Just compensation

Editor's note: The following text is a transcript of a podcast story. To listen to the story, click on the arrow beneath the headline above.

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Thursday the 25th of June. Thank you for listening to WORLD Radio. 

Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard.

MYRNA BROWN, HOST: And I’m Myrna Brown.

First up on The World and Everything in It: The Supreme Court handed down five opinions on Tuesday.

Here’s WORLD legal correspondent Jenny Rough on three of them.

JENNY ROUGH: Two decisions make it harder for a person to file a lawsuit for religious persecution.

In Cisco Systems vs Doe, the plaintiffs practice a religion known as Falun Gong. They argued Cisco should be held responsible for developing surveillance technology that allowed the Chinese government to track, arrest, and torture them in cruel and inhuman ways.

In Landor vs Louisiana, an inmate sued prison guards in their individual capacities for forcibly shaving his dreadlocks in violation of his faith. The federal statute at play gives strong religious protections to the institutionalized.

But in both cases, the court said that the relevant statutes did not authorize the specific cause of action the plaintiffs' brought. Cause of action meaning the legal basis that allows someone to sue for a remedy. 

In Cisco, the plaintiffs sued under two statutes—one ruling was 6 to 3, and the other 8 to 1. Landor was 6 to 3.

WILLIAM WAGNER: Religious people aren’t getting helped a whole lot by this decision today, but in a way they are because—

—because the cases are really about separation of powers among the three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. 

Lawyer William Wagner has worked in all three and explains: If Congress wants to change the law, it’s the branch that’s tasked with doing so. The judiciary is not a policy-making branch … and therefore the court did not decide whether the conduct was wrong.

WAGNER: This may be a three-ring circus, but we are not in the ring with the donkeys, we are not in the ring with the elephants, you know? Our job is to just decide cases and controversies that come before us with the law that the donkeys and the elephants give us.

A third decision involved a U.S. business seeking money for assets confiscated under Fidel Castro’s regime. The court held 6 to 3 that the federal statute at play waives Cuba’s sovereign immunity.

BROWN: And the final two opinions from Tuesday, clarifying property rights and immigration enforcement.

In Pung v Isabella County, a decision that says when the government sells your home to pay off a tax debt, the auction must be conducted fairly.

REICHARD: The Pung family lost their nearly $200,000 home over a $2,000 tax debt. The question was must the government pay what the market value is or take what it gets at auction?

The Court rejected fair market value as the baseline, but also rejected that auction proceeds automatically equal just compensation.

LA FETRA: The Pung family lives to fight another day.

Meaning, that case is sent back to lower court. 

Deborah La Fetra is senior attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation that represented the family. Her advice to taxpayers going forward?

LA FETRA: So if you are in tax foreclosure, do what you can to pay the taxes. If the house is going to be sold, it's better to sell it yourself. And if the government is going to sell it, try to ensure that it's a fair process.

BROWN: And lastly, Blanche vs Lau. 

A 6-3 decision says border patrol agents have the right to temporarily “parole” (release) a returning green-card holder into the U.S. if he or she has pending criminal charges in lieu of automatically admitting the person.

Lau is a Chinese citizen and permanent U.S. resident. He left the country briefly and upon return, border agents found he had a pending federal charge. Instead of just letting him back in, they put him on parole so the government could hold a deportation hearing.

REICHARD: Lau had argued officials needed “clear and convincing evidence” of a crime before treating him like a new applicant.

The majority disagreed with that. 

Hans von Spakovsky is Senior Legal Fellow at Americans Advancing Freedom, and noted the long line for customs at airports:

SPAKOVSKY: The agent doesn't have time or the ability to conduct some kind of extensive hearing on whether someone has actually been convicted. The fact that he's been charged with a crime is sufficient.

The court is expected to release opinions today and next week as well.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.