unfortunately immunity from suit/ public policy concerns will almost always trump a claim and the judiciary are bound by this

Samuel Alito noted that even if they decided that excessive force was used that the police "would still be entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity", thus confirming the point I just made - pigs no jail

7. Samson v California - This was an appeal of pre-existing law. The Court UPHELD the pre-existing law stating that warrantless searches of parolees may occur. They actually narrowed it after analysing a question left open in US v Knights (2001)

8. Kansas v Carr - this judgment was not about the death sentences themselves it concerned the review of a procedural issue re: instructions to jury about the burden of proof.

9. Davis v Ayala - the author's problem with this is that RBG didn't concur with Justice Anthony Kennedy... she didn't concur because she DISSENTED?? Literally disagreed with the entire judgment??????? (removal of Hispanic jurors at Hispanic person's trial)