SCOTUS: Affordable Care Act is Constitutional

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional.

Chief Justice Roberts joined the four left-leaning justices on the bench making it a 5-4 vote in favor of saving the ACA in its entirety, with exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.

The individual mandate that requires people to buy health insurance, or face a penalty, was not upheld under the Commerce Clause, rather, the majority of Justices upheld the law as constitutional under the government's tax power. The penalty for failing to carry insurance possesses “the essential feature of any tax,” producing revenue for the government, Chief Justice Roberts wrote.

Although the Obama administration always asserted the penalty was valid under the federal taxing power, until Thursday no court had fully accepted that theory. Those that upheld the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as the law is known, did so under Congress's constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

The Court did restrict a portion of the ACA dealing with the expansion of Medicaid, which in its original state, allowed the federal government to withhold Medicaid funding from states who refused to follow the new eligibility requirements. As explained by Chief Justice Roberts, Congress acted constitutionally in offering states “new” Medicaid funds to expand coverage to millions of new individuals. The Court further held the government may constitutionally require compliance with the new ACA requirements in order to obtain these funds. Although Congress can deny the new funds to states choosing not to expand Medicaid, they cannot penalize those states by taking away their existing Medicaid funding. The Constitution therefore requires that states have a choice about whether to participate in the expansion; and if they decide not to, they can continue to collect existing funds.

Although todays decision leaves the ACA intact, its anticipated future is still unclear. House Speaker John Boehner said the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the majority of President Obama's healthcare reform law would “strengthen [the] resolve” of the GOP to repeal it entirely.

If everything goes as planned for the Obama Administration, most of the law's key provisions are set to take effect roughly two years from now, on January 1, 2014.

You can read the Court's opinion in its entirety here.

(c) Picture:  freedigitalphotos.net

Hinrichtung mit deutschem Narkosemittel?

Die Todesstrafe ist wohl die umstrittenste Strafe die ein Gericht verhängen kann. In Amerika wurde die Todesstrafe erst 2008 vom Supreme Court als verfassungskonform bestätigt, trotzdem kämpft auch Amerika mit der Frage ob die Todesstrafe weiter verhängt und ausgeführt werden sollte. Sie ist eigentlich zu teuer und zweifelhaft.

In der Mehrzahl der amerikanischen Bundesstaaten (34 von 50) besteht noch die Möglichkeit die Todesstrafe zu verhängen. Trotzdem hat im Herbst 2011 der letzte amerikanische Hersteller für Gift, das in den Giftspritzen verwendet wurde, seine Produktion eingestellt. Die andauernden Proteste hatten den Hersteller zermürbt.

Seitdem haben die für die Hinrichtung Verantwortlichen Schwierigkeiten, Urteile zu vollstrecken, weil ihnen schlichtweg das nötige Gift fehlt. Angewendet werden Barbiturate, also Narkosemittel, die in bestimmten Dosen tödlich wirken. Die Justizbehörden in den US-Staaten müssen nun nach einer Alternative suchen.

Das deutsche Unternehmen Fresenius Kabi, aus Hessen, das eine Tochter des deutschen DAX Konzerns Fresenius ist, exportiert das Narkosemittel Propofol in die USA. Dort könnte es jedoch unter anderem als Wirkstoff für Giftspritzen eingesetzt werden.

Seit Dezember 2005 verbietet jedoch die europäische Anti-Folter Verordnung, den Export von Folterinstrumente, wie Daumenschrauben, Elektroschocker, Chemikalien und Barbituraten. Seit 2011 finden sich auf der Liste auch einige Narkosemittel, die sich für die Todesstrafe eignen. Seitdem ist der Export nur noch möglich wenn die Hersteller nachweisen, das die Produkte ausschliesslich für medizinische Zwecke genutzt werden.

Propofol, bekannt geworden durch den Tod von Michael Jackson, findet sich noch nicht auf dieser Liste. Es wird in Krankenhäusern und Arztpraxen eingesetzt und von über tausend Großhändlern vertrieben. Eine Lieferkontrolle gestalte sich extrem schwierig, so der Hersteller. Die EU-Kommision prüft nun, Propofol auf die Liste der Anti-Folter Verordnung zu setzen. Dies ist allerdings nur dann möglich, wenn es tatsächlich für Hinrichtungen genutzt wird. 

(c) Picture:  freedigitalphotos.net  

Apple und der Iran

Das US Embargo gegen den Iran beginnt absurde Kreise zu ziehen. Im U.S. Bundesstaat Georgia wurde einer Studentin der Verkauf eines iPads versagt, weil sie im Apple Laden Farsi gesprochen hatte.

Die 19-jährige Studentin, wollte ein iPad für ihren Cousin im Iran kaufen, wurde jedoch durch die Apple Verkäufer mit dem Satz: „unsere Länder haben schlechte Beziehungen“, daran gehindert.

Grund für das strikte Verhalten der Verkäufer gegenüber Iranern oder Menschen mit Beziehungen zum Iran liegt in dem amerikanischen Embargo. Apple ist angehalten keine Produkte in Länder wie Iran, Kuba oder Nordkorea zu liefern. Landet jedoch ein Apple Produkt in einem der genannten Länder, ist die Verkaufsstelle dafür haftbar, auch wenn sie das Produkt ursprünglich nur an eine Privatperson verkauft hatte. Die Strafen dafür sind empfindlich. Bis zu $250.000 können die U.S. Behörden verlangen.

Interessant ist jedoch wie rigide Apple den Verkauf verhindert. Die betroffene Studentin ist amerikanische Staatsbürgerin und studiert in Georgia. Das sie das Gerät weiter geben wollte, hatte sie nicht erwähnt, sie hatte lediglich in der Landessprache gesprochen. Damit könnte hier ein Verstoß gegen US-amerikanische Anti-Diskriminierungsvorschriften vorliegen.

(c) Picture:  Apple

Disney sagt der Fettleibigkeit den Kampf an

Die Walt Disney Company ("Disney") hat den Kampf gegen die Fettleibigkeit von Kindern begonnen.

Der grösste Medienkonzern der Welt hat beschlossen auf seinen Internetseiten und Fernsehsendern ab 2015 keine Werbung mehr für ungesundes Essen auszustrahlen. Man wolle die Zielgruppe von Disney, also vorwiegend Kinder und Jugendliche, beim Abnehmen unterstützen.

Ab 2015 darf nur noch Werbung für Lebensmittel und Getränke gezeigt werden, die einen gewissen Nährwertstandard erfüllen. Die Standards entsprechen landesweit gültigen Richtlinien und zielen neben gesünderem Essen auf die Reduzierung von gesättigten Fettsäuren, Salz und Zucker.

Neben dem Werbeverbot für ungesundes Essen, will Disney bereits 2012 eine Lebensmittelkennzeichnung, den „Mickey Check“, entwerfen, die helfen soll in den Freizeitparks und Geschäften gesundes Essen ausfindig zu machen.

Prominente Unterstützung erhält der Konzern von Michelle Obama, die sich sehr für gesunde Ernährung einsetzt und mit dem hauseignen Gemüsegarten mit gutem Beispiel voran geht.

Der Kampf gegen die Fettleibigkeit ist eine andauernde Debatte in den USA. 36% der amerikanischen Bevölkerung leidet unter Adipositas, 17% der amerikanischen Kinder gelten als stark übergewichtig.

Bereits im Mai, hatte New Yorks Bürgermeister die Debatte angeheizt, als er ankündigte, XXL Becher und Flaschen für Süssgetränke aus der Stadt zu verbannen. Verboten werden sollen alle zuckerhaltigen Getränke mit über einem halben Liter Inhalt.

Das Massnahmen wie dieses drastisch wirken, aber offensichtlich nötig sind, zeigt die Tatsache, das die Fähren im U.S. Bundesstaat Washington ihre Passagierzahl verringern mussten, um Schlagseite zu verhindern.

(c) Picture:  freedigitalphotos.net

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Arizona Immigration Law - Summary and Background Information*

We have been following the infamous Arizona immigration law, as well as similar immigration laws in other states, closely. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down three of the four provisions in the controversial Arizona immigration law. 

However, the most controversial element of the law, which requires police officers to review a person's immigration status if they suspect that person is in the country illegally, is kept in place (for now). Once lower courts rule on the matter this part of the law could be thrown out as well.

The following background information and summary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Arizona et al. v. United States have been provided by BridgehouseLaw Atlanta attorney Roman Plachý.

The Federal Government’s broad, unquestionable power over immi gration and alien status rests on its constitutional power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and includes, among other things, specifying categories of aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, requires aliens to register with the Federal Govern ment and to carry proof of status, imposes sanc tions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, and spec ifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so. Removing, more commonly known as deportation, is a discretionary civil matter exercised by immigration officials. The Department of Homeland Security, through its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing (deporting) illegal aliens as well as providing immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials. 

Recently, Arizona legislators found that it is in the State’s interest to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States. In 2010 Arizona enacted a statute called the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” (S. B. 1070) to address this issue. With Arizona’s controversial legislative approach now spreading to several other states including Georgia, the United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted by the “Supremacy Clause” of the U.S. Constitution which gives Congress the power to preempt state law. 

The lower Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect: 

• Section 3 which makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; 
• Section 5(C) which makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; 
• Section 6 which authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe … has committed any public offense that makes the person remova ble from the United States”; and, 
• Section 2(B) which requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had es tablished a likelihood of success on its preemption claims. 

On June 25, 2012 the U.S. Supreme Court held that Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of the Arizona immigration law are preempted by federal law. 

• Relying on precedent, the Court stated that Section 3’s registration provision intrudes on a “complete” federal registration plan to be a “single integrated and all-embracing system” prohibiting even complementary state regulation. 
• Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty of aliens is unconstitutional because Congress decided it would be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties on unauthorized em ployees and therefore a state law to the contrary is an obstruction to the regulatory system Congress chose. 
• Section 6 fails because it attempts to provide state officers with even greater arrest authority than that granted federal officers by Congress in limited circumstances, which state officers could exercise without in struction from the Federal Government. 

However, the Judges did permit to stand (rather that the injunction was imporper) Section 2(B)’s provisions requiring state officers to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government with the limitation that: 

(1) a detainee is pre sumed not to be an illegal alien if he or she provides a valid Arizona driver’s license or similar identification; 

(2) officers may not consider race, color, or national origin “except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution[s]”; and 

(3) be “im plemented in a manner consistent with federal law regulating immi gration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.” 

The Court found that the mandatory nature of the immigration status checks does not inter fere with Congress’ immigration scheme as consultation between fed eral and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system including encouraging the sharing of information about possible immigration violations.

Nevertheless, the Court did leave open a potential challenge to Section 2(B)’s constitutionality. If the law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the law would likely survive further challenge on preemption. The Court’s concern is that it is unknown whether in carrying out Arizona’s law state officers would delay the release of detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status, which raises potential 4th Amendment (prevention of unreasonable search and seizure) issues and would potentially put state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision.

The Court’s decision in the case highlights many of the same pitfalls similar states will soon find themselves, but at the same time provides states guidance on a narrow approach to immigration enforcement that would work on the state level. Only time and most likely several more trips to the Court will tell.

*Author: Attorney Roman Plachý of BridgehouseLaw Atlanta.

Maximum Daily Limit for Credit Card Payments is Lowered – Effective 6/30/2012

Effective June 30, 2012, the daily limit per credit card account will be lowered from the current $99,999.99 to $49,999.99, and the daily limit for debit cards will be eliminated. 

The new daily limit for credit cards was imposed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and will be enforced through Pay.gov, the system used by the Department of Treasury to process all credit and debit card payments. If a cardholder exceeds the daily limit, the system will reject the payment and notify the user that the daily maximum has been reached.

Although this change is not entirely relevant to the average American, businesses who make large amounts of purchases on their credit cards could be affected by this. Alternative ways for credit card holders to submit large dollar payments include through a deposit account, electronic funds transfer (EFT) over the USPTO website, or a wire transfer through the Federal Reserve Fedwire System.

(c) Picture:  freedigitalphotos.net  

Obama Suspends Deportation of Eligible Young Undocumented Immigrants*

This past Friday, President Obama announced a new federal policy that will ease enforcement of immigration laws and allow an unprecedented number of undocumented immigrants to apply for work permits. The change in policy is estimated to affect as many as 800,000 immigrants nationwide, and just under 40,000 undocumented immigrants in North Carolina.

Taking effect immediately, this policy will grant “deferred action” on deportation proceedings if the individual came to the U.S. under the age of sixteen; has continuously resided here for at least five years preceding June 15, 2012; and is currently in school, has graduated from high school (or obtained a general education development certificate), or is an honorably discharged veteran of the U.S. Coast Guard or Armed Forces. Additionally, the individual must not have any serious criminal convictions or be over the age of thirty.

Under this policy, President Obama and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are permitted to exercise their prosecutorial discretion, which gives them the power to examine individual cases of immigrants in making deportation decisions. It allows the President to accept or reject applicants based on the requirements drawn up by the DHS and to interfere in cases when immigrants are already in removal proceedings.

President Obama’s new immigration plan closely resembles the DREAM Act, which was blocked by Republican lawmakers in 2010. One major difference in the new policy is that it does not grant a path to citizenship, as the DREAM Act would do. Because the use of prosecutorial discretion confers no substantive right or pathway to citizenship, the DHS cannot provide assurance that all deferred action requests will be granted. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights. It is the hope of many undocumented students and their supporters that President Obama’s announcement will increase the pressure on Congress to end the Republican filibuster and send the DREAM Act to the president’s desk.

Opponents of the new policy fear it may have taken away the opportunity for American citizens and legal immigrants in their pursuit of the American dream to get an education, go on to college, and join the work force. Opponents also say that with unemployment still sitting at over 8 percent, our economy is not stable enough to deal with this added increase to the workforce.

Whatever measures Congress decides to take in the future, it is clear that the majority of people in the U.S. would like to see comprehensive immigration reform that puts in place a more long term solution to the problem. 

*Author:  BridgehouseLaw Charlotte Summer Associate Lindsey Ogden.

(c) Picture:  freedigitalphotos.net

ATTENTION: Less Than 10,000 H-1B Visas Available

USCIS

As explained in previous FY 2013 H-1B cap count update, H-1B visa petitions are generally subject to the 65,000 H-1B numerical limitation (the “cap”). Some petitions, however, are exempt from the cap under the advanced degree exemption provided to the first 20,000 petitions filed for a beneficiary who has obtained a U.S. master’s degree or higher. Petitions of non-profit organizations and institutions are also exempt from the cap.

As of June 1, 2012, 55,600 cap eligible petitions were filed with USCIS which means that there are less than 10,000 visas available.

As a result, the cap could be reached within the next few days; an important factor that needs to be taken into considerations by prospective H-1B petitioners and beneficiaries. 

Should you have any questions or concerns with regard to H-1B visas, please feel free to contact BridgehouseLaw.

“Mein Kopf gehört mir" mit Dr. Christoph Rückel

Die deutsche Zeitung “Handelsblatt” hatte im April diesen Jahres eine Aktion unter dem Motto, “mein Kopf gehört mir” ins Leben gerufen. Hintergrund der Aktion war es, Künstlern, Unternehmern, Politikern, Wissenschaftlern und anderen führenden Persönlichkeiten aus der Kulturlandschaft Deutschlands, ein Forum für ihre Meinung zur aktuellen Debatte um die Abschaffung des Urheberrechts zu bieten.

Dr. Christoph Rückel, Seniorpartner und Mitbegründer von BridgehouseLaw, war eingeladen, neben Köpfen wie Maria Furtwängler, Renate Künast, Thomas Middlehoff und Bert Rürup, Stellung zu nehmen.

Die Meinung von Dr. Rückel zum Urheberrecht finden Sie hier.

(c) Picture:  freedigitalphotos.net

Law License to Illegal Immigrant?

Can an illegal immigrant become a lawyer? This is the question California’s Supreme Court deals with at the moment.

Sergio C.Garcia is an illegal immigrant who was brought into the United States by his parents from Mexico at the age of 17 months. He attended college in Chico (Butte County, California) and works as a paralegal.

He now asked the State Bar of California to admit him to practice law.

The State Bar certified him after he passed a written test and a moral examination. The bar then sent his case to the California Supreme Court for routine approval informing them at the same time that Garcia was an undocumented alien. Instead of a simple approval, the state high court ordered the bar to explain why an illegal immigrant should be given a legal license. 

The California Supreme Court will be considering whether state or federal laws preclude the Court from admitting an undocumented immigrant to the bar, and whether a law license would impliedly represent that an attorney can be legally employed. The court has also asked the California Committee of Bar Examiners to address the legal and public policy limitations on an undocumented immigrant's ability to practice law.

The importance of that question shows when looking at its effects. With granting an illegal immigrant a license for law practice other licensed professions could have to admit undocumented immigrants, too ("flood gate argument"). The other question arising is what it means to give an illegal immigrant a certified status in his profession.

Stanford Law professor Deborah Rhode, a legal ethicist, said she would be surprised if the court approved a legal license for Garcia before he obtained residency.

"It seems fairly inconsistent with a long line of decisions that officers of the court are forsworn to uphold the law and should not be seen to have defied it," she said. But she also cautioned that Garcia could have a personally compelling case. 

"Some of these cases are really heart-wrenching on the facts, especially undocumented immigrants who are brought over to this country at a young age, who go through the school system, who managed to triumph over a lot of obstacles, and who have now invested all this money in a degree," she said.

Garcia is not the only illegal immigrant seeking a law license. A similar case was brought before the Florida Supreme Court. Both decisions are yet to come.

(c) Picture:  freedigitalphotos.net

Opponents of Alabama’s Immigration Laws Find New Ways to Appeal to Legislature

The Alabama Great Seal

Civil rights and labor groups opposed to Alabama’s immigration law, known as HB 658, want to send a message to the Alabama Legislature. Since the legislature has been largely unresponsive to protests up to this point, opponents are finding another way to appeal to them – this time through their pocketbooks.

Leaders of a new coalition opposing HB 658 plan to hold demonstrations in front of 73 Hyundai dealerships around Montgomery County warning tourists not to visit the state because of the measures the immigration law puts in place.

Several people are puzzled by this new direction taken by protestors of the law. Because of the number of immigrants who have jobs in the tourism industry, Alabama State tourism director Lee Sentell says these demonstrations, if effective, will only make immigrants worse off. The executive director for corporate communications for Hyundai, Chris Hosford, said in a statement that Hyundai has a longstanding commitment to human rights and he does not understand why the company would be singled out for the protest.

These new protests were likely prompted by the Alabama Legislature’s recent revisions to HB 658, one of which creates a page on the official state website dedicated to publishing the names of all undocumented immigrants who appear in court for violations. Additional measures put in place by HB 658 have dubbed it as one of the toughest in the nation. One provision requires individuals to carry proof of legal status at all times and allows police to detain people who can’t provide proof of legal status.

The anticipated Supreme Court decision over Arizona’s immigration law could effectively settle the highly charged debate between states and the federal government over immigration enforcement. Regardless of the outcome, advocates on both sides look forward to seeing the roles of federal and local authorities clarified, after which, they hope our country will begin taking steps toward a more protected border.

Vorbereitung auf den Einbürgerungstest

Um die Staatsbürgerschaft der USA zu erhalten, muss man unter anderem einen Englisch Test und einen Einbürgerungstest machen. Das Departement of Homeland Security stellt dafür auf seiner Webseite Übungsmaterialien zur Verfügung.

Als neues Feature bietet das Smithsonian National Museum of American History ein Internet basiertes Übungsprogramm an, das Einwanderern helfen soll, sich auf den Bürgerkundeteil des Tests vorzubereiten. Das sogenannte, „Preparing for the Oath: US History and Civics for Citizenship“ Programm, beinhaltet Videos sowie interaktive Übungen und zeigt Artefakte aus der Sammlung und den Ausstellungen des Smithsonian Instituts anhand deren man etwas über die Geschichte Amerikas und seiner Demokratie lernen kann.

Das Programm soll Einwanderern die Prinzipien der amerikanischen Demokratie und die Rechte und Aufgaben eines Staatsbürgers nahebringen. Dabei ist es als Programm zum Selbststudium angelegt.

Es basiert auf den 100 Fragen aus denen auch das Departement for Homeland Security schöpft und teilt sich auf in Themenbereiche wie Geschichte, Politik und Gemeinschaftskunde. Die einzelnen Themenbereiche werden von Videos, interaktive Module und Wissenstests begleitet.

Interessant ist das Programm auch für Lehrer, umfasst es doch auch eine Anleitung, wie man das Programm im Unterrichtsumfeld einsetzen kann. 

In diesem Sinne, frohes Lernen!

(c) Picture:  freedigitalphotos.net