In my view this is a “we’ve done this thing wrong and unconstitutionally forever so it would cause chaos to enforce the constitution now” type of stance.
Administrative trials to impose significant penalties are a bit of a farce.
Sotomayor, for the liberals, on the decision that the SEC (and presumably other agencies) can't levy civil penalties on lawbreakers without a jury trial: "Congress had no reason to anticipate the chaos today's majority would unleash after all these years." www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...
So, if administrative courts are now invalid, then all the cases in immigration court will be going over to the regular court system, right?
Right?
Where'd you go, conservatives?
(Yes, I realize this is not going to happen because millionaires have better lobbying than immigration candidates.)
Why not, If you have a legitimate case? It also keeps states like Maryland from hand waiving away some of your rights because a third party claims they clocked you on a camera going 5 over and if you go to court, they hit you with a ton of court fees after instantly dismissing it.
I live in a state where one can opt in on traffic ticket citations for jury by trial. But most don't do that unless an attorney has noticed there is serious issues w/ regards to ticketing offenses given by LE officer/officers in question. I have gotten legal council on some LE ticket/traffic stops.
The only time it gets weird is if it’s a civil fine that can never result in jail time. Then you don’t have the right to one(from my understanding) since it’s not a criminal charge.
But you still have a right to due process. In my state, there is an appeal process for speeding tickets.
It always rustles my jimmies a little when I find myself agreeing with a stance like this, but that's just my identity talking. It is fucked up how much authority is in administrative law that probably shouldn't be there.
It's absolutely okay to say 'the US severely needs a stronger regulatory system' and 'the US's current regulatory system is regressive and authoritarian' in the same breath, I think, given that both manage to be true at the same time.
When I was last there my impression was that American laws seem too laissez faire or absolutely petty and overreaching. Rarely do you get "Goldilocks" public policy.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. There's also a bunch of examples of "oh, you hate this decent social program/public service you can't just eliminate, because that would be unpopular, so instead you administer it in the most irritating and/or evil and/or useless possible way".
And even for those crimes, presuming equal representation (false), there are two very different paths. Like a license suspension.
Upper class: Hire a driver
Middle class: takes a pretty severe financial hit on ubers but manages
Working class: is forced to drive anyway, penalties start snowballing
Agreed, stronger was mostly about their ability to penalize large organizations that mostly scoff at fines. We need some sort of 'corporate imprisonment' that would have real financial consequences for shareholders, so that compliance and stock market price go hand in hand.
IMO it's far better to build outcomes in ex ante through predistribution -- i.e. initial definition of property rules &c -- rather than regulation and redistribution ex ante. Commons-based ownership of land/resources and community or worker control of firms would align incentives with social ends.
"The agency is free to pursue all of its charges against Mr.
Jarkesy. And it is free to pursue them exactly as it had
always done until 2010: In a court, before a judge, and with
a jury. "
IANAL, but sounds like due process to me. 🤷
I'd rather SC not make decisions for ideological reasons or concern of administrative burdens. That's not their branch's role and is for the other two electable ones to solve. The liberal justices are a bit hypocritical on this I think.
well I'm not sure what states are still getting away with re civil forfeiture but SCOTUS issued a 9-0 ruling in Timbs v. Indiana that the 8th Amendment applies to them-
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18p...
That only applies to assets seized whose value is excessive to the fine for the criminal violation an accused is subject to. The INSC tried to say that only applies to the feds, not the states. It didn't go well for them. The po-po can still seize stuff, but have to be more discerning about it.
yeah I didn't think it totally ended it but at least reigned it in, it had gotten to the point in lot of states where the cops were just taking any cash and anything else they wanted with the justification that you must be part of some criminal enterprise
Yeah, Feds and state are still seizing cash on the assumption that it must be illegally earned without evidence. Techdirt regularly covers this - sometimes people win their suits against the FBI or State, sometimes not, but they still have to fight.
If there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that the SEC is too powerful, amirite?
Those poor white collar criminals always serving max sentences of minimal time in minimum security prisons. And just because they openly commit crimes like insider trading or Enron style accounting.No harm no foul
In Ramos v. Louisiana Alito basically said that restoring constitutional rights was too much of a burden so it is better to just let people stay in jail. The selective use of excessive administrative burden is a bit maddening.
The worst things about arbitration are that the arbitrators are partners of the businesses, foreclosure of class action, and the lack of appeal rights.
None is really a factor here.
I guess I have similar concerns re an administrative judge's impartiality as I do with arbitrators, just because they might be more inclined to rule the way I prefer doesn't make it constitutional
of course the conservatives and big business are all in favor of arbitration. There is no way this court would ever weaken mandatory arbitration provisions. If anything, it will strengthen and expand them.
Hi parole lawyer here, does this mean I should be arguing my clients are entitled to jury trials on parole violations? Surely their liberty interest is at least as much of a fundamental right as a corporation’s monetary interest. Right?…right…?!…right…???
