Katsas On The Affordable Care Act
Katsas Opposed The Affordable Care Act
Katsas Said The Affordable Care Act Was A “Blueprint” For A “Command-Control Economy”
Katsas Said The Affordable Care Act Was A “Blueprint For Congress Replacing A Free Market Economy With A Command-Control Economy.” According to the Federalist Society’s Federalist Paper, “Katsas maintained that the law was a ‘blueprint for Congress replacing a free market economy with a command-control economy.’” [Federalist Society’s Federalist Paper, 2/1/12]
Katsas Said Congress Could Even Compel People To Buy Broccoli If It Could Compel Them To Buy Health Care And That It Was Significant That Congress Had Never Forced People To Buy Products. According to the Federalist Society’s Federalist Paper, “He argued that Congress could even compel Americans to buy broccoli if it can force them to buy health care. Katsas said it was legally significant that Congress has never tried to force people to buy a product, maintaining, ‘The Supreme Court has said that if a seemingly attractive power has not been exercised in the 200 years of constitutional history . . . that is a pretty good reason to think it doesn’t exist.’” [Federalist Society’s Federalist Paper, 2/1/12]
Katsas Represented The National Federation Of Independent Businesses In Litigation Against The Affordable Care Act
Katsas Represented The National Federation Of Independent Businesses (NFIB) In The Business Group’s Litigation Against The Affordable Care Act. According to Jones Day, “On March 26, 2012, Greg Katsas, an Issues & Appeals partner in Jones Day’s Washington Office, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the Court from hearing a challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. The transcript and audio file of the argument are available on the Supreme Court web site. Mr. Katsas handles complex litigation in areas including administrative law, antitrust, constitutional law, employment discrimination, international law and arbitration, and product liability. He has argued more than 40 appeals, has won more than 30 appeals, and has argued in every federal appellate court including the U.S. Supreme Court.” [Jones Day via WayBack Machine, 3/26/12]
The NFIB Challenged The Individual Mandate Under The Affordable Care Act
The NFIB Challenged The Individual Mandate Under The Affordable Care Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Lawyers for the National Federation of Independent Business told the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that the health care law’s requirement that all Americans have health insurance would compel the uninsured to engage in economic activity that harms them but benefits insurance companies. In their brief, the lawyers for the law’s opponents said that the ‘harmful’ activity is making healthy people buy something they don’t believe they need: health insurance from a commercial firm. ‘Never before has Congress enacted such a regulatory mandate,’ says the brief. […] Gregory Katsas, a lawyer for the NFIB, said in a conference call with reporters that there is nothing ‘hugely new’ in the brief but that it lays out opponents’ objections in a ‘far more detailed and more rigorous’ way than in previous briefs as the lawsuit has made its way through the lower courts. Katsas said the brief makes it clear that Americans’ individual liberty is ‘profoundly threatened’ by the law (PL 111-148, PL 111-152). The law would ‘force consumers to buy a product they don’t want,’ he said, which has ‘literally never been done before in history.’” [Congressional Quarterly, 2/6/12]
The Supreme Court Upheld The Affordable Care Act
The Supreme Court Upheld The Affordable Care Act. According to Justia, “In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. While only four Justices found its requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance (26 U.S.C. 5000A) constitutional under the Commerce Clause, Chief Justice Roberts found it constitutional by reasonably characterizing it as a tax.” [Justia, accessed 6/25/24]
Katsas Said He Was Disappointed In The Ruling
Katsas Said He Was Disappointed That The Supreme Court Upheld The Individual Mandate And Said Chief Justice Roberts Upheld The Statute Only By “Turning It Into Something Very Different.” According to CNN, “The new precedent set by the Supreme Court’s ruling on the individual mandate could affect future laws passed by Congress. Gregory Katsas, a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas who argued against the health care law, appears on Starting Point this morning to discuss the implications of the Court’s decision. ‘I was surprised and disappointed of course at the result,’ Katsas tells Soledad. Chief Justice Roberts’ swing vote on the law was an unexpected twist to the ruling, considering that he tends to lean conservative. Katsas explains that he believes Roberts upheld the statue only by ‘turning it into something very different.’” [CNN, 6/29/12]
Katsas Said The Result Demonstrated That The Court Was Susceptible To Pressure From The Media And The Obama Administration
Katsas Said He Thought The Court Was Susceptible To Pressure From The Media And The Obama Administration Based On The Result. According to National Review, “LOPEZ: What does this teach us about the Court? KATSAS: It has no discernible conservative majority, and it may be susceptible to pressure from the media and the administration.” [National Review, 7/2/12]
Katsas Supported Ron Johnson’s Lawsuit Seeking To Overturn A Decision To Restore A Health Care Subsidy Under The ACA For Members Of Congress
Katsas Supported Ron Johnson’s Lawsuit Seeking To Overturn A Decision To Restore A Health Care Subsidy For Members Of Congress Under The ACA
Katsas Supported Ron Johnson’s Lawsuit Seeking To Overturn A Decision To Restore A Health Care Subsidy For Members Of Congress Under The ACA. According to Fox Business, “Republican lawmakers are taking aim at the federally-provided subsidies provided to Congress members and some staffers to purchase insurance via state and federal exchanges. Sen. Ron Johnson, (R-WI), filed a lawsuit in January to overturn the restoration of health-care subsidies for members of Congress by the Office of Personnel Management. Currently, 38 GOP lawmakers have signaled support for the lawsuit. The federal government used to subsidize health insurance for lawmakers and some of their staff, but the Affordable Care Act eliminated them. The OPM restored the subsidies in August 2013. Johnson says the move shows ‘stunning disregard’ for the ACA […] Greg Katsas, partner at Jones Day which represents the Judicial Education Project, says Johnson’s lawsuit has strong odds, because he is challenging a portion of his compensation. The scenario is different than most employer-employee compensation and benefits cases, however, because Johnson isn’t asking for more–but less. ‘If he were entitled to a salary of $100,000 and the government didn’t pay him, he could sue to get the salary, no question whatsoever,’ he says. ‘But he is challenging health-care benefits instead of salary.’” [Fox Business, 4/22/14]
A Federal Judge Threw Out Johnson’s Lawsuit
A Federal Judge Threw Out Johnson’s Lawsuit. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “A federal judge threw out a lawsuit Monday brought by U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson and one of his aides attempting to force members of Congress and their staffs to stop getting subsidies for their health insurance under Obamacare.” [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 7/22/14]
Katsas Called The Legal Challenge To The ACA’s Contraception Mandate “Really Strong”
Katsas Suggested The Religious Freedom And Restoration Act Conflicts With The Affordable Care Act’s Contraception Mandate. According to Congressional Quarterly, “Barnett is not directly involved in the fresh round of litigation but sponsored a Federalist Society discussion at Georgetown on Wednesday night with two leading constitutional lawyers, Catherine E. Stetson and Gregory G. Katsas. […] Stetson, partner and director of the appellate practice group at firm Hogan Lovells, said the fate of closely held businesses owned by Catholics with religious objections to the rule will be interesting to watch. One issue will be whether the rule ‘substantially’ burdens those Catholics’ religious rights, she said. ‘One of the other interesting issues surrounding this contraception mandate is whose exercise of religion are we talking about?’ she asked. ‘Can a corporation exercise religion?’ Katsas, who represented the law’s opponents in the health care suit at the high court, said his firm, Jones Day, is handling some of the birth control suits. ‘I think these are fascinating cases,’ he said. ‘It seems to me the challengers’ cases are really strong there. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a very pro-religion statute.’” [Congressional Quarterly, 11/30/12]
Katsas On Terrorism
Katsas Held Controversial Views On Terrorism
Katsas Defended The Bush Administration’s Guantanamo Bay Policies
Katsas Defended The Bush Administration’s Guantanamo Bay Detainment Policies During A House Judiciary Hearing On The Matter. In his testimony during a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Katsas said, “Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the writ of habeas corpus and the judicial review procedures that Congress has provided to the aliens captured abroad and detained as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. […] In one day, they destroyed the World Trade Center, severely damaged the Pentagon and inflicted greater casualties than did the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. They are actively plotting further attacks. To prevent such attacks, the United States is detaining some members of Al Qaida and the Taliban at a military base leased by the United States at Guantanamo Bay. The majority of the Guantanamo detainees already have been released or transferred to other countries, but the U.S. continues to hold others either because they remain a threat or because no other country will take them. Each detainee receives a hearing before a combatant status review tribunal, or CSRT. These CSRTs afford detainees more rights than ever before provided for wartime status determinations. They also afford more rights than those deemed by the Supreme Court to be appropriate for United States citizens detained as enemy combatants on American soil, and they afford more rights than those given for status determinations under the Geneva Convention.” [United States House Committee on the Judiciary, 6/27/07]
Katsas Defended The Administration’s Guantanamo Policies Before A Federal Appeals Court Panel. According to the Associated Press, “A federal appeals court questioned the Bush administration’s handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, suggesting the judiciary might have authority to delve into the conduct of military tribunals that have categorized almost all inmates as enemy combatants. The arguments were in sharp contrast to those of several years ago when the appeals court suggested detainees at the Guantanamo Naval base were not entitled to have access to the U.S. courts, and then ruled against them. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision a year ago. On Thursday, a panel of three appeals court judges – two appointed by Republican presidents and one by a Democratic president – aggressively questioned Justice Department attorney Gregory Katsas about the possibility of court scrutiny over the detainee review process.” [Associated Press, 9/8/05]
Paul Ryan Hired Katsas To Advise Him On Suing Obama Over Detainee Transfers From Guantanamo Bay
Paul Ryan Contracted Katsas And Mike Carvin Of Jones Day To Advise Him On A Possible Lawsuit Against The Obama Administration Over The Potential Transfer Of Guantanamo Bay Detainees. According to Politico, “House Republicans have retained a top-tier law firm to advise Speaker Paul Ryan on potential litigation against the Obama administration over the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay. The GOP leaders contract with Mike Carvin and Gregory Katsas of Jones Day is worth up to $150,000, according to a copy of the agreement obtained by POLITICO.” [Politico, 2/10/16]
Katsas Refused To Say Whether Waterboarding Was Illegal
Katsas Refused To Say Whether Waterboarding Was Illegal. According to Yale Journal on Regulation, “SENATOR DURBIN: Is waterboarding cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment? MR. KATSAS: It clearly could be. No question about it. SENATOR DURBIN: Is waterboarding illegal under U.S. law? MR. KATSAS: To the extent it constitutes either torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment—yes, it is. SENATOR DURBIN: But you haven’t drawn any personal conclusion as to whether waterboarding qualifies under the existing law? MR. KATSAS: Well, my personal opinions are not what I’m here to talk about with regard to my assessment of the law, Senator. I can tell you, I did a lot of work on detainee issues when I was at the Justice Department, but I didn’t work on interrogation methods, so I haven’t thought those through the way I have issues regarding detention. As you know, I worked on habeas cases for years, and I’m very conversed in that law and very familiar with it and happy to discuss it with you.” [Yale Journal on Regulation, 10/20/17]
Katsas Said That The McCain Amendment Specifically Prohibited “Cruel, Inhuman, Or Degrading Treatment,” But Did Not Say Whether Waterboarding Fell Under This Description
Katsas Said That The McCain Amendment Specifically Prohibited “Cruel, Inhuman, Or Degrading Treatment,” But Did Not Say Whether Waterboarding Fell Under This Description. According to the District Sentinel, “Katsas replied that the McCain Amendment didn’t specifically bar waterboarding, but rather ‘cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.’” [District Sentinel, 10/17/17]
The McCain Amendment Set American Standards For Interrogation Techniques
The McCain Amendment Set American Standards For Interrogation Techniques. According to Human Rights First, “The McCain-Feinstein amendment is designed to ensure that all agencies and departments use lawful, effective interrogation techniques that will enhance our national security and reflect American values. It does the following: 1) codifies the Army Field Manual (AFM) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations as the standard for interrogations across the government; 2) requires that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) be provided notification of and access to detainees in a timely manner when they are taken into U.S. custody; and 3) mandates a review of the Army Field Manual to ensure that its interrogation approaches are lawful, humane, and based on the most up-to-date science.” [Human Rights First, accessed 6/25/24]
Katsas Argued To Nullify A $653 Million Judgment Awarded To Former Prisoners Of War Tortured By The Iraqi Military
Katsas Argued That President George W. Bush’s Decision To Remove Iraq From The List Of State Sponsors Of Terrorism Nullified A $653 Million Judgment Awarded To Former Prisoners Of War Tortured By The Iraqi Military. According to the Washington Post, “Justice Department lawyers argued yesterday that President Bush’s decision to remove Iraq from the list of terrorism-sponsoring states nullified a $653 million judgment awarded to former U.S. prisoners of war tortured by the Iraqi military during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The veterans won the judgment from the Iraqi government and are seeking to be paid from frozen Iraqi assets in the United States. But Justice Department lawyer Gregory Katsas said yesterday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the money is needed for the rebuilding of Iraq. ‘What is at stake in this case is the enforcement of an executive order by the president of the United States and his ability to conduct foreign policy,’ Katsas said. ‘The government has an obvious and compelling interest in facilitating reconstruction of Iraq.’” [Washington Post, 4/8/04]
Katsas Opposed Opening Deportation Hearings Against A Man Suspected Of Financing Terrorism To The Media
Katsas Argued That Opening Deportation Hearings Against A Man Suspected Of Financing Terrorism To The Media “Would Assist Terrorists In Getting A Blueprint Of The Government’s Strategy To Fight The War On Terrorism.” According to the Associated Press, “Deportation hearings for the co-founder of an Islamic charity that the government claims has funneled money to terrorists should remain closed, a prosecutor told a federal appeals court Tuesday. Rabih Haddad, 41, has been detained since his Dec. 14 arrest on a visa violation. The same day, the Treasury Department froze the bank accounts of his Global Relief Foundation and agents raided its suburban Chicago office. Opening the deportation hearings to the public and media ‘would assist terrorists in getting a blueprint of the government’s strategy to fight the war on terrorism,’ Justice Department lawyer Gregory Katsas told the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.” [Associated Press, 8/7/02]
A United States District Court Judge Ruled That It Was Unconstitutional To Bar The Public From Deportation Hearings
A United States District Court Judge Ruled That It Was Unconstitutional To Bar The Public From Deportation Hearings. According to the Associated Press, “A federal judge today denied the Justice Department’s request for a reconsideration of her ruling ordering the release of transcripts of closed deportation hearings for the detained founder of an Islamic charity. Government attorneys said they will immediately appeal the order before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. Last week, U.S. District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds said the Justice Department improperly barred the media and the public from the immigration hearings for Rabih Haddad, a co-founder of the Global Relief Foundation. She ruled that the transcripts of the hearings must be made public.” [Associated Press, 4/9/02]
Katsas On Abortion
Katsas Opposed Reproductive Rights
During His Time In The Bush Administration, Katsas Litigated Several Cases That Sought To Limit Abortion Rights
Katsas Assisted In The Cases Gonzales v. Carhart and Planned Parenthood v. Gonzales, Which Successfully Defended A Second-Trimester Abortion Ban
Katsas Tried To Limit The Right To An Abortion In Planned Parenthood v. Gonzales And Carhart v. Gonzales. According to the Leadership Conference On Civil And Human Rights, “Representing the Bush administration, Mr. Katsas also sought to limit abortion rights for women in Planned Parenthood v. Gonzales and Carhart v. Gonzales.” [Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 11/7/17]
Katsas Was One Of The Attorneys Providing The Brief For Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood.. According to the Office of the Solicitor General, “No. 05-380 In the Supreme Court of the United States ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PETITIONER v. LEROY CARHART, ET AL. […] BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONER […] GREGORY G. KATSAS – Deputy Assistant Attorney General.” [Office of the Solicitor General, 10/21/14]
In Gonzales v. Carhart, Katsas Argued To Uphold States’ Second-Trimester Abortion Bans. According to Justia, “The majority opinion viewed the challenge narrowly as attacking the law on a facial rather than as-applied basis. While it found that it was not facially unconstitutional, it did not reject the possibility of an as-applied challenge. Kennedy stated that the undue burden standard in Planned Parenthood v. Casey required courts to place a stronger emphasis on the state’s interest in the life of the fetus than the lower courts had shown in reviewing this case. Since the medical community did not agree on the health risks that the partial-birth abortion process might be needed to resolve, partial-birth abortions could be banned without a health exception until greater clarity was found. Acknowledging that the Court had invalidated a different statute banning partial-birth abortions in Stenberg v. Gonzales, the Court stated that this statute had clearer language and thus did not violate due process. The majority opinion did specifically state that it was valid under the Commerce Clause.” [Justia, accessed 5/15/24]
Katsas Defended The “Mexico City Policy,” Which Restricted Aid To Foreign Organizations That Provided Abortion Access
Katsas Defended The “Mexico City Policy,” Which Prevented Foreign Organizations Received U.S. Funding From Providing Abortions. According to the Alliance For Justice, “First, Katsas defended the ‘Mexico City Policy,’ also known as the ‘global gag rule,’ by which the U.S. government required foreign organizations that received federal funds to neither promote nor perform abortions.” [Alliance For Justice, Accessed 5/16/24]
In Multiple Cases, Katsas Sought To Restrict Health Care Reimbursements For Abortion Services
Katsas Served As Counsel In A Case That Sought To Deny A Woman Health Care Reimbursement For An Abortion Where The Fetus Was Non-Viable. According to the Alliance For Justice, “Katsas also served as counsel in Britell v. United States, 372 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004), a case where a woman sought reimbursement from her health insurer for the cost of an abortion of an anencephalic fetus but was denied because a statute and corresponding regulations prevented funds available to the Department of Defense from being used to perform an abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered. Anencephaly is a condition where a fetus is missing a major portion of its brain, and the only prognosis for the condition is death.” [Alliance For Justice, Accessed 5/16/24]
In Another Case, Katsas Represented The Department Of Defense After It Denied A Military Spouse Reimbursement For Her Abortion Expenses. According to the Alliance For Justice, “In a related case, Katsas represented the government when the Department of Defense was sued by a military spouse who sought health coverage for an abortion for her anencephalic pregnancy. Again, there was no chance that the fetus would become a viable and healthy child, but the government sought to deny the funding of the procedure. This case, Doe v. United States, 372 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2004), which appeared before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, was transferred to the Ninth Circuit, where the court reversed the decision of the district court and denied the reimbursement.” [Alliance For Justice, Accessed 5/16/24]
Katsas Was Responsible For Federal Rules That Allowed Employers To Cease Covering Contraceptives
Katsas Was So Involved In Creating Federal Agency Rules To Allow Employers To Stop Providing Contraceptives That He Agreed To Recuse Himself From Cases Challenging Such Rules. According to the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, “He was so involved in the recent creation of federal agency interim rules allowing employers to stop providing women employees with contraceptive health insurance coverage that he agreed to recuse himself in any litigation that arose from challenges to these rules.” [Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 11/7/17]
In A Federalist Society Podcast, Katsas Said That The Right To An Abortion Was “Made-Up”
In A Federalist Society Podcast, Katsas Said That The Right Of An Abortion Had “All These Made-Up Protections” And “Isn’t In The Constitution.” According to the Questions for the Record from Katsas’ nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals, “In a June 2016 Federalist Society podcast, you stated: ‘the right of abortion, which isn’t in the Constitution, which has all these made-up protections.’” [Questions for the Record – Katsas Nomination Hearing For The U.S. Court Of Appeals, 10/24/17]
Katsas On LGBTQ Rights
Katsas Opposed Same-Sex-Marriage
Katsas Defended The Defense Of Marriage Act In Court
2012: Katsas Suggested That The Supreme Court Would Not Overturn The Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA). According to the New York Times, “The court did not address — nor was it asked to — whether states without same-sex marriage could be forced to recognize couples who were married in states where it is legal. The First Circuit covers Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico. Supporters of the marriage law also seemed to believe that the Massachusetts case was better for their cause than the one from California, in which the Ninth Circuit earlier this year struck down a ban on same-sex marriage. ‘This is a good development for defenders of the law,’ said Gregory Katsas, a former Justice Department official who has defended the Defense of Marriage Act. For the Supreme Court to overturn it, he said, the justices would have to take the drastic step of striking down ‘a federal statute passed by overwhelming margins and signed by Bill Clinton.’” [New York Times, 6/1/12]
During His Time At The Bush Justice Department, Katsas Defended DOMA In Court. According to the Dutch Caribbean Legal Portal , “Gregory Katsas, a former US Justice Department official who has defended Doma in court, said that with the cases being held one after the other it will be difficult for the supreme court justices not to see a contradiction in the position of those who support gay marriage – on the one hand arguing for states’ rights in New York while against them in California. ‘Having both cases together, the challengers of Doma making the states rights’ argument I think is going to ring a little bit hollow when one day earlier all of the same people on that side of the issue were making all of the same arguments for why states can not have a more traditional definition of marriage than the federal government,’ he said.” [Dutch Caribbean Legal Portal, accessed 6/25/24]
The Defense Of Marriage Act Defined Marriage As Only Being Between A Man And A Woman And Declared That States Did Not Have To Recognize Same-Gender Marriage Performed In Another State
The Defense Of Marriage Act Defined Marriage As Only Being Between A Man And A Woman. According to the Clinton Digital Library, “President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law on September 21, 1996. The Act declared that no state shall be required to recognize a same-gender marriage performed in another state. DOMA also defined marriage as only between a man and a woman for purposes of Federal law.” [Clinton Digital Library, accessed 6/24/24]
The Defense Of Marriage Act Declared That States Did Not Have To Recognize Same-Gender Marriage Performed In Another State. According to the Clinton Digital Library, “President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law on September 21, 1996. The Act declared that no state shall be required to recognize a same-gender marriage performed in another state. DOMA also defined marriage as only between a man and a woman for purposes of Federal law.” [Clinton Digital Library, accessed 6/24/24]
Katsas Opposed Obergefell V. Hodges
Katsas Said Obergefell v. Hodges Prevented States From Adhering To The Traditional Definition Of Marriage, Between One Man And One Woman
Katsas Said Obergefell v. Hodges Prevented States From Adhering To The Traditional Definition Of Marriage, Between One Man And One Woman. According to The Daily Record of Rochester, “Katsas said Obergefell prohibits every state in the country from adhering to the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman, which, until quite recently, had been literally universal. ‘As is typical for Justice Kennedy’s decisions in this area, this one is long on rhetoric and short on what one might think of as traditional legal reasoning,’ Katsas said. ‘There’s not a lot of discussion of constitutional text and there’s not a lot of discussion about history and tradition, except for Justice Kennedy to make the point that history and tradition are not controlling in his view. ‘” [Daily Record Of Rochester, 7/15/15]
Katsas Said That Justice Kennedy’s Decision Was “Long On Rhetoric And Short On What One Might Think Of As Traditional Legal Reasoning”
Katsas Said That Justice Kennedy’s Decision Was “Long On Rhetoric And Short On What One Might Think Of As Traditional Legal Reasoning.” According to The Daily Record of Rochester, “Katsas said Obergefell prohibits every state in the country from adhering to the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman, which, until quite recently, had been literally universal. ‘As is typical for Justice Kennedy’s decisions in this area, this one is long on rhetoric and short on what one might think of as traditional legal reasoning,’ Katsas said. ‘There’s not a lot of discussion of constitutional text and there’s not a lot of discussion about history and tradition, except for Justice Kennedy to make the point that history and tradition are not controlling in his view. ‘” [Daily Record Of Rochester, 7/15/15]
Katsas Said The Decision Was A Profound Threat To Democracy Because The Justices Overruled Decisions Made In Several States
Katsas Said The Decision Was A Profound Threat To Democracy Because The Justices Overruled Decisions Made In Several States. According to the Daily Record of Rochester, “Katsas said Justice Roberts wrote a forceful principle dissent, calling the decision a profound threat to democracy to have judges overriding the decisions made in a lot of states; some supporting same-sex marriage, some not. ‘Justice Scalia writes an even more colorful dissent, sort of mocking the majority’s pretentious reasoning and says that the court ‘has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of a fortune cookie,’’ he said.” [Daily Record Of Rochester, 7/15/15]
Obergefell v. Hodges Legalized Same-Sex Marriage Under The Due Process Clause Of The Fourteenth Amendment
Obergefell v. Hodges Legalized Same-Sex Marriage Under The Due Process Clause Of The Fourteenth Amendment. According to Oyez, “Yes, yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples. Judicial precedent has held that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty because it is inherent to the concept of individual autonomy, it protects the most intimate association between two people, it safeguards children and families by according legal recognition to building a home and raising children, and it has historically been recognized as the keystone of social order.” [Oyez, accessed 6/25/24]
Katsas On Voting Rights
Katsas Opposed Voting Rights
Katsas Said He Represented Florida In Its Attempts To Remove Alleged Non-Citizens From Voting Rolls
Katsas Said He And His Former Jones Day Colleague Michael Carvin Were Involved With “Representing Florida In Its Attempts To Remove Fraudulently Registered Non-Citizens” From Voter Rolls. Katsas said in a 2012 interview, “Mike and I have had several big and interesting cases together. Of course, our most noteworthy one was the healthcare case in the Supreme Court. We are currently representing Florida in its attempts to remove fraudulently registered non-citizens from its voter rolls, to which the Justice Department has objected. We have another great case involving a constitutional challenge to the President’s recent recess appointments to the NLRB.” [Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, 9/14/12]
- Carvin Was Listed As A Lead Attorney In The Case (Mi Familia Vota Education Fund v. Detzner) But Katsas Was Not. Michael Carvin of Jones day was listed a lead attorney for the State of Florida but Katsas was not. [United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, 9/18/12]
The ACLU Represented The Plaintiffs In The Case, Arguing That Florida Did Not Obtain Required Preclearance Under Section 5 Of The Voting Rights Act Before Purging The Voter Rolls. According to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, “Mi Familia Vota v. Ken Detzner (Florida) On June 8, 2012, the Lawyers’ Committee along with the ACLU and the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP filed suit in federal court in Florida against the Florida Secretary of State, Ken Detzner, regarding Florida’s implementation of new voter registration procedures without obtaining the required preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs included Mi Familia Vota Education Fund, a non-profit organization dedicated to working with the Latino community to increase civic participation, and two individuals who are naturalized U.S. citizens and who registered to vote in Florida, Murat Limage and Pamela Gomez. In April 2012, Secretary Detzner instituted a new procedure for purging the voter registration rolls by distributing to county election officials a list of over 2,600 registered voters who he said are ‘potential non-citizens’ with instructions that election officials should institute proceedings to remove these individuals from the registration rolls.” [Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, accessed 10/12/17]
The Case Was Dismissed After The Supreme Court Ruled In Shelby County v. Holder
The Case Was Dismissed After The Supreme Court Ruled In Shelby County v. Holder. According to the Tampa Bay Times, “A federal court in Tampa dismissed the claim by civil rights activists Wednesday challenging the controversial 2012 voter purge enacted by Gov. Rick Scott and the state’s Division of Elections to rid the rolls of what they believed were scores of fraudulent voter registrations. The action was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law on behalf of Mi Familia Vota and two U.S. citizens and alleged it unconstitutionally targeted minority voters. The court on Wednesday cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder, which dismantled the part of the federal Voting Rights Act that required that state actions receive federal approval or preclearance.” [Tampa Bay Times, 7/24/13]
Katsas Said The Supreme Court’s 1980 Decision To Uphold The Federal Government’s Authority To Enforce The Voting Rights Act Was A “Bad” Decision
Katsas Said That The Supreme Court’s 1980 Ruling In City Of Rome v. United States, That The Federal Government Had The Right To Enforce The Voting Rights Act, Was “Bad” Because It Permitted “Enormous Intrusions Into State Voting Structures.” According to People for the American Way, “Greg Katsas, a prominent Society member who serves as an officer of the organization’s litigation practice group, criticized the Supreme Court’s ‘bad’ decision in City of Rome v. United States (1980) to uphold the federal government’s authority to enforce the Voting Rights Act because, he said, it permitted ‘enormous intrusions into state voting structures…’” [People for the American Way, 4/1/02]
The Voting Rights Act Outlawed Discriminatory Voting Practices
The Voting Rights Act Outlawed Discriminatory Voting Practices. According to the National Archives, “Voting Rights Act (1965) This act was signed into law on August 6, 1965, by President Lyndon Johnson. It outlawed the discriminatory voting practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War, including literacy tests as a prerequisite to voting. This ‘act to enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution’ was signed into law 95 years after the amendment was ratified.” -National Archives, accessed 6/25/24]
The General Assembly Of Georgia Changed The Electoral Process In The City Of Rome Without The Preclearance Of The Attorney General Of The United States
The General Assembly Of Georgia Changed The Electoral Process In The City Of Rome Without The Preclearance Of The Attorney General Of The United States. According to Justia, “U.S. Supreme Court City of Rome v. United States […] In 1966, appellant city of Rome, Ga., made certain changes in its electoral system, including provisions for majority, rather than plurality, vote for each of the nine members of the City Commission; for three numbered posts within each of the three (reduced from nine) wards; and for staggered terms for the commissioners and for members of the Board of Education from each ward; and a requirement that members of the Board reside in the wards from which they were elected. In addition, the city made 60 annexations between November 1, 1964, and February 10, 1975. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act) requires preclearance by the Attorney General of the United States or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia of any change in a ‘standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting’ made after November 1, 1964, by jurisdictions that fall within the coverage formula set forth in § 4(b) of the Act. Section 5 further provides that the Attorney General may clear a voting practice only if it “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color.” Georgia was designated a covered jurisdiction in 1965, and the municipalities of that State accordingly must comply with the preclearance procedure. Eventually, after at first having failed to do so, Rome submitted the annexations and the 1966 electoral changes for preclearance, but the Attorney General declined to preclear the above-enumerated electoral changes, concluding that, in a city such as Rome, in which the population is predominately white and racial bloc voting has been common, such electoral changes would deprive Negro voters of the opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. The Attorney General also refused to preclear 13 of the 60 annexations, finding that the city had not carried its burden of proving that the disapproved annexations would not dilute the Negro vote. Subsequently, however, in response to the city’s motion for reconsideration, the Attorney General agreed to preclear the 13 annexations for Board of Education elections, but still refused to preclear them for City Commission elections. The city and two of its officials then filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking relief from the Act based on a variety.” [Justia, accessed 6/25/24]
The Supreme Court Held In City Of Rome v. United States That Congress Had The Right To Impose And Extend The Voting Rights Act
City Of Rome v. United States Held That Congress Had The Right To Impose And Extend The Voting Rights Act. According to Case Briefs, “Issue. Whether the Fifteenth Amendment empowered Congress to impose the rigors of the Voting Rights Act upon the covered jurisdictions? Whether Congress has the authority to regulate state and local voting through the provisions of the Voting Rights Act? Whether Congress had the authority to extend the Voting Rights Act for a second seven-year term? Held. Yes to all three issues. Affirmed. The Act’s ban on electoral changes that are discriminatory in effect is an appropriate method of promoting the purposes of the Fifteenth Amendment, even if Section: 1 of the Amendment prohibits only purposeful discrimination, the prior decisions of the Court foreclose any argument that Congress may not, pursuant to Section: 2, outlaw voting practices that are discriminatory in effect. Furthermore, The Court finds that there is no reason to disturb Congress’ considered judgment that banning electoral changes that have a discriminatory impact is an effective method of preventing states from undoing or defeating the rights recently won by African Americans.” [Case Briefs, accessed 6/25/24]
Katsas On Church And State
Katsas Supported A Ruling That Upheld References To God On U.S. Currency And In The Pledge Of Allegiance
Katsas Said An Appellate Court, Which Upheld References To God On Currency And In The Pledge Of Allegiance, Made The Right Decision
Katsas Said An Appellate Court, Which Upheld References To God On Currency And In The Pledge Of Allegiance, Made The Right Decision. According to the Associated Press, “An appellate court has upheld references to God on U.S. currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance, rejecting arguments they violate the constitutional separation of church and state. ‘The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded,’ Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 ruling Thursday […] Greg Katsas, who argued the currency case on behalf of the U.S. government when the appellate court heard the case in December 2007, said the panel made the right decision Thursday. ‘I think these two phrases encapsulate the philosophy on which the nation was founded,’ said Katsas, who now works in private practice. ‘There is a religious aspect to saying ‘One nation under God,’ but it isn’t like a prayer. When someone says the pledge, they’re not praying to God, they’re pledging allegiance to the country, the flag and the ideals of the country.’” [Associated Press, 3/15/10]
The Supreme Court Declined To Review The Finding
The Supreme Court Declined To Review The Finding. According to the Courthouse News Service, “The Supreme Court declined to review a finding that the United States’ use of the slogan ‘In God We Trust’ as an inscription on U.S. currency and as a national motto does not violate the Constitution’s separation of church and state.” [Courthouse News Service, 3/9/11]
Katsas And Native Hawaiians
Katsas Opposed Legislation That Would Give Federal Recognition To Native Hawaiians
During The Bush Administration, Katsas Opposed The “Akaka Bill,” Which Would Have Given Federal Recognition To Native Hawaiians
During The Bush Administration, Katsas Opposed The “Akaka Bill,” Which Would Have Given Federal Recognition To Native Hawaiians. According to the Honolulu Advertiser, “Gov. Linda Lingle said yesterday she will continue to lobby support from Republican lawmakers and talk with the White House about the hard line it has taken against the Akaka bill. ‘That’s my role and I’m going to continue to play it because I believe so strongly in the importance of passing this legislation,’ she said. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee is expected to vote today on the bill, which would create a process for a Native Hawaiian governing entity to be formed and gain federal recognition. Lingle, in Washington for the Pacific Islands Conference of Leaders, said she would be attending the session. […] At the hearing, Gregory Katsas, a Justice Department attorney, said the administration opposed the bill because, ‘We think it’s wrong to balkanize the governing institutions of this country along racial and ancestral lines.’ But Lingle said she would continue to lobby Republican lawmakers and to talk with the White House about not taking such a hard position on the bill.” [Honolulu Advertiser, 5/10/07]
The Akaka Bill Never Received A Vote In The Senate
The Akaka Bill Never Received A Vote In The Senate. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, “The legislation, known as the Akaka Bill, passed the House in February but never received a vote in the Senate.” [San Diego Union-Tribune, 12/22/10]
Katsas And Assisted Suicide
Katsas Argued Against Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law In Federal Court
Katsas Argued Against Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law In Federal Court
Katsas Was The Federal Government’s Lead Attorney In A Case Challenging Oregon’s Groundbreaking Assisted Suicide Law. According to the Register-Guard, “Federal appeals judges sharply questioned lawyers Wednesday about Oregon’s ground-breaking doctor-assisted suicide law in a case expected to eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Gregory Katsas, the federal government’s lead attorney, asked the three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to consider whether assisted suicide is proper medical practice. He compared 2,000 years of medical tradition that compels doctors to ‘first do no harm’ to Oregon’s ‘10-year innovation.’ Oregon became the first and only state to authorize doctors to prescribe fatal doses of medicine to terminally ill patients, voting in 1994 and again in 1997 to approve the practice. Since the law took effect in 1998, 129 Oregonians have taken their own lives with the help of a doctor.” [Register-Guard, 5/8/03]
Katsas Argued That Assisted Suicide Was Not A Medical Procedure. According to the Los Angeles Times, “
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft has the right to ban Oregon physicians from prescribing lethal doses of controlled narcotics to terminally ill patients who want to die sooner, Justice Department lawyers argued Wednesday before federal appellate judges. The drugs doctors prescribe under the state’s assisted-suicide law are regulated by the federal Controlled Substances Act, which restricts their use for medical purposes only, said lawyer Gregory G. Katsas. Assisting suicide is not a medical procedure, he said.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/8/03]
The Federal Appeals Court Upheld Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law
The Federal Appeals Court Upheld Oregon’s Assisted Suicide Law. According to the National Library of Medicine, “A federal appeal court in San Francisco has ruled that doctors in Oregon can continue to prescribe lethal doses of drugs to mentally competent, terminally ill patients, without facing federal prosecution. The ruling said that the US attorney general, John Ashcroft, cannot sanction or hold doctors criminally liable for prescribing—but not administering—overdoses under Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act, which was approved by the state in 1994 and reaffirmed in 1997. The act allows terminally ill patients with less than six months to live to request a lethal dose of drugs, provided that two doctors confirm the diagnosis.” [National Library of Medicine, accessed 6/25/24]