In his report on the pro-business tilt of the U.S. Supreme Court in Sunday’s New York Times, Adam Liptak confirmed what we reported back in April: that the court hears conservative voices weighing in on cases in the form of friend-of-the-court briefs far more often than it hears liberal voices.

The Chamber of Commerce tops the list this term, as the Constitutional Accountability Center points out in this report :

All told, the Chamber of Commerce has filed a whopping 18 amicus briefs this Term – just below its record number of 21 in October Term 2010.  Overall, the Court will likely decide 76 cases this Term, meaning that the Chamber will have participated in roughly 24% of the Court’s decided cases.

And the court has ruled in favor of the position advocated by the Chamber in six of seven cases so far, with many decisions still pending, adding to its winning record since 2006:

All told, since early 2006, the Chamber has won 79% of close cases decided by the Roberts Court (22 of 28) – that is, cases decided with a five-Justice majority.  And, in these close cases, when a Justice’s vote matters the most, support for the Chamber’s position from the Court’s conservative bloc has been overwhelming.

John Coleman has waited five years for records he sought via a Freedom of Information Request submitted to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

And that, said the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals today, is long enough. In an opinion by Judge Harvey Wilkinson, the court not only told the agency to get moving but also sent a message, loud and clear, to other agencies taking their time in responding to public records records requests:

We do recognize that agencies face their own challenges in implementing FOIA: the statute and its accompanying regulations are complex; the scope of the exemptions are open to interpretation and dispute; the volume of requests is frequently heavy; and citizens themselves often submit vague requests for voluminous materials. None of this, however, excuses what happened here, namely the agency’s maintenance of complete and utter silence for periods vastly exceeding at every juncture the statute’s requirement of a prompt response. Nowhere in FOIA did Congress contemplate government sitting on its hands for months at a time and doing nothing. The time has come for Coleman to receive resolution of his request of February 29, 2008.

The court sent Coleman’s case back to the district court with orders to “give due weight to the cumulative delays that have transpired in this case and to the importance of transparency in government.”

In orders and opinions issued this morning, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia resident-only public records law, dismissed an appeal challenging Louisiana’s five-year failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant, and refused to hear an appeal concerning Alabama’s attempts to revive portions of a state immigration law.

In McBurney v. Young, a unanimous Court ruled that Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act, which limits the provision of state public records to Virginia residents, does not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution. Several states  – Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Tennessee — have similar provisions. The Court’s ruling, affirming the decision of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, settles a split in the circuits. The Third Circuit in 2006 had held that Delaware’s FOIA did violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. More on the decision can be found here.

In Boyer v. Louisiana, the court dismissed as improvidently granted an appeal concerning an indigent murder defendant’s five-year wait for trial, which had been attributed to Louisiana’s failure to fund his defense counsel. In a concurring opinion, Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas found that the delays in reaching a trial were caused not by funding issues but rather by several defense requests for continuances.  Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer (who broke his shoulder in a bicycle fall this weekend) and Elena Kagan dissented.  Said Sotomayor:

We granted certiorari to decide whether a delay caused by a State’s failure to fund counsel for an indigent’s defense should be weighed against the State in determining whether there was a deprivation of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Rather than dismiss the writ as improvidently granted, I would simply address this question. Our precedents provide a clear answer: Such a delay should weigh against the State. It is important for States to understand that they have an obligation to protect a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.

In Alabama v. United States, the justices (excluding Justice Antonin Scalia) refused to hear an appeal concerning Alabama immigration law, including a section that made it a crime to harbor people who are living in the country illegally. As a result, the ruling of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — that the state lacked the authority to enforce the challenged provisions since immigration law is largely the responsibility of the federal government — remains in place. More on this case can be found here.

On the state Senate calendar for a second reading tonight is Senate Bill 359, which prohibits health insurers from using “most favored nation” clauses in contracts with health care providers.

Though not stated directly in the bill, the prohibition will directly impact Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, which  is the subject of a class action suit, Cerven v. BCBSNC, concerning its use of those clauses and other alleged anti-competitive conduct. The action was originally filed in federal court in Statesville in February 2012 but later transferred to a multidistrict  panel in Birmingham, Ala.,  joining 40 similar cases filed against Blue Cross entities around the country.

As we noted in a previous post:

The lawsuits come at a time when Blues across the country are under attack for their use of “most favored nation” clauses, which require providers to charge other insurers as much or more for services than they would charge a BCBS group. Critics say that the MFNs effectively allow BCBS to set the floor on pricing, undercutting other insurers and eliminating them from the market.

The company reported lower profits for last year, which it attributed to its preparation for the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

A bill filed yesterday by U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen (D-WA) would permit voters lacking a state-required photo or other ID to vote nonetheless in federal elections, so long as they submit a sworn statement attesting to their identity and their status as a registered voter. The only exception would be first-time voters who registered by mail; they would still be required to show identification.

The Constitution permits states to set “[t]he times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives,” but Congress may “at any time by law make or alter such regulations.”

Enactment of the bill, along with voter ID laws in North Carolina, would give rise to any number of practical problems during elections when both state and federal candidates are on the ballot, including the possibility of separate ballots and voting lines.

Add that to the list of reasons why lines are about to get a lot longer here should the package of voting bills (photo ID, no same day registration, no Sunday voting, shortened early voting) become law in N.C.

Maybe we should all vote by absentee ballot.