|
Monday the Supreme court will issue its last decisions of this session.
The firefighter race discrimination case Madam Appeals judge Sotomayor ruled on is one of them.
She has a not so enviable record of being overturned by SCOUTS.
From Judgepedia
The Supreme Court has reversed Judge Sotomayor in four instances where it granted certiorari to review an opinion she authored. In three of these reversals, the Court held that Judge Sotomayor erred in her statutory interpretation.
In Knight v. C.I.R., (128 S.Ct. 782, 2008.), the Court found that, based on an erroneous interpretation of the tax code, Judge Sotomayor applied an incorrect standard.
In Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, (547 U.S. 71, 2006), the Court found that Judge Sotomayor failed to apply precedent correctly in interpreting a scope of preemption provision of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.
In New York Times, Inc. v. Tasini, (533 U.S. 483, 2001), the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit’s reversal of Judge Sotomayor’s district court ruling that the Copyright Act permitted electronic publishers to reproduce all articles in a periodical under a “collective works” privilege, concluding that Sotomayor erred in her interpretation of “revision of collective works” privilege in the Act.
In Correctional Servs. Corp. v. Malesko, (534 U.S. 61, 2001), the Court reversed Sotomayor for allowing an inmate to sue a halfway house operator for negligence based on a Bivens claim. After the trial court dismissed the case, Judge Sotomayor reversed and reinstated the litigation. The Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor’s decision, holding that the former inmate did not lack effective remedies and that he had full access to remedial mechanisms established by the Bureau of Prisons. The Court also held that the former inmate’s suit would not have advanced Bivens’ core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing.
In Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA (475 F.3d 83, 2007) The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor’s ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor’s interpretation of the “best technology” rule was too narrow. Sotomayor orginally ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the “best technology available” must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor’s position<39>.
In Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh (396 F.3d 136, 2005) In 2005, the United States Supreme Court reversed in a 5-4 decision a ruling in which Madam Appeals judge Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from the respective insurance company where she claimed caused her husband’s injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party<39>. The Supreme Court in its ruling that under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA), state courts and not federal courts are the proper forum for a lawsuit by a plan administrator seeking reimbursement for medical costs paid by the plan on behalf of a beneficiary when the beneficiary recovers damages in a tort action against a responsible third party<40>. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
