Justices Reject Appeal of Obamacare, Grand Jury Secrecy Cases
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.
In The News
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
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
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
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
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
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