facebook linkedin twitter

Justices Reject Appeal of Obamacare, Grand Jury Secrecy Cases

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

A+
a-

In The News

Health

Voting

Supreme Court

May 18, 2022
by Tom Ramstack
A Potential Federal Law on Abortion Divides Witnesses Before Congress

WASHINGTON — Abortion supporters and detractors made impassioned pleas before a congressional committee Wednesday while invoking constitutional rights or Biblical... Read More

WASHINGTON — Abortion supporters and detractors made impassioned pleas before a congressional committee Wednesday while invoking constitutional rights or Biblical teachings. The House Judiciary Committee is considering one of several proposals in Congress on whether to enact a federal law to guarantee women’s rights to abortion.... Read More

May 16, 2022
by Dan McCue
Sen. Cruz Victorious in Campaign Finance Case

WASHINGTON  —  Sen. Ted Cruz. R-Texas, has prevailed in his Supreme Court challenge to a provision of federal campaign law,... Read More

WASHINGTON  —  Sen. Ted Cruz. R-Texas, has prevailed in his Supreme Court challenge to a provision of federal campaign law, but in dissent at least one justice believes the ruling "can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute." On its face, the underlying case... Read More

May 11, 2022
by Dan McCue
If Roe Falls, What Civil Rights Precedents Might Be Next?

WASHINGTON — James Obergefell, who was in the nation’s capital this week to attend a fundraiser and visit with friends,... Read More

WASHINGTON — James Obergefell, who was in the nation’s capital this week to attend a fundraiser and visit with friends, wears the mantle of a civil rights icon lightly. Warm, often funny, and intelligent, the plaintiff in Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark civil rights case in... Read More

May 9, 2022
by Tom Ramstack
Alleged Judicial Activism in Abortion Case Renews Calls for Supreme Court Reform

WASHINGTON — The draft of a Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade that was leaked to the media... Read More

WASHINGTON — The draft of a Supreme Court ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade that was leaked to the media last week is renewing calls in Congress to expand the number of justices. Democrats behind the proposal say the Supreme Court move to eliminate a federal... Read More

May 6, 2022
by Dan McCue
Could the Potential Decision on Roe Pose Threat to Interracial Marriage Precedent?

WASHINGTON — As talk about the possible collateral effect of the Supreme Court potentially overturning Roe v. Wade continues to... Read More

WASHINGTON — As talk about the possible collateral effect of the Supreme Court potentially overturning Roe v. Wade continues to roil Washington, The Well News reached out to attorney Philip Hirschkop to ask what impact that might have on the standing of his landmark civil rights... Read More

May 3, 2022
by Tom Ramstack
Senate Hearing on Judicial Code of Ethics Overshadowed by Supreme Court Leak

WASHINGTON — A Senate hearing Tuesday started as a discussion of a proposed new code of conduct for the U.S.... Read More

WASHINGTON — A Senate hearing Tuesday started as a discussion of a proposed new code of conduct for the U.S. Supreme Court but quickly turned to outrage over a leaked draft copy of a ruling that would overturn most abortion rights. Republicans and Democrats agreed the... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top