The New York Times reports today that “the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether Arizona may impose tough anti-immigration measures. Among them, in a law enacted last year, is a requirement that the police there question people they stop about their immigration status.”

ABC News reports ”the case will be argued sometime this spring,” adding that, “although deeply opposed to the law, the Obama administration had asked the Supreme Court to refrain from taking up the case at this juncture.”

Kris Kobach, current Kansas secretary of state and the coauthor of S.B. 1070 and other immigration enforcement-only efforts, wrote in May 2010: “[S.B. 1070] makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration violations while in Arizona.”

S.B. 1070 was passed by the Arizona Legislature in the first months of 2010, and was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer in April; the measure was immediately challenged by the Obama administration.

The Times adds that the Obama administration “challenged four provisions” of S.B. 1070: “The most prominent was a requirement that state law enforcement officials determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if officials have reason to believe that the individual might be an illegal immigrant.”

According to ABC News, “similar legislation is pending in Utah, South Carolina, Indiana, Georgia and Alabama.”

The Supreme Court of the United States Blog writes today: “The Arizona measure, and one in Alabama that goes even further, were passed by state legislatures with the specific intent of making life so difficult for undocumented aliens that they would choose to leave the state. Other states are also passing similar measures.”

“Arizona’s infamous anti-immigrant law, SB 1070,” and other similar state laws, according to the Immigration Policy Center, ”impose unfunded mandates on the police, jails, and courts; drive away workers, taxpayers, and consumers upon whom the state economy depends; and invite costly lawsuits and tourist boycotts. These are economic consequences which few states can afford at a time of gaping budget deficits.”

Labeling lawsuits launched against the landmark health care reform as “politically-motivated,” Harkin said in statement that he was sure the U.S. Supreme Court would find the law constitutional.

Here’s Harkin’s full statement:

“I’m pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to promptly resolve conflicting lower court decisions concerning the Affordable Care Act. These politically-motivated lawsuits are a waste of judicial resources, and an unnecessary distraction from the important work of moving ahead with implementing the health reform law.

“I am confident that the Court will uphold the Act’s constitutionality, affirming the common sense notion that, as a Republican-appointed D.C. Circuit judge wrote last week, the Constitution gives Congress the power to ‘forge national solutions to national problems.’ Virtually all Americans will use health care, whether or not they choose to purchase insurance. Thus, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make that marketplace fairer and more affordable. The Affordable Care Act does just that.

“I look forward to the Court ending this period of legal uncertainty, allowing us to focus on expanding coverage and improving health care quality for all Americans.”

Gov. Terry Branstad is among Republican officials from 26 states and a small business advocacy group that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the entire law. SCOTUS announced Monday that it would hear the case.

A lawsuit hoping to repeal landmark health care reforms will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, and a decision will likely be handed down in advance of the 2012 general election.

The U.S. Supreme Court announce Monday that the justices will hear a challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in late winter or early spring of 2012. Specifically, the justices will be asked if a requirement within the law that mandates health insurance or financial penalties is proper.

Once oral arguments have been made before the court, any decision should be made public by the end of June 2012.

“One of the things I’m most passionate about is the usurpation of authority the judiciary has done over the last couple decades in this country,” Santorum told a crowd of about 50 in Urbandale.

Santorum said it’s clear to him the U.S. Constitution gives the judicial branch the least power because it’s listed third in the articles, after the legislative and executive branches. He also questioned whether the Constitution allows for courts outside of the U.S. Supreme Court, and said the two other branches established those courts.

“They can establish them, and if those courts violate the Constitution and do things that they should be stopped from doing, they have the power to repeal those courts, to abolish these courts,” said the Pennsylvania Republican.

The “poster child for rogue courts” is the 9th Circuit, he said, accusing it of rewriting the Constitution. He wants to break the 9th Circuit into two or three separate courts and replace all the judges.

“This will be a very important signal to be sent to the judiciary that they are an equal branch of government, not a superior branch of government,” Santorum said, seemingly contradicting earlier statements.

And while Santorum said he’s “not a big fan” of Constitutional amendments, it’s the only thing that’s left “when the courts have run roughshod.” He wants amendments to ban same-sex marriage and abortion.

“Since they amended the Constitution by legal decision, they only way to legitimately turn around and overturn this interpretation of the Constitution is to clarify it for them and let them know exactly what our country wants,” he said.

He called the Roe v. Wade decision “a legal fiction” that says “not all human life are people.”

“Well we know for a fact that at the moment of fertilization we have an entity that is a unique human being with its own unique DNA and that it is alive,” Santorum said. “Therefore by any biological definition it is a human life, and as a human life it should be treated with the same dignity of all human life in our society.”

He called for a Constitutional amendment defining personhood as the moment of fertilization.

“My proposal is let’s help out the United States Supreme Court determine what a person is, since they seem to have such a hard time figuring that out,” Santorum said.

Although pieces of the law have been blocked by federal courts, some sections have gone into effect, including a provision that bans courts from enforcing contracts made with unauthorized immigrants. While some states have banned public agencies from making contracts with unauthorized immigrants, no state or developed country has prohibited courts from enforcing any contract with the undocumented, say experts in immigration and human rights.

“We don’t know of a similar parallel, either internationally or elsewhere in the United States, where contracts with unauthorized immigrants are deemed unenforceable,” says Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the Migration Policy Institute.

“The bottom line is that Alabama’s law is a complete outlier,” says Alison Parker, director of Human Rights Watch’s U.S. program. “The only country where we are aware of something that comes close to what Alabama has done” is Italy, she said, pointing to a law that makes it illegal to rent to to unauthorized immigrants. “What they are doing in the state of Alabama runs in the face of human rights law.”

European countries have traditionally been viewed as less welcoming of immigrants than the United States, which for much of its history allowed migrant workers to cross the borders with Mexico and Canada without clearance from a government agency. Parker’s colleague Benjamin Ward, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s European program, called Alabama’s law “unbelievable and horrific.”

Throughout the twentieth century, border security efforts have steadily increased, and repeated attempts have been made to bring formerly unlimited quantities of new immigrants down to what’s considered by policymakers to be a manageable level.

But Parker says there’s an important distinction between controlling immigration at the border and stripping rights from immigrants already in the country.

“Everyone has the right to a family life, to a roof over one’s head, to compensation for work,” says Parker. “Once people are here, there are certain fundamental rights protected by human rights law.” European governments have tended to adhere to that standard.

Mittelstadt points out that immigrants in Europe tend to be registered with the government, which means that the contract rights of immigrants aren’t likely to be subject to Alabama-style laws: “In Europe, where national ID cards and registration programs for foreigners prevail, employers and others would not be likely to enter into contracts with unauthorized immigrants.”

At this point it’s unclear how the Alabama immigration law will be interpreted by the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, which is likely to step in now that the appellate courts have issued different decisions on state-level “enforcement only” laws (the Ninth Circuit upheld a decision to block Arizona’s immigration law from going into effect earlier this year).

The ban on contracts is especially murky, and there are few precedents that experts can point towards to predict its viability in the courts. The most relevant precedent could be a 2002 Supreme Court case, Hoffman Plastic v. NLRB, in which the court ruled that unauthorized immigrants aren’t entitled to back pay under the National Labor Relations Act. But the Court did establish that unauthorized immigrants were “employees” under the Act and had the right to organize.

However, it may be Alabama’s own state constitution that determines the fate of the contract ban.

As ThinkProgress reported, an Alabama state judge indicated in a decision earlier this week that the contract ban appears to violate Section 95 of Alabama’s own constitution, which states:

There can be no law of this state impairing the obligation of contracts by destroying or impairing the remedy for their enforcement; and the legislature shall have no power to revive any right or remedy which may have become barred by lapse of time, or by any statute of this state. After suit has been commenced on any cause of action, the legislature shall have no power to take away such cause of action, or destroy any existing defense to such suit.

In an opinion on a breach of contract lawsuit filed by an undocumented immigrant, Alabama Circuit Judge Scott Vowell wrote, “It may well be that that [the Alabama immigration law] also violates this section of the constitution” by “impairing the obligation of contracts.”

But since the case in question was filed before the immigration law went into effect, the judge didn’t outright rule the section unconstitutional, merely that the law could not take away an immigrant’s “cause of action” or “existing defense” after his or her case has already been filed.

In its brief with the court (pdf), Catholic Answers argues that, in seeking to establish the legality of the group’s claim to tax-exempt status, the IRS has forced the group to continue to refile refund claims for years, effectively postponing a decision in the matter and thereby “chilling speech.”

Tax-exempt nonprofit groups such as churches are barred from performing express political candidate advocacy. They can take up political issues, however, and in championing charged issues like abortion, for example, the line separating advocacy for an anti-abortion position and the Republican Party generally has become thinner and thinner.

Catholic Answers calls itself an “apostolate,” by which it means it is carrying on its educational and evangelical mission with the Church’s blessing, although none of its members are ordained. Established in 1979, the group produces books, magazines, videos and a daily radio show on Church teachings and Church positions on issues of the day.

The group is being represented in its case against the IRS by high-profile religious-right attorney James Bopp, a reported adviser to presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Bopp advised Citizens United in its now-famous campaign finance case. He also defended the national anti-abortion organization Susan B Anthony List in a defamation suit filed by former Congressman Steve Driehaus. Bopp has also served as general counsel for National Right to Life and as special counsel for Focus on the Family.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The Congressional Leadership Fund plans to “counter efforts on the left including the House Majority PAC, unions and the ACORN style groups. This is an independent expenditure fund focused solely and exclusively on maintaining and expanding the Center Right Congressional majority,” according to its website.

Coleman currently heads the American Action Network (AAN), a conservative non-profit that spent at least $18 million for Republican candidates or positions in the last election cycle, according to Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW).

The group’s board includes other members of the American Action Network like former Minnesota U.S. Rep. Vin Weber and AAN President Brian Walsh Politico reports.  Last year, CREW asked the IRS to reconsider the American Action Network’s non-profit status due to its political activity.

The new organization is planning a fundraising event featuring Republican leaders from both houses of Congress on Nov. 2, according to CBS.

A ruling by the Federal Elections Commission this summer allows federal candidates to directly raise funds of up to $5,000 for Super PACs. Democratic congressional leaders have already adopted a Super PAC, the Majority PAC.

Due to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, Super PACs are unburdened by disclosure requirements and can accept unlimited donations. The groups are increasingly influential in the political system, having already spent $2.5 million in this young election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The case, KFC Corporation v. Iowa Department of Revenue, questioned if the company, which owns no restaurants or employs no person directly in the state, could be held liable for property taxes on its licensed franchises. Attorneys for KFC launched the suit, arguing that an earlier U.S. Supreme Court case that found a mail order vender with no physical address in North Dakota to be exempt from paying sales and use taxes under Commerce Clause law also applied to company that had no physical assets in Iowa.

In an Amicus brief by Washington, D.C.-based Tax Executives Institute, Inc. attorneys for the organization held that the key issue of the case was if a state could impose a corporate income tax on a business with no connection to the state other than having customers.

Since the Court’s 1992 decision in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which sustained a taxpayer challenge under the Commerce Clause, states and taxpayers have been left unassisted in their efforts to interpret and apply these limits. The resulting clutter of vague and inconsistent standards has undermined the protections of the Commerce Clause.

In December 2010, as part as one of the last opinions generated by three earlier ousted Iowa Supreme Court justices, the court explained that the U.S. Supreme Court would likely look at income benefits above physical presence in deciding if the state could hold a company accountable, and essentially created a state standard of “economic presence” to usurp the SCOTUS assertion of “physical presence” established in Quill.

Finally, we think taxation of the income here is most consistent with the now prevailing substance-over-form approach embraced in most of the modern cases decided by the Supreme Court under the dormant Commerce Clause. When a company earns hundreds of thousands of dollars from sales to Iowa customers arising from the licensing of intangibles associated with the fast-food business, we concluded that the Supreme Court would engage in a realistic substance-over-form assessment that would allow a state legislature to require the payment of the company’s fair share of taxes without violating the dormant Commerce Clause. …

In fact, “physical presence” in today’s world is not “a meaningful surrogate for the economic presence sufficient to make a seller the subject of state taxation.” … “Physical presence” often reflects more the manner in which a company does business rather than the degree to which the company benefits from the provision of government services in the taxing state. Does it really make sense to require Barnes and Noble to collect and remit use taxes, but not impose the same obligation on Amazon.com, based on the difference in their business methods? …

Further, extension of the “physical presence” approach in [the earlier SCOTUS ruling] would be an incentive for entity isolation in which potentially liable taxpayers create wholly owned affiliates without physical presence in order to defeat potential tax liability. … We doubt that the Supreme Court would want to extend such form-over-substance activity into the income tax arena where substance over form has been the traditional battle cry.

In essence, the Iowa Supreme Court offered that a lack of subsequent rulings along the same lines as the earlier SCOTUS decision held as proof that the nation’s High Court saw the need for greater interpretation by states, given the current technologically-driven economic climate. And, given SCOTUS’s refusal to weigh in on the issue, it appears the Iowa Supremes were on target with their belief.

The end result for the Kentucky-based KFC Corp. is that it will now need to cough up the nearly $250,000 it owes in back income taxes from 1997 and 1999.

Thomas omitted the earnings of his wife, Virginia Thomas, from his legally required disclosure forms six years in a row, according to the New York Times. Virginia Thomas drew a salary from the conservative Heritage Foundation of at least $686,000 during those years, according to research by Common Cause.

Clarence Thomas has said he misunderstood filing directions.

Democrats signed on to Thursday’s letter are skeptical of that excuse.

“Due to the simplicity of the disclosure requirements, along with Justice Thomas’s high level of legal training and experience, it is reasonable to infer that his failure to disclose his wife’s income for two decades was willful,” the letter explains.

The group also questioned Thomas’ use of a private yacht and airplane without disclosure.

“Particularly as questions surrounding the integrity and fairness of the Supreme Court continue to grow, it is vital that the Judicial Conference actively pursue any suspicious actions by Supreme Court Justices,” the letter read. “While we continue to advocate for the creation of binding ethical standards for the Supreme Court, it is important the Judicial Conference exercise its current powers to ensure that Supreme Court Justices are held accountable to the current law.”

The signatories asked the Judicial Conference—which is led by the U.S. Supreme Court chief justice and made up of the chief judge of each circuit and a district judge from each regional circuit—to refer the matter to the U.S. Department of Justice for civil or criminal action.

In separate appeals, the coalition of states and the National Federation of Independent Business said the entire health reform law should be set aside because Congress exceeded its authority. Under the law, Americans are given the option of purchasing health care insurance or paying a penalty.

The next SCOTUS term begins next week and continues through June 2012. The appeals made the case that a decision should be rendered quickly by the court — an argument that is also expected from the U.S. Department of Justice, which is charged with defending the law. Even if the case is fast-tracked and decided prior to the 2012 general election, however, there is little chance of it disappearing as a campaign trail issue.

The NFIB contends that it represents 350,000 small businesses in the U.S. It joined the states, which are led by Florida, in challenging the reforms.

“Until this court decides the extent to which the [reform] survives, the entire nation will remain mired in doubt, which imposes an enormous drag on the economy,” reads the NFIB petition. Similarly, the states’ petition cited a need for resolution to allow state government and budget planning.

Earlier this week, the DOJ chose not to ask the 11th Circuit to reconsider its earlier ruling, which has expedited the challengers’ petitions before SCOTUS.

At key issue is an August ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which struck down the portion of the law requiring health insurance or a penalty, but allow the remainder of the legislation to stand. In doing so, the appellate court rejected the GOP attack of the law as an expansion of Medicaid, which provides federal and state government-subsidized care to low-income Americans.

Although the government lost in the 11th Circuit, it has prevailed in two other appellate courts, and is expected to file its own petition to SCOTUS.

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad added Iowa to the Florida-led lawsuit in January — nearly a year after it was originally filed. The states of Ohio, Kansas, Wyoming, Wisconsin and Maine also joined the suit at roughly the same time.

Additional plaintiffs are South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska and North Dakota.