LyrArc Article Gist
After segregation in housing and schools since the 1867 Lincoln Emancipation, particularly in the US Southern states, protests happened in the South led by Martin Luther King Jr. to change this. situation. Voting Rights Act 1965 signed by LBJ ensures right to vote for Black people in the South- it follows protests in Selma Alabama and LBJ's 1965 "We Shall Overcome" speech that followed Selma. The first Blacks elected to US Congress were from seats redrawn to give Andrew Young a seat in Atlanta, and Barbara Jordan one in Houston. In 1993 2 more seats were added. James Clyburn was given a seat in South Carolina- he was a key supporter for president Joe Biden. Others followed. Today in 2026 there are 62 Black Members of the US Congress. This is about 11.6% of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives and 100 seats in the Senate total of 535. As a percentage of the population Black people are 16.4%- or 56 million out of US population of 342 million. The Supreme Court is essentially saying it is time to pause this as enormous progress has been made 12% out of 16% already achieved in representation for black people in the US considering the other inequities in American society, the changes in culture and in technology, inequities in world trade and for rural America. In a 2013 5-4 decision Shelby vs Holder US Supreme Court  swing to this conclusion with Alito, Scalia and Thomas joined by Kennedy and Roberts. This already struck down the core of the Voting Rights Act as unconstituional. Roberts wirties in that decision- Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.” Times have changed - in 2026 the Court reaffirms this. In Louisiana vs. Calais the Court voted 6-3, striking down the last aspects of the Voting Rights Act, because white voters in Louisiana objected to use of race to redraw districts. The equal protection clause of the 14th and 15th Amendment to the US Constitution prohibit using race to redraw political representation maps. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Strong criticism from Attorney General Luisa Ortega, and dissension inside the government, led to the Supreme Court retracting parts of its decision to nullify the powers of the legislature. Ortega called the move "a rupture of the constitutional order." Most of the judges are appointed on the court by the Maduro government. Strong criticism by the OAS calling it a "self inflicted coup", by other governments in Latin America, also led to retracting parts of the decision by the Supreme Court. Nicholas Maduro succeeded Mr. Chavez who was the democratically elected president of Venezuela from 1999 to 2013. Maduro narrowly won the election in 2013 by a margin of about 1.5% over Henrique Capriles. In 2015 in National Assembly elections the opposition parties won a majority in the National Assembly. Protests against the Maduro government were followed by a recall attempt in 2016 which was suppressed. Inflation and economic conditions in Venezuela worsened under Maduro with the collapse of oil prices. The devaluation of the currency, high inflation and shortages of basic goods have led to widespread protests. As the situation worsened the Supreme Court in support of the government gradually chipped away at the powers of the National Assembly since 2016, leading to the situation in April 2016 with  the effort to strip the Assembly of all powers and remove the immunity from prosecution of legislators. Maduro is a former bus driver for the city of Caracas bus system, and a trade unionist. He was part of the movement supporting Chavez release after a coup attempt, foreign minister 2006-2013, and appointed Chavez successor in 2012.  Max Fisher and Amanda Taub of the NYT go on to discuss the writings of political scientists, including Dutch expert Cas Mudde, who pointed out that populism often starts its climb because established institutions and elites have become unresponsive to pubic needs. Yet the replacement is with what starts out as an effort to bring fairness- yet ends up creating another elite, suppressing opposition, and creating a new set of problems, even threatening the institutional framework of democracy such as elected assembly as happened last week in Venezuela.  In Venezuela the Chavez populist movement was initially intended to reduce corruption in the court system, the established parties control over media, and ensure oil revenues were used to provide services to poor regions and neighborhoods.  In the process over two decades it introduced a system that set up a Bolivarist class of its own based on socialist goals, failed to integrate the economy into the global economy for modernization, and created an overdependence on oil revenues that hurt the country when prices dropped sharply. High inflation, corruption, shortages of basic goods, and an economy slipping behind neighboring countries in Latin America, are the result by 2017. Seeing the situation in Venezuela in the context of current populist trends in the U.S. and Europe may be a stretch because the situation in Venezuela is unique to Latin America in some ways and is from an earlier period. High inflation, collapsing economy, debt problems and mismanagement of the economy, devaluation of currency, are problems faced by Brazil, Argentina, and other countries in Latin America, happening under conservative as well as populist governments since the 1960's. It is different in two respects, the disconnect with the global economy that prevents modernization, and the trend towards authoritarianism, as seen in Venezuela.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
EIA says half of the benefit of higher fuel efficiency standards for Automobiles 2010-2020 in US was lost because of SUV's and the incentivizing of SUV's in the 2006 CAFE standards have made things worse. The first SUV's came in the 1980's. By 2004 SUV's made up half of car sales and by 2025 outsold cars 2 to 1. What if we took all SUV's and large cars off the roads, or even some of these SUV's by deincentivizing of SUV's in the US CAFE corporate fuel efficiency standards? What would be the savings in crude oil and in carbon footprint? Would it be about the same as releasing an additional 400 million barrels of oil into the markets in addition to the 400 million barrels that are now released through EIA and member countries? This New Yorker essay touches on this idea. During the Iran war the volatile Middle East as a source of oil supplies is a major problem for countries. Some are rationing supplies and in one country 40 million children are not going to school for 2 weeks starting this week because of the sources of oil are so precarious, government offices will only have half of the employees, the rest working from home (almost like Covid pandemic). Many other countries face that situation. The International Energy Agency recently reported that, if “SUVs were an individual country, they would rank sixth in the world for absolute emissions in 2021, emitting over 900 million tonnes of CO2.” The agency says governments must redesign their CAFE standards and their policies so that it would reduce S.U.V. sales, tax gas guzzling vehicles. EIA cites governments in the EU doing this- “Some governments have already started introducing relevant measures, such as France and Germany, which have put a tax on large and high-emissions cars.” Within SUV's also there is an opportunity to reduce the size and make more efficient space utilization designs. Small savings also add up. One has to realize that the current freedom to use energy freely in places like the US with self sufficiency in oil comes with a sense of responsibility for using it wisely so that it can be exported to cut the trade deficit, precisely what the president is doing with India, to cut a trade deficit of $58 billion before it gets to $100 billion. Section 301 is already in place for investigations by the US of 18 countries for a new basis to use tariffs after the Supreme Court decision. A similar approach is taken with EU for hundreds of billions of reductions in trade deficit that will only strengthen the US dollar and the US economy in the long run , and be good for stock markets and jobs as it reduces oil prices and increases the manufacturing capacity/cost for the Nation. Europe, India and China can do the same. Remember that in 2010 SUV's made up 17% of total world sales, and by 2025 SUV's made up 46% of world vehicle sales. This would create another 400 million barrels for the oil markets, which would triple what was released through EIA  this week to 1.2 billion barrels and this would create 120 days of supply replacement for the 10 million b/d lost from Straits of Hormuz, and effectively end the Iran War as it would be clear that prices can be kept low even in the $50's. Essentially buying time till the SU can get more production in Venezuela and other parts of the world to replace much of the Middle Eastern oil that is ending up in a quagmire. This is the best way for the US and Europe, India, China to ensure jobs growth, economic growth with low cost crude oil in the $50 range and ensure much of the poorer countries like Egypt and Indonesia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, have access to oil at prices they can afford and eliminate poverty. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Germany's DW.com looks at the influence of money in US elections. The Supreme Court decision in 2010 for Citizens United said First Amendment rights of free speech enshrined in the US Constitution were not based on the identity of the speaker as an individual or other entity. Corporations and unions were allowed the same rights of free speech. No limit was placed on contributions of companies. This has increased the influence of companies and corporate interests in US elections. This undermines public confidence in the election process. In one instance a billionaire said he would contribute $45 million a month to the former president's campaign. In one talk show the former president offered a position in his administration to that billionaire. In another instance a large Silicon Valley contributor offered large contributions to Harris-Walz and yet remained critical of Biden's choice of regulator Lina Khan at the Federal Trade Commission.  This shows the influence of companies in financing after 2010 is becoming more direct and blatant. Yet US has never had the kind of strict laws existing in Europe on election financing and not setup a public financing mechanism as in Europe. Even before Citizens United SC decision tech, pharmaceutical and oil companies lobbied heavily using the existing laws to their advantage to buy influence.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Parti Tarini of WSJ covers Kamala Harris, US vice president, as she makes an abortion rights tour starting in Wisconsin. Following the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision ending the constitutional protections on abortion, Kamala Harris as a prosecutor who handled sexual assault cases involving women and children, is able to talk to women in different states about the effects on women. In Wisconsin following the Dobbs decision Wisconsin's 1849 law banning abortion was reactivated. Harris talks to women in Wisconsin and Georgia in this WSJ report. In Georgia the law now has a six week abortion ban with exceptions in rape and incest cases with a police report. Harris told women that she knew that it was a difficult conversation to have, but one had to face reality, showing what it means to get a police report in such a situation. As former district attorney in California, and as California Attorney General she was fighting fro women's rights back then, involved in legal battles about women's reproductive health and abortion, including a multistate case on the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby case in 2014. She was raised Harris says by a mother who was a breast cancer researcher, and conversations at the kitchen table were also about women's reproductive health and hormones. Harris says in this interview that this stuff should not exist in the shadows, when it happens in this way it is women who suffer. On many issues that involve women Harris is uniquely qualified. For instance the wars in Ukraine and in Gaza and Israel have a huge impact on women and children, and Kamala Harris is taking on the role of bringing and end to the conflict in Gaza by participating in Biden's talk with the prime minister of Israel. Harris has prepared for this role more than it appears and she is able to talk to women in a way that is rare for an elected official says this report, and also to the people of this country on issues that determine their future. On the Special Counsel's report Harris can also talk about this in a way that is direct, sincere and from experience. She said about the prosecutor's report : "The way that the president's demeanor in that report was characterized -could not be more wrong on the facts, and clearly was politically motivated." She called the comment on the president's age "gratuitous" and described the role of a prosecutor as "requiring a higher level of integrity."    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The 2016 Republican platform is written to express the ideas in the Republican Party for family values, child rearing using the Bible and traditional values, calling pornography a "public health crisis."  The Family Research Council and tradition or family focussed groups played an important role in writing it, with Mr. Trump playing less of a role. Instead of "physical barrier" with Mexico, it says "a wall"  should be built in a taking up Trump's idea, but in general it is a clear expressing of traditional family values that Republicans have supported for years and expressed frustration with the movement of social lives in an opposite direction. The same sex marraige decision by the Supreme Court and transgender debate were not present in 2012 election, so in that sense the Republicans see the country as moving in a different direction. More of the pendulum having swung too far in another direction is how Republicans perceive it, and their response is to go back to how things used to be and the world they knew, based on what they see as positive outcomes for the whole of society. Hence language that encourages teaching of the Bible in public schools, condemning pornography as a menace particularly for children, and insisting on "man made laws being consistent with God given natural rights." A good understanding of the Bible is considered "indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry."   Amendments opposing gay and transgender are being added. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
A major shift in public opinion happened between 1990 in the public's perception and tolerance of gay people and gay marraige. Support for gay marraige in Journal/NBC News polling shows young people, especially people 18-34 year old, were leading the way. In this group support for gay marraigne increased from 47% in 2009 to 57% in 2012, going up to 74% in March 2015. The increase is also shown in suburban residents, political independents, Midwesterners and Hispanics. A key factor in the change is that many people now know of one person in their work or personal lives who is gay. Technology, television and internet media also helped changed attitudes. In 1990 7 of 8 Americans said sexual relations between the same sex were wrong. In 2004 only 3 of ten Americans supported same sex marraige. A vote in Maine shows the dramatic shift- in 2009 same sex marraige was rejected by 53%, in 2012 53% approved it. The change in attitudes is faster than happened for miscegenation, which took 30 years after the Supreme Court ruled against anti-miscegenation laws to reach a point where a majority of Americans approved marraiges between black and white people. The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision on June 25, 2015, now makes gay marraige legal in all 50 states, and strikes down bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Yet there are a significant number of Americans who do not favor same sex marraige especially in southern states such as Texas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama. A Pew Research Center poll shows 73% of white evangelical Protestants do not approve of same sex marraige. Other groups who do not favor same sex marraige in the Pew polling are conservatives and persons born before the post World War baby boom. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
DJT executive orders include one ending birthright citizenship. “It was really meant for children of slaves." DJT is referring to the 14th Amendment that was passed in 1868 by Congress and ratified by 1868 by the states. It came after the Civil War and Emancipation of slaves and was intended without any doubt for one and only one purpose to make slaves citizens of the United States Look at Section 4 of the 14th Amendment which says the United States will not allow any claim for the loss of any slave. "But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. The only SC decision in US vs Wong Kim that gave citizenship in 1898 to Wong Kim was not intended to go beyond that particular case, it was only meant to make an exception to the Chinese Exclusion Act  of 1882 after which till 1960 (JFK's election) Chinese immigration to the US was stopped, and the same for all Asians. Only immigrant labor allowed in was from Mexico for agriculture till 1960. And in 1954 Operation Wetback wwas conducted by Eisenhower to return about 1 million illegal immigrants to Mexico. DJT says- “It was not meant for everyone to come into our country by airplane, or charging across the borders from all over the world and think they’re going to become citizens.” The millions that came illegally across land border  and the flow of drugs is a new situation that Congress and the Supreme Court are only facing since 2014 a period in which wars in Afghanistan and Iraq took time and resources away from problems at home. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The arguments of both sides in front of U.S. Supreme Court Justices on the Health Care Law's expansion of Medicaid. Justice Scalia said the law gives the states no choice. Justice Kennedy pointed to the situation of the states which have no way to opt out without stripping millions of Americans of medical care. Justice Roberts pointed to the states willingness to accept federal aid for years which brings us to the current situation. The attorney generals of 27 states have objected to the Health Care Law's provisions which they believe effectively requires the states suffering tight budget constraints to cover more of the poor than they they think they can, with the alternative being dropping out of Medicaid totally, not giving them much of a choice. As the three day hearing came to a close on March 28, 2012, the Supreme Court's conservative Justices expressed doubts whether the Obama Health Care Law could surivive if some key parts are struck down. With Justices Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Kagan, on one side, and Scalia, with other conservative Justices on the other side, the Court's final decision depends on Justices Kennedy and Roberts. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
This editorial in the WSJ describes the sharp increase in premiums under the Affordable Care Act of president Obama. The average premium increase is about 24.2% according to a Barclay's analysis, and as high as 43.9% in states such as Illinois. Bill Clinton calls it the craziest thing with small business affected, and some premiums doubling. Of the 17 million people in the individual market eight million buy without subsidies. One in five enrollees cannot qualify for subsidies. Democrats say subsidies are too small. Hillary Clinton has proposed to have a Medicare "buy-in" for people ages 55-65, and a "public option" government run plan. Republicans want to rewrite the law. But this depends on which party wins the Senate, with the election in Missouri giving Democrats an opportunity to maintain a Senate majority.

LyrArc Article Gist
Sandra Day O'Connor always carried a copy of the US Constitution with her and worked to expand civic knowledge of the younger generation through iCivics from 2009 when she left the US Supreme Court after 25 years service. As she lies at the Supreme Court after her death at age 93, president Biden who was ranking member of the US Judiciary Committee when O'Connor was nominated in 1981, remembers her as "gracious and wise, civil and principled." Biden said: "One needed not agree with all of O'Connor's decisions to recognize that her principles were "deeply held and of the highest order, and that her desire for civility was genuine... She empowered generations of American women in every part of American life." 

 

LyrArc Article Gist
The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a U.S. administration request staying the effect of a lower court ruling, giving the government the $3.6 billion in U.S. Defense Department funds to build a border wall. This money goes towards the goal of building 500 miles of the wall by the end of 2020. In a 2-1 decision the court majority cited a Supreme Court order from July 2019 that gave the Trump administration the go ahead to use military funds for border wall construction.

The $3.6 billion is part of a $6.7 billion plan of spending under an emergency declaration by president Trump on grounds of border security. So far 100 miles of border wall have replaced flimsier construction barriers that existed. The government now needs to convince private land owners along large stretches of the border along the Rio Grande and other areas to give up their land for the wall. 

LyrArc Article Gist
In extensive ranging comments Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg describes her positions on Supreme Court cases to Adam Liptak of the NYT. She hopes the next president after this one will be a fine one and is not perturbed by liberals who would like to see her leave so that another liberal could be appointed in her place. Ginsberg is 80 years, but says she works with her trainer twice a week, and works just as hard as in previous terms. She loves her work and will go on as long as she is able to do it. Her work leading the liberal opinion of Justices on the bench shows a senior justice in command of the issues. She has a framed copy of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 on a wall and sees it as a response by Congress to her dissent in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Company. That 2007 ruling said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 imposes strict limits for workplace discrimination suits. She sees the present Congress as too timid to take up more issues related to affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act. On the court's decision for the Voting Rights Act Ginsberg said in her dissent "It is like throwing away your umbrella after a rainstorm because you don't need it." Her views on Roe vs. Wade are that the law was too sweeping in making abortion rights constitutional and could have taken a different approach of striking down the law in Texas....

LyrArc Article Gist
A law professor at George Washington University, who also comes from an Sicilian Italian American family, writes about his encounters with Scalia showing passionate opinion and steadfastness. Scalia was educated at Xavier Jesuit high school, and Georgetown University. He remained true to his conservative beliefs about the the law over three decades since his appointment by president Reagan in 1986, and an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution as the framers in the eighteenth century had intended. He is the first Italian American Supreme Court Justice, a fact that enabled him to win approval in the Senate 98-0.

LyrArc Article Gist
This article in the NYT provides a look at the features of the Republican House Health Care Plan- Both the Affordable Health Care Act and the House Plan provide incentives for buying insurance- the ACA bases these incentives on income levels whereas the House Plan does not provide additional help for low incomes or elderly. Incomes at $20,000 would see a loss greater than  $2000 under the House Plan and as many of the elderly poor living in high cost areas may not have the resources to make up for this loss of subisidies they may forgo buying insurance or have insurance coverage that protects only in a limited way. President Trump has given assurances that all will be covered. For people with incomes of $50,000 or $75000 the loss of $2000 subisidies would also have some impact. At larger incomes or the well to do the subsidies are not handed out under either plan. Under the ACA the emphasis was on income levels and high cost insurance areas the subsidies were greater, under the House Plan the subisidies would be higher for the elderly compared to the young but very low income levels are not given additional help.     ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The struggle between the Detroit automakers and the states over auto emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat trapping gas emissions. California adopted the first state law requiring auto manufacturers to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide in 2002 and in 2004 set standards for the emission reductions. Vermont, as well as Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania adopted the same standards. Automakers sued toblock these standars in Vermont and California. While the California case is pending, Judge Sessions issued a ruling on the Vermont case this week against the auto manufacturers. This follows a decision by the US Supreme Court in April 2007 that the Environmental Protection Authority has the right to regulate heat trapping gases like carbon dioxide as air pollutants. This endorses the idea that states can set their own limits. What is needed for a state to do this is to get a waiver from the EPA, as the federal Clean Air Act has a provision that allows California to set ists own standards with a waiver from the EPA, and for other states to follow California's lead. A detailed opinion includes analysis by the Judge in this case stating why the Transportation Department's authority is limited to automobile fuel economy standards and does not carry over into auto emissions as pollutants of the atmosphere, the area of pollutants being reserved for the EPA and the individual states to work out together. Under California law as it is now emissions reductions for cars could be 30% or more below the current levels in the 2016 model year. By 2012 emissions are required to be below 2005 levels by 25% for cars and light trucks, SUV's and larger trucks 18%. Note that what is technologically feasible to accomplish in the area of auto emissions is an unknown. At the same time its a function of determination, R&D investment, collaboration between companies to pool technological and capital resources, development of engineering and manufacturing investment and knowhow to learn mass manufacture at low cost, introduction of the already feasible features quickly such as stop start engines which the Germans have already in the works for mass manufacture across product lines, and so forth. The first comer in these technologies enjoys an advantage as Honda constantly advertises itself, and the the only way to say what is technologically feasible or not is by pointing to these pioneers. In this case because of the stronger environmental movement in Europe especially in Germany, some of this pointing will be done in the direction of the German auto manufacturers progress in this direction to meet the new EU standards of 120 micrograms of CO2 per kilometre. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The Republican House Health Care pLan in 2017 relies on tax credits of between $2000 and $4000 based on age. Under the Affordable Health Care Act the elderly poor in high cost insurance areas received additional help. These people would lose over $2000 per person and may forgo full coverage or coverage entirely under the Republican House Health Care Plan. A report by Standard & Poor's estimates about 2 to 4 million people who are in 50's and 60's not yet qualifying for Medicare might lose their coverage they now have under ACA. The Republican plan also gives incentives through tax credits higher for older people, $4000 for a 60 year ol and $2000 for a 25 year old. Under the ACA the insurers are not allowed to charge more than three times what is charged for younger people, under the Republican plan this goes up to five times. 

LyrArc Article Gist
The Nebraska Supreme Court reverses a lower court ruling clearing a hurdle for construction of the Keystone pipeline. At about the same time the U.S. House of Representatives voted 266 to 153 in Jan. 2014 to pass a bill approving the project. It will pass a Senate vote. President Obama says he will veto the bill. The pressure clearly increases on Obama to approve the pipeline.

LyrArc Article Gist
A critical part of the Affordable Care Act is the setup of marketplaces or exchanges to let people without insurance buy individual health plans. Some states setup their own exchanges, and some states let the federal government step in and run them. To help the lower middle class and poor the Act provides health subsidies to buy insurance in the exchanges, and 85% of customers in the exchanges qualify for this benefit. The U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 in 2015, compared to a tight vote in 2012 on the Affordable Care Act, to maintain the health subsidies. Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, saying "Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not destroy them." Justice Scalia dissented calling it "interpretive jiggery-pokery." Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. dissented. Voting in favor were Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Justice Kennedy dissented in the 2000 case. The challengers petition to the courts was based on a reading of phrases in the Affordable Act which had not occurred to the writers of the law. The reading suggests only people enrolled in state setup exchanges are eligible for subsidies. If the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs the 6.4 million Americans who are enrolled in the federal exchanges would lose the subsidies provided under the law and lose health insurance. And the economic foundations of the Affordable Act would be undermined with insurance companies required to provide insurance to all regardless of pre-existing conditions and subsidies removed, leaving the companies with sicker pool of customers resulting in destabilizing the exchanges and higher premiums. The court ruled in favor of an interpretation that is compatible with the whole law and the intentions of the statute to help the middle class and the poor buy health insurance. The chaos in the insurance markets that would result in going with the plaintiffs because of a careless writing of a phrase, was uppermost in the majority's mind. Chief Justice Roberts emphasized this, saying- "The statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners' interpretation, because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any state with a federal exchange and likely create the very 'death spirals' that Congress designed the act to avoid." This case originated with 4 plaintiffs from Virginia who challenged the IRS regulation that said subsidies were allowed regardless of whether the exchanges were run by the state or the federal government, arguing that this was at odds with the particular phrase in the law that was ambiguous about federal exchanges eligibility for health subsidies. Judge Roger Gregory of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virgina, ruled that the phrase was indeed ambiguous, but the IRS was owed deference in its opinion. Chief Justice Roberts made it clear that this was not a case for the IRS, saying "it is instead our task to determine the correct reading." ...