Justices Reject Appeal of Obamacare, Grand Jury Secrecy Cases

January 21, 2020 by Dan McCue
Statue outside the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Dan McCue)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request that it resolve a dispute over the authority of a judge to order the disclosure of secret grand jury material in rare circumstances.

The underlying case stems from a researcher’s 40-year quest to solve the disappearance of a critic of the longtime Dominican Republic dictator Rafael Trujillo.

Stuart McKeever, now 82, is seeking records of a Washington, D.C., grand jury that investigated Jesus de Galindez’s disappearance in the late 1950s.

A federal judge sided with McKeever, but a divided D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that judges have no authority, outside of specific exceptions, to release grand jury records.

This is in contrast to appeals courts in New York, Chicago and Atlanta, which have ruled that judges do have the power to order disclosure.

The issue in the case that the justices rejected is whether federal judges have authority on their own to make exceptions to grand jury secrecy in some instances, including when a case is of great historical interest.

It should be noted, the decision not to take up this case has no bearing on an ongoing court battle in which House Democrats are seeking access to grand jury materials from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.

That case turns on the question of whether the House is entitled to the records as part of President Donald Trump’s impeachment inquiry, which it contends is a judicial proceeding.

Rules that govern the federal courts specifically allow disclosure for a judicial proceeding.

In other Supreme Court news, the justices also rejected a request filed by House Democrats and a group of blue state attorneys general to expedite a hearing on a key tenet of the Affordable Care Act.

The request came after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Act’s individual mandate is unconstitutional.

The petitioners hoped to expedite the high court’s consideration of the case, arguing that “under the current state of affairs, there is considerable doubt over whether millions of individuals will continue to be able to afford vitally important care.”

“If the Court does not hear the case this term, that uncertainty will likely persist through next year’s open enrollment period,” the petitioners wrote.

Tuesday’s order makes it unlikely that the justices will rule on the health care law before the 2020 presidential election.

Supreme Court

Analysis: A Big Issue Voters Might Be Missing
Health
Analysis: A Big Issue Voters Might Be Missing

WASHINGTON — Democrats who say they are determined to keep voters focused on health care this year were hoping that the Supreme Court would hand them a ready-made campaign ad and a potential courtroom win. Instead, the court recently punted on a major decision over whether... Read More

Supreme Court Sounds Ready to Support Public Aid to Religious Schools
Education
Supreme Court Sounds Ready to Support Public Aid to Religious Schools

WASHINGTON — Some Supreme Court justices on Wednesday sounded ready to rule that states offering scholarships or subsidies to private schools must include those operated by churches. The court’s conservatives, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said that excluding private schools because they are religious... Read More

Roberts Admonishes House Prosecution, White House Defense
Impeachment
Roberts Admonishes House Prosecution, White House Defense

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts drew little attention to himself in the beginning 12 hours of his first impeachment trial. But it was just before 1 a.m., as tempers on the floor had started to wear thin, that he reminded senators, House impeachment managers and... Read More

With Fate of Roe V. Wade Unsure, Abortion Fight Shifts to New Territory
Health
With Fate of Roe V. Wade Unsure, Abortion Fight Shifts to New Territory

Jan. 22 marks the 47th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide. Those on both sides of the furious debate say this could be the year when everything changes. In March, the Supreme Court will hear its first abortion case since... Read More

Supreme Court to Weigh Pennsylvania, New Jersey Birth Control Mandate Challenge
Health
Supreme Court to Weigh Pennsylvania, New Jersey Birth Control Mandate Challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court will review a Philadelphia federal judge’s decision last year to block new Trump administration rules that would have let almost any employer deny female workers no-cost birth control coverage by citing religious and moral objections. In an order late Friday, the justices... Read More

Justices Reject Appeal of Obamacare, Grand Jury Secrecy Cases
Supreme Court
Justices Reject Appeal of Obamacare, Grand Jury Secrecy Cases
January 21, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request that it resolve a dispute over the authority of a judge to order the disclosure of secret grand jury material in rare circumstances. The underlying case stems from a researcher's 40-year quest to solve the disappearance... Read More

Straight From The Well
scroll top