February 9, 2017

On January 30, Australian lawyer and judge Susan Kiefel became the first woman chief justice of the High Court of Australia. The High Court, similar to the Supreme Court of the United States, decides constitutional questions and serves as the ultimate court of appeal in Australia. Kiefel has served as a judge on the High Court since 2007.

High Court Chief Justice Susan Kiefel. Credit: High Court of Australia

Susan Mary Kiefel was born on Jan. 17, 1954, in Cairns, in the northern Australian state of Queensland. In 1969, she dropped out of high school. Over the next few years, she completed her secondary schooling at night while working full time as a legal secretary. She then studied law at night while continuing to work during the day. In 1975, she became a barrister (lawyer who has the right to argue cases in higher courts) of the Supreme Court of Queensland, the highest court in the state.

In 1985, Kiefel earned a master of laws degree from the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. In 1987, she was appointed queen’s counsel. A queen’s counsel is a distinguished barrister who serves as legal adviser to the British Crown.

From 1993 to 1994, Kiefel was a judge of the Supreme Court of Queensland. In 1994, she was appointed to serve as a judge of the Federal Court of Australia, a position she held until 2007. The Federal Court of Australia hears cases involving trade practices; bankruptcy; industrial disputes; and administrative law, which is the field of law that centers on the operations of government agencies. From 2004 to 2007, Kiefel also served as a judge of the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island, an Australian territory in the South Pacific Ocean. In 2007, she was appointed to serve as a judge on the High Court of Australia. In 2011, she was made a Companion in the Order of Australia. The Order of Australia is an award for service to the country or to humanity.

June 24, 2013

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four ruling, today struck down a central provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 4 of the act provided a formula for determining which states must submit any changes to existing voting laws to the Justice Department or to a federal court for approval. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had not provided adequate justification for subjecting nine states, mostly in the South, to federal oversight.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that Section 4 is unconstitutional because the standards by which states are judged are “based on decades-old data and eradicated practices. . . . Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. In 1965, the states could be divided into two groups: those with a recent history of voting tests and low voter registration and turnout, and those without those characteristics. Congress based its coverage formula on that distinction. Today the nation is no longer divided along those lines, yet the Voting Rights Act continues to treat it as if it were.”

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 protects the voting rights of African Americans and members of other minority groups in the United States. (National Archives)

The Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in the dissent: “Congress’s decision to renew the act and keep the coverage formula was an altogether rational means to serve the end of achieving what was once the subject of a dream: the equal citizenship stature of all in our polity, a voice to every voter in our democracy undiluted by race.”

Congress last renewed the law in 2006. In the majority opinion, Roberts noted that Congress remains free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights are at risk, but must base that oversight on contemporary data. Political experts suggest that given the current partisan deadlock in Congress, the imposition of new oversight is highly unlikely.

Additional World Book articles:

• Judicial review
• Poll tax
• Congress of the United States 1965 (a Back in Time article)

June 28, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court, in one of the most far-reaching decisions in years, upheld much of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s landmark health care law. In a 5-to-4 decision, the court confirmed that the individual health-insurance mandate is constitutional under Congress’s authority to tax citizens. The mandate requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine if they refuse.

The Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. (© Joe Sohm, Photo Researchers)

Legal and health care experts considered the individual mandate to be the most crucial issue before the court. Striking it down would have made it financially difficult for insurance companies to comply with other, more popular elements of the law without drastically raising premiums: Under the Affordable Care Act, for example, insurance companies can no longer limit or deny benefits to children because of a preexisting condition; and insurance companies must expand coverage to young adults up to age 26 under their parents’ plan. The act also provides subsidies to some lower middle-income households to buy insurance and to some businesses for insuring their employees.

A major provision of the Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid to cover a much wider range of lower income citizens. (Medicaid is a U.S. government program that works in cooperation with state governments to partly finance medical assistance to needy people.) On the question of Medicaid, the court ruled that the expansion could move forward. However, it struck down a provision that threatens states with the loss of Medicaid funding if the states refused to comply with the expansion.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., joined Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor in voting to uphold the law. Associate justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas voted against it.

The nine judges of the Supreme Court of the United States include Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., (seated, center) and eight associate justices: Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, and Elena Kagan (back row, left to right); and Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg (seated, left to right). (AP Photo)

Popularly known as Obamacare, the law is expected to eventually extend health care coverage to more than 30 million Americans who currently lack it. It was also designed to help rein in health care costs, one of the largest and fastest-growing sectors of the economy.

Political experts note that the health care debate is far from over. Republicans–including the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney–vow to overturn the act. Conservatives generally regard it as both unaffordable and an infringement on individual rights.

Additional World Book articles:

• Congress of the United States 2010 (a Back in Time article)
• Health 2010 (a Back in Time article)
• Entitlements–Benefit of Doubt (a special report)
• Health Care Reform–What’s In It for You? (a special report)
• Medicaid in Distress (a special report)