Ferguson v. Skrupa

5 Citing briefs

  1. GERAWAN FARMING v. AGRICULTURAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (UNITED FARM WORKERS OF AMERICA)

    Respondent’s Opening Brief on the Merits

    Filed November 17, 2015

    19 industry.’ “Legislative bodies have broad scopeto experimentwith economic problems,”and givenits history of successful use in other labor settings, the Legislature here could rationally conclude that interest arbitration was the appropriate mechanism for resolving protracted bargaining disputes under the ALRA. (Ferguson v. Skrupa (1963) 372 US. 726, 730.) As this Court observed forty years ago,there is a “strong public policy in California favoring peaceful resolution of employmentdisputes by meansofarbitration.”

  2. Wilson v. Holder et al

    REPLY to Response to 37 MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment

    Filed March 29, 2013

    Plaintiff’s contentions would be better addressed to a legislative body, as “[u]nder the system of government created by our Constitution, it is up to legislatures, not courts, to decide on the wisdom and utility of legislation.” Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 729 (1963); see also Turner Broad. Sys. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 665-66 (1994) (noting that “Congress is far better equipped than the judiciary to ‘amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data’ bearing upon” complex and dynamic issues).

  3. Wilson v. Holder et al

    MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment

    Filed January 31, 2013

    In order to obtain a firearm, a holder of a medical marijuana registry card need only surrender the 20 To the extent that Plaintiff intends to challenge the policy judgment regarding the use of firearms by marijuana users, as she did earlier in this case, her contentions would be better addressed to Congress, as “[u]nder the system of government created by our Constitution, it is up to legislatures, not courts, to decide on the wisdom and utility of legislation.” Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 729 (1963); see also Turner Broad. Sys., 512 U.S. at 665-66 (noting that “Congress is far better equipped than the judiciary to ‘amass and evaluate the vast amounts of data’ bearing upon” complex and dynamic issues).

  4. Schrader et al v. Holder et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint

    Filed August 19, 2011

    Although the Court must independently assess any statute’s constitutionality, see Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177-80 (1803), that does not mean that it should function as a super-legislature weighing the wisdom of statutory enactments. See Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 731 (1963) Case 1:10-cv-01736-RMC Document 26 Filed 08/19/11 Page 19 of 34 - 20 - United States v. Khami, No. 08-2437, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 1649, at **17-21 (6th Cir. Jan. 26, 2010) (citing Heller and summarily rejecting facial and as-applied challenges § 922(g)(1)), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3345 (2010); United States v. Schultz, No. 1:08-CR-75-TS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 234, at *3-7 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 5, 2009) (same); United States v. Henry, No. 08-20095, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60780, at *1-3 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 7, 2008) (citing Heller and summarily rejecting an as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1)).

  5. National Rifle Association of America, Inc., et al v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

    REPLY

    Filed April 6, 2011

    Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments under this rubric are policy-based and intended to support their opinion that Congress should have chosen a different minimum age for the direct purchase of handguns from licensed dealers. These policy arguments are that the age of majority in most States is no longer 21; and that 18 year olds are able to vote, serve in the armed forces, and to be subject to capital punishment. Pl. Opp. at 33-35. Plaintiffs’ contentions would be better addressed to a legislative body, as “‘[u]nder the system of government created by our Constitution, it is up to the legislatures, not the courts, to decide on the wisdom and utility of legislation.’” Sonnier v. Quarterman, 476 F.3d 349, 368 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 729 (1963)); see also Blassman, 359 F. Supp. at 6 (“[W]ere we to strike down the age minimum requirement here, we would be accomplishing nothing other than substituting our judgment for that of the [State] legislature. This we decline to do.”).