Justices side with Indian tribe in dispute with Nebraska
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court says a Nebraska town is within the boundaries of an Indian reservation and subject to a tribal tax on liquor sales from local businesses.
The justices on Tuesday ruled unanimously that Congress did not diminish the Omaha Indian Reservation in 1882 when it allowed the Omaha Tribe to sell portions of the reservation to non-Indians.
The tribe began subjecting retailers in the town of Pender to a newly-amended ordinance in 2006. It imposed a 10 percent sales tax on liquor sales.
Nebraska officials argued that 98 percent of the town was non-Indian and the tribe had not asserted jurisdiction over the area for more than 100 years.
The court in an opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas upheld lower court rulings in favor of the tribe.
Moose hunter wins round in court over hovercraft use
WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a hunter who uses his hovercraft to track moose along Alaska's Nation River.
The court on Tuesday unanimously threw out a lower court ruling that upheld enforcement of National Park Service rules banning the use of hovercraft on the river when it runs through the Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve.
Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion for the court is a victory for hunter John Sturgeon, who has hunted moose in Alaska for nearly 40 years and uses a hovercraft to access shallow parts of the river.
But Roberts said lower courts need to sort out other issues in the case.
Court's tie vote upholds loan bias ruling
By Sam Hananel
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued its first tie vote since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, leaving in place a lower court ruling that barred two Missouri women from suing a bank for loan discrimination.
The justices divided 4-4 in a case that considered whether the women could bring claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act after a bank required them to guarantee their husbands' business loans. The law protects loan applicants from bias based on marital status.
Lower courts ruled that the law covers only those who apply for credit and not those who guarantee to secure the debt.
The one-sentence opinion does not set a national precedent and does not identify how each justice voted. It simply upholds a decision from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that applies to Missouri and six other nearby states.
The justices took on the case because other courts had ruled differently in similar cases.
Scalia died in February and the court is operating with only eight justices. Scalia had participated in arguments in the case on the first day of the court's term on Oct. 5. His aggressive questioning of the lawyer for the women suggested he would have sided with the bank in a decision that would have had nationwide effect.
Valerie Hawkins and Janice Patterson claimed that signing as guarantors made them both responsible to repay the loans in full and put their credit at risk, placing them in the same position as loan applicants. They also argued that Federal Reserve Board regulations that say the law banning discrimination covers credit guarantees.
The Obama administration sided with the women, saying that when a creditor requires a person to guarantee their spouse's loan solely because of marital status, that discriminates against both the primary borrower and the guarantor.
The bank asserted that the discrimination must be against the person who wanted to borrow the money.
The American Bankers Association and other industry groups argued that allowing a spouse who guarantees a loan to be treated like an applicant would open lenders to more liability that Congress anticipated when it passed the law.
The case is Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore, 14-520.
Justices uphold $5.8 million award against Tyson Foods
By Mark Sherman
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a setback to business, the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a $5.8 million judgment against Tyson Foods Inc. in a pay dispute with more than 3,000 workers at a pork-processing plant in Iowa.
The court's 6-2 ruling rejected new limits Tyson asked the high court to impose on the ability of workers to band together to challenge pay and workplace issues. It was the second time this year the court has ruled against business interests in class-action cases.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion that upheld lower court rulings in favor of employees of Springdale, Arkansas-based Tyson. The workers sued to be paid for time spent putting on and taking off protective work clothes and equipment before wielding sharp knives in slaughtering and processing the animals.
Tyson argued in its appeal that it should not have been forced to defend a class-action lawsuit on behalf of workers at its Storm Lake, Iowa, plant. The employees do their jobs on the plant's slaughter or "kill" floor and on the processing or "fabrication" floor.
The company and business groups that supported it pressed the court to elaborate on its 2011 decision blocking a massive sex-discrimination case against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that would have included up to 1.6 million female workers. They wanted the court to rein in the use of statistical evidence to support the employees' claims.
But Kennedy, in his majority opinion, explicitly rejected the argument by Tyson and its backers to broadly rule out statistical evidence in these sorts of cases. "A categorical exclusion of that sort...would make little sense," Kennedy wrote.
The opinion relied on a 70-year-old Supreme Court decision that allows workers to use statistical evidence in lawsuits over compensation when their employer doesn't keep adequate records of their hours.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. Thomas wrote that the trial court made several mistakes and never should have allowed the lawsuit to proceed. "These errors prejudiced Tyson and warrant reversal," he wrote.
Tyson has faced similar litigation around the country. In 2010, it settled a decade-long dispute with the U.S. Department of Labor by agreeing to pay workers at some poultry plants for time they spent putting on and taking off protective clothing.
In another case, the tie vote left in place a lower court ruling that barred two Missouri women from suing a bank for loan discrimination.
The women sued under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act after a bank required them to guarantee their husbands' business loans. The law protects loan applicants from bias based on marital status.
The lower courts in this case ruled that the law covers only those who apply for credit and not those who guarantee to secure the debt. Other courts have come out differently, and the Supreme Court initially agreed to decide the issue in order to resolve that disagreement.
But the one-sentence opinion does not set a national precedent and does not identify how each justice voted. It simply upholds the decision from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that applies to Missouri and six other nearby states.
Scalia had participated in arguments in the case on the first day of the court's term on Oct. 5. His aggressive questioning of the lawyer for the women suggested he would have sided with the bank in a decision that would have had nationwide effect.
--------
Associated Press writer Sam Hananel contributed to this report.
Published: Thu, Mar 24, 2016
