Madison.com: Wisconsin Supreme Court hears arguments in case alleging regulator bias regarding power line.
The high court is being asked to decide if a former utility regulator’s personal relationships could invalidate the permit for a controversial power line being built in southwest Wisconsin.
Opponents of the line have sought to question former Public Service Commissioner Mike Huebsch about communications — some using an encrypted messaging app — with utility lobbyists and his eventual attempt to land a job with one of the utilities behind the $492 million project. . . .
“You are conflating appearance of impropriety with actual due process violations,” said Chief Justice Annette Ziegler. “Think of judges in small towns. People know people.”
WXOW: School superintendent charged with false imprisonment of six students.
CNN: Prominent conservative says Republican senators should vote to confirm U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson.
In a statement obtained exclusively by CNN, retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, considered a luminary in conservative legal circles, enthusiastically endorsed Jackson, describing her as a candidate who is "eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States."
Slate: During argument in Clean Air Act case conservative justices suggest they'll stray from textualism if needed.
During oral arguments, they deployed four fabricated “doctrines” or “canons” to replace the Clean Air Act’s text with a far narrower mandate. . . .
Each of these rules was invented by conservative lawyers for the purpose of striking down regulations, even when they are authorized by Congress. Each of them is, at best, tenuously connected to the Constitution, resting on a subjective sense of the proper “separation of powers” (and the assumption that unelected judges get to enforce those judgments). On Monday, they all melted together into an unholy slurry. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that a regulation violates this muck of manufactured doctrines if a judge is “surprised” when they read it. It was surprising when the Food and Drug Administration regulated cigarettes. It was surprising when the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regulated evictions. If it feels like an agency has gone beyond its mandate, Roberts asked, shouldn’t the courts assume it broke the law?
Law & Crime: Four U.S. Supreme Court justices indicate willingness to consider religious-college professors as ministers not subject to federal-law requirements.
Despite the Court’s current refusal to review the case, (U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel) Alito had some critical words for the Massachusetts court. Referencing the court’s basis for its ruling — that DeWeese-Boyd was not a “minister” because she did not directly teach religion — Alito wrote, “That conclusion reflects a troubling and narrow view of religious education. What many faiths conceive of as ‘religious education’ includes much more than instruction in explicitly religious doctrine or theology.”
The Appeal: Pushing President Biden to stop solitary confinement.
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin