The Supreme Court's Impact on State and Local Government.

• Author: Soronen, Lisa
• Position: FEDERAL UPDATE

Members are familiar with GFOA's legislative and regulatory activity in Washington, D.C., but our efforts extending to the judicial branch may not be as well known. GFOA is an associate member of the State and Local Legal Center (SLLC), which files amicus curiae briefs in support of states and local governments in the U.S. Supreme Court. Other SLLC members include the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayors, and International City/County Management Association. All GFOA members and associate members may join SLLC amicus briefs, which advocate for legal positions favorable to state and local governments and provide the court with policy and practical reasons to rule in favor of the SLLC's position.

The SLLC files briefs for cases that cover a range of topics affecting states and local governments, including federalism, preemption, First Amendment free speech rights, qualified immunity (usually for police officers), Fifth Amendment takings, public employment, deference to federal agency rules, and taxation. Finance officers need to be aware of these types of cases as they wind through the judicial system because their final rulings can shape public policy. Below are some of the cases of import to state and local governments that either the Supreme Court has decided or will be deciding in the coming months.

Note: * Indicates a case where the State and Local Legal Center has filed or will file a Supreme Court amicus brief.

Recently decided cases

Torres v. Madrid. * In a 5-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that per the Fourth Amendment, a person may be considered seized even if that person gets away.

In this case, police officers intended to execute a warrant in an apartment complex. Although they didn't think she was the target of the warrant, they approached Roxanne Torres in the parking lot. According to Torres, she was experiencing methamphetamine withdrawal and didn't notice the officers until one tried to open her car door. Although the officers wore tactical vests with police identification, Torres claimed she only saw the officers had guns. She thought she was being carjacked and drove away.

She claimed the officers weren't in the path of the vehicle, but they fired 13 shots, hitting her twice. Torres drove to a nearby parking lot, asked a bystander to report the attempted carjacking, stole another car, and drove 75 miles to a hospital.

Torres sued the police officers, claiming their use of force was excessive in violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against "unreasonable searches and seizures."

The officers argued, and the lower court agreed, that Torres couldn't bring an excessive force claim because she was never "seized"...