U.S. Supreme Court

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court affirming the critical importance of diversity in higher education.

Attorney General Harris’ brief urges the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm an appellate court decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, a case that involves race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas. The brief argues that the considerable educational and societal benefits of a diverse student body strongly support the Court reaffirming its acknowledgment under the 14th Amendment that the U.S. Constitution affords educators the flexibility to consider race, among many factors, in admission decisions.

Oral arguments for Fisher v. University of Texas will be heard on October 10.

“A diverse student body better prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and better prepares them as professionals. Moreover, it has been shown that because of the “resegregation” of American society, many students enter college with limited precollege exposure to people of different races, cultures, and ethnicities. Interaction during college years with students of different races and cultures can help disrupt the cycle of resegregation and lead to more positive cross-racial interaction and understanding,” the amicus brief states.

A copy of the brief is attached to the online version of this release at www.oag.ca.gov

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act:

“Today’s decision is a historic victory for Californians, for the President, and for the country. The Affordable Care Act repairs a healthcare system badly in need of reform and ensures that every American has access to affordable health care. We never doubted the constitutionality of this law, and it is already making a difference in the lives of millions of Californians.”

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today issued the following statement regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s illegal immigration legislation:

“I am pleased with the Court’s decision, which strikes down some of the most egregious components of Arizona’s misguided law. It also signals potentially significant constitutional concerns with the law’s mandate on local police officers to act as enforcers of immigration law. As a career prosecutor and California’s chief law enforcement officer, my belief has always been that public safety requires trust and cooperation between law enforcement and the communities we serve. I believe today’s decision is an important step forward in setting aside policies that divide law enforcement from the communities we serve.”

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court arguing against Arizona’s illegal immigration legislation.

The brief argues that decisions about who to remove from the United States and when to remove them are exclusively the prerogative of the federal government. States may not adopt a competing policy, as Arizona has done.

“Although Arizona claims that the law merely assists the federal government in the enforcement of federal law, the Arizona law in fact implements a distinct state policy on removal that supplants federally mandated enforcement priorities and disregards the federal requirement that state assistance in this area proceed under federal oversight,” the amicus brief states.

Attorney General Harris, joined by 10 other attorneys general, argued in a brief filed yesterday in the U.S. Supreme Court that it is in states’ interest to have a cohesive federal immigration policy. Oral arguments will be on April 25.

California has the largest undocumented immigrant population of any state, 2.5 million (6.8 percent), according to a 2011 report from the Pew Hispanic Center. California also has the largest percentage (9.7 percent) of undocumented immigrants in its labor force at 1.85 million.

California law has long provided basic protections for all California residents who comply with state law, while respecting the right of the federal government to enforce federal deportation policies. For example, California law expressly guarantees the same protection, rights and remedies, except those prohibited by federal law, to all who have applied for employment or who have been employed. California also allows students who are not legal residents to pay in-state tuition at state colleges and universities.

These laws focus on the health and welfare of California’s undocumented immigrants, but keep the federal government in charge of who can stay in the country.

California was joined in this amicus brief by New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont.

A copy of the brief is attached to the online version of this release at www.oag.ca.gov

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to uphold the constitutionality of the landmark federal healthcare reform law’s Medicaid expansion which has helped millions of Americans obtain insurance.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) increases health care coverage in a variety of ways, including expanding Medicaid eligibility to nearly all non-elderly adults who earn up to 133 percent of the federal poverty line. This is expected to expand health insurance coverage to 11.2 million people nationwide, including 1.9 million Californians. California was one of the first states to begin covering low-income adults, ages 19 to 64, who would not have otherwise qualified for Medi-Cal. As of October 2011, more than 220,000 Californians were covered through the program, which also provides funds for hospital care and public health initiatives.

“Millions of previously uninsured Californians now have access to quality health care due to federal law,” said Attorney General Harris. “Extending Medicaid to all low-income adults is vital to ensuring that every individual has access to affordable and reliable health insurance. Every individual deserves to be treated with dignity and to receive the care they need.”

Attorney General Harris, joined by 11 other attorneys general, argued in the brief filed today in the U.S. Supreme Court that the ACA does not coerce states into action, but maintains the fundamental Medicaid arrangement of a federal-state cooperative program.

The amicus brief argues that Congress has the authority to define the central requirements of the program according to federal objectives and to provide financial incentives for states to comply with these basic requirements. Since Medicaid’s enactment over 45 years ago, Congress has frequently extended coverage to new populations in response to changing policy concerns. The ACA’s Medicaid expansion is no different.

“The Medicaid expansion significantly changes who is eligible for Medicaid, but the ACA does not change the basic structure of the program or how the program is implemented. Medicaid has always been a cooperative partnership between the federal government and the States, and the ACA does not change that. The Act continues the tradition of State flexibility and experimentation that has been the hallmark of cooperative federalism, by allowing the States to apply for federal grants, seek waivers, operate demonstration projects, and otherwise exercise discretion in implementing Medicaid. The ACA thus strikes an appropriate, and constitutional, balance between national requirements that will expand access to affordable healthcare and State flexibility to design programs that achieve that goal,” the amicus brief states.

The federal government is covering the lion’s share of the costs for this expansion, paying 100 percent of the costs until 2016 and 90 percent or more thereafter.

Other states joining California in this brief are Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont. The brief is also joined by the Governor of Washington.

Attorney General Harris has vigorously defended the constitutionality of federal health care reform. Joined by other attorneys general, she has filed three briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court and five briefs in the federal appellate courts urging the courts to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

A copy of the amicus is attached to the online version of this release at www.oag.ca.gov.

SACRAMENTO --- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has joined 11 other state attorneys general in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court in Magner v. Gallagher to rule that federal anti-discrimination law can be enforced in cases where a housing or mortgage policy appears neutral on its surface but has a discriminatory effect.

“Segregation in housing and barriers to equal opportunity remain a great concern for communities throughout the country. Disparate impact causes of action are needed to respond to contemporary forms of bias and to eliminate practices and policies that perpetuate segregated housing patterns,” the amicus brief states.

This case involves a policy of the City of St. Paul, Minnesota to remedy “problem properties” by targeting low-income renter-occupied properties for housing-code violations, condemnations and evictions. In 2004 and 2005, a group of current and former owners of rental properties challenged the city’s policy, contending that these practices had a disproportionate impact on racial and ethnic minorities and, in particular, African Americans. African Americans made up 60 to 70 percent of the city’s low-income renters, while they made up approximately 12 percent of the population of St. Paul.

“For more than four decades, the Fair Housing Act has been a key tool for rooting out discrimination in housing and residential financing,” Attorney General Harris said. “Minority homeowners and renters in California, who have been disproportionately impacted by the housing and mortgage crisis, deserve access to housing without facing discrimination and other deceptive practices.”

The plaintiffs challenged the city’s policy in federal court under the Fair Housing Act, which is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status and disability. In 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that housing policies that disproportionately impact protected groups violate the Fair Housing Act and are subject to disparate-impact scrutiny. The City appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments in the matter in February 2012.

A bipartisan group of attorneys general joining California in this brief represent Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Utah and West Virginia.

A copy of the amicus brief is attached to the online version of this release at www.oag.ca.gov.

SAN FRANCISCO -- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today led 10 states in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court urging the high court not to invalidate the federal health care reform law in its entirety if that court decides the minimum coverage provision is unconstitutional.

“States have begun to implement substantial portions of the Act, such as prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions, allowing States to better regulate insurance rates, and helping States establish high risk pools for their citizens. Today, these reforms are bringing real relief to States, medical providers, and families across the country. The reforms are also helping all States grapple with the serious problem of the high number of uninsured citizens. While the minimum coverage provision unquestionably advances the Congressional goal of comprehensive health care reform in general and private health insurance reform in particular, the minimum coverage provision operates independently of the vast majority of the Affordable Care Act,” the amicus brief states.

In August 2011, a divided United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage provision, which in 2014 will require that adults maintain adequate health insurance, is unconstitutional. The United States government appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments in the matter in March.

Attorney General Harris, joined by 10 other attorneys general, argued in a brief filed today in the U.S. Supreme Court that the minimum coverage provision is constitutional. If, however, the court decides the minimum coverage provision is unconstitutional, the remainder of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – including measures that have already been implemented – should remain intact.

Since March 2010, when the landmark federal healthcare law was enacted, Californians have benefitted from numerous reforms that have lowered costs and increased health care options. For example, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to the state’s 2.2 million children with pre-existing conditions. And, as a result of the federal reform, most young people in California can remain on their parent’s insurance until their 26th birthday.

California was one of the first states to begin covering low-income adults, ages 19 to 64, who do not qualify for Medi-Cal. As of October 2011, more than 220,000 Californians were covered through the program, which also provides funds for hospital care and public health initiatives.

California has also received millions in grant funds, including $42.7 million to create a new fund to prevent illness and promote health.

“This important reform is comprehensive and wide-reaching across the healthcare industry. It does everything from encourage Americans to enter the nursing profession to improve the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries,” Attorney General Harris said. “Its real and lasting benefits have already taken effect in California and are making meaningful differences in the lives of millions of individuals.”

Other states joining California in this brief are Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont. The brief is also joined by the District of Columbia and the Governor of Washington.

Attorney General Harris has vigorously defended the constitutionality of federal health care reform. Joined by other attorneys general, she has filed two briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court and five briefs in the federal appellate courts urging the courts to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

A copy of the amicus is attached to the online version of this release at www.oag.ca.gov.

SACRAMENTO --- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the constitutionality of federal health care reform and urging the high court to uphold the landmark law.

“Though state governments and private actors have taken important and innovative steps to expand access to health care and to restrain the growth of health care costs, no remedy can be fully effective without action on a national level. The Commerce Clause empowers Congress to take such action, and Congress properly employed that power in addressing the nation’s healthcare crisis through the reforms enacted in the Affordable Care Act,” the amicus brief states.

In August 2011, a divided United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage provision, which requires that individuals maintain adequate health insurance, is unconstitutional. The United States government appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments in the matter in March 2012.

Attorney General Harris, joined by 12 other attorneys general, argued in a brief filed today in the U.S. Supreme Court that the Constitution gives Congress broad powers to regulate interstate commerce, including individual conduct that substantially affects interstate commerce.

The failure of millions of Americans to purchase health insurance has a substantial negative impact on interstate commerce, as well as state economies and budgets. In 2009, the healthcare economy accounted for 17.6% of the nation’s gross domestic product. In 2008, the cost of uncompensated health care — health care provided to those who lacked insurance or some other ability pay — was $43 billion nationally. As a result, providers shift a significant portion of those costs onto insurance companies and other payers. Each American family, on average, pays $1,000 more than necessary in health insurance premiums as a result of the shifting of those costs.

“Health care is one of the fastest growing expenditures in the federal budget, California’s state budget, and the budgets of families across America,” Attorney General Harris said. “Federal health care reform is not only essential to improving access to quality health care in California, it also is central to the long-term health of our economy, as well as state and local budgets.”

The historic health care reform law will reduce the need to shift the cost of uncompensated care of the uninsured or underinsured and will reduce the expenses absorbed by the states and by individuals with health insurance. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an indispensable aid to the states in their own efforts to tackle the healthcare problems their residents face.

Other states joining California in this brief are Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont. The brief is also joined by the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.

A copy of the amicus is attached to the online version of this release at www.oag.ca.gov.

LOS ANGELES – California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case that seeks to end the “pay-for-delay” agreements in which a drug company pays competitors not to market generic versions of its brand-name drug.

Attorney General Harris is the lead on this amicus brief, signed by 31 other attorneys general, which urges the U.S. Supreme Court to review these agreements that cost consumers billions of dollars and violate state and federal antitrust laws.

“Keeping generic drugs off the market forces Californians to pay artificially high prices and denies many access to the medication they need,” Attorney General Harris said. “Our office is committed to putting an end to anticompetitive schemes like this that drive up drug prices in order to protect pharmaceutical companies’ profits.”

In the matter before the Supreme Court, Bayer Corporation allegedly paid its competitors $400 million in exchange for agreements not to market generic versions of the popular antibiotic, Cipro, which is used to prevent and treat a variety of bacterial infections.

In 1997, several generic companies sought FDA approval to market generic versions of Cipro. To avoid losing $1 billion in annual sales of Cipro, Bayer sued the rival companies for patent infringement – and then paid them $400 million under the cover of settling the patent litigation. As part of the settlement, the companies agreed not to market a generic version of Cipro for six years.

In 2000, class action lawsuits were filed in New York on behalf of consumers against Bayer, as well as the companies with which Bayer entered pay-for-delay agreements, including Barr Laboratories, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Hoechst Marion Roussel and the Rugby Group. The rulings in those suits allowed drug companies to pay one another not to compete if done in the context of settling patent litigation – even if the patents involved were not necessarily valid or infringed upon.

The brief filed today supports a private antitrust lawsuit filed by direct purchasers of Cipro, which include large drug wholesalers, pharmacies, unions and health care plans.

In the brief, the California Attorney General’s Office, along with the 31 other states, urges the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the case for review and allow proper antitrust scrutiny of these agreements.

The amicus brief is attached.

Saying that “disrupting a private funeral with vicious personal attacks goes too far,” California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has signed a friend-of-the-court brief filed today in a Supreme Court case that will test whether families grieving at a funeral have a right to be free of hate-filled attacks from fanatical protesters.

Brown is one of 48 state attorneys general who gave their support to Albert Snyder in his lawsuit against Fred W. Phelps, Sr. and the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

Near the 2006 Maryland funeral of Snyder’s son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, the vehemently anti-gay Phelps and his parishioners demonstrated and waved signs that said “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and some that employed even more offensive language. Matthew Snyder, 20, was killed in a Humvee accident a month after he arrived in Iraq.

“Free speech is a cherished American right,” Brown said, “but disrupting a private funeral with vicious personal attacks on the grieving family goes too far.”

Phelps believes that U.S. military deaths represent God’s judgment on the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. He and his church members have staged their hate-filled protests at some 200 military funerals across the country.

Albert Snyder filed a civil suit against Phelps for invading his family’s privacy and intentionally inflicting emotional distress on them. A U.S. district court awarded Snyder $10 million, but a federal appeals court overturned that verdict and ordered Snyder to pay Phelps’ legal costs.

Forty states have enacted “funeral picketing” or “funeral protest” laws regulating the time, place and conduct of demonstrations near funeral services.

The amicus brief, submitted by Kansas Attorney General Steve Six, argues that such laws are necessary to protect the traditional “sanctity and privacy” of funerals and to prevent mourning families of veterans from being “attacked viciously and personally.” The picketing, the brief says, “amounts to emotional terrorism” directed at a “captive audience.”

Freedom of speech does not permit hate groups to espouse hate-filled vitriol at a private funeral service for the purpose of intentionally inflicting emotional distress on mourners.

“All we wanted,” Albert Snyder told a reporter, “was a private funeral for my son. They turned it into a three-ring circus.”

The Supreme Court is expected to hear his case in October. A copy of the brief is attached.