Supreme Court rejects challenge to Seattle minimum wage law

[jpak]

Source: Reuters

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge by business groups to a trendsetting Seattle law that will raise the city's minimum wage to $15 an hour, leaving in place a lower court's decision to uphold the statute.

The law, which took effect in April 2015, requires businesses in Seattle with more than 500 employees nationwide to raise their minimum wage to $15 by 2018. Smaller companies have until 2021 to do so.

Seattle was the first major U.S. city to commit to such a high basic wage amid pressure from unions and workers' rights groups. The move has since been followed to varying degrees by cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles as well as by state lawmakers in California and New York.

The International Franchise Association's 2014 lawsuit took issue with the Seattle law's treatment of local franchises as subsidiaries of brand parents such as McDonald's (MCD.N) or Burger King (QSR.TO) rather than independent businesses, meaning they had to comply by the earlier deadline.

<more>

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-minimumwage-idUSKCN0XT18Z

[strategery blunder]

1. Wow this is a pleasant surprise to wake up to in the morning! nt

[CincyDem]

2. They're working on their 4-4 strategy.

Best they could do on this one was probably a 4-4 that would leave the decision intact applicable only to the 9th circuit...exactly where the decision stands now. So why bother. Sad that the rethugs have let the judiciary sink to this level (or rather, sad that they've put cement shoes on the judiciary to ensure it sinks to this level).

[Wounded Bear]

3. They're still hoping to win the WH..

so they can get another RW judge in place and visit this again later.

[CincyDem]

5. Yep...

...it's interesting to watch the political strategy.

Personally, I think garland is the most conservative judge they're going to see for the next 4 years (if not 8).

There are so many potential scenarios.

If we win the WH, I suspect they'll start getting serious about Garland in the lame duck. I also suspect that he will withdraw his nomination on the principle that the new president should make the decision (including renominating him if that is the incoming president's decision).

If we win the WH and win the Senate, they'll start to RACE through the confirmation process for fear of what will happen on January 21st.

To me, the most interesting scenario is if R wins the WH and D wins the Senate. If that happens, Obama gets 3 weeks with a democratize majority senate...wouldn't it be fun to see what he does with that.

[FairWinds]

4. These are the same Rethugs who believe in local control . .

except when they don't.

Scalia did the same thing.