Breaking News

Cases in the Pipeline

By on Mar 8, 2010 at 10:36 am
The Supreme Court, taking on the emotionally charged issue of picketing protests at the funerals of soldiers killed in wartime, agreed Monday to consider reinstating a $5 million damages verdict against a Kansas preacher and his anti-gay crusade.  This was one of three newly granted cases.  The others test the constitutionality of background checks for workers who work for the government under contract, rather than as regular employees, and a case testing the right to sue in state court when a child is injured or dies after receiving a vaccine.  All of the cases will come up for review in the Court's next Term, opening Oct. 4. The funeral picketing case (Snyder v. Phelps, et al., 09-751) focuses on a significant question of First Amendment law: the degree of constitutional protection given to remarks that a private person made about another private person, occurring outside the site of a private event.  The family of the dead soldier had won a verdict before a jury, but that was overturned by the Fourth Circuit Court, finding that the signs displayed at the funeral in western Maryland and later comments on an anti-gay website were protected speech.   The petition for review seeks the Court's protection for families attending a funeral from "unwanted" remarks or displays by protesters.

By on Mar 8, 2010 at 10:07 am
UPDATE, 10:20 a.m.: Both briefs in the cases acted on and full texts of the opinions now follow the jump. The Court has granted cert. in three cases,  NASA v. Nelson (09-320), Snyder v. Phelps (09-751), and Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (09-152).  The Chief Justice took no part in consideration of the last petition. The Court has requested the views of the Solicitor General in the following cases: Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Service, Inc. (09-683) and Amara v. CIGNA/CIGNA v. Amara (09-784/09-804).  Justice Sotomayor took no part in considering the last two petitions. We have just two opinions today: The first opinion is  Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (08-1119).  Justice Sotomayor writes for the Court, joined in full by six Justices and in part by Justices Scalia and Thomas.  Justice Scalia concurs in part and concurs in the judgment, joined by Thomas.  The Court holds that attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance are debt-relief agencies under the bankruptcy abuse law.  The opinion is here. The second opinion is in Bloate v. United States (08-728), reversing and remanding the lower court decision on a 7-2 vote.  Justice Thomas writes for the Court.  Justice Ginsburg joins the opinion but files a separate concurrence.  Justice Alito dissents, joined by Justice Breyer.  The time granted to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excluded from the 70-day limit under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.  The opinion is here. The full order list is here.

By on Mar 5, 2010 at 8:25 am
Reacting promptly to the Supreme Court's return of a major detainee case to lower courts for a new look, lawyers for seven Guantanamo Bay detainees on Thursday urged the D.C. Circuit Court to pass the case back to a federal District judge to develop the facts on the prisoners' chances for resettlement abroad.   In a motion to remand, attorneys for the Chinese Muslim Uighurs said the case should not be finally resolved until all of the facts are in.  (The case in the Circuit Court is Kiyemba, et al., v. Obama, et al., lead docket number 08-5424.)

By on Mar 5, 2010 at 8:06 am
The following three noteworthy petitions were recently filed: Rodrequis Armani Council v. United States (09-936), Louisiana Safety Association of Timbermen - Self Insurers Fund v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London (09-945), and Jaskolski v. Daniels (09-946).  Briefs in opposition have not yet been filed, but the questions presented and links to the petitions follow the jump.

By on Mar 4, 2010 at 11:13 am
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference tomorrow on Friday, March 5.  As always, it lists the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.  Links to all previous editions are available in our SCOTUSwiki archive.

By on Mar 2, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., refused on Tuesday to block a District of Columbia court's order that cleared the way for same-sex couples to get marriage licenses and wed in the capital city, beginning on Wednesday.  The Chief Justice, in denying an emergency stay filed by opponents of gay marriage, issued a three-page opinion, found here, explaining his action.   He acted in his role as Circuit Justice for the D.C. area; the issue was not referred to the full Court.  (The stay application, 09A807, is here; the opposition to it is here, and the reply is here.) Even while saying a delay was not now legally justified, Roberts noted that the challengers may still try to undo the new D.C. marriage provision by attempting to put it on the ballot asking local voters to repeal the law.  That separate maneuver is now under review in the D.C. Court of Appeals, Washington's highest local court. Although challengers are pursuing other legal steps,  the capital city will at least temporarily join these states in allowing gay couples to wed: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.

By on Mar 1, 2010 at 11:58 am
The Supreme Court refused on Monday to reopen the issue of the constitutionality of the procedures that states use to carry out death sentences by lethal injection.  Without comment or noted dissent, the Court turned aside a new petition by a Tennessee inmate seeking a ruling that lower courts must make a detailed examination of a state's injection protocol in order to determine whether it causes unnecessary pain before death occurs.  The case was Harbison v. Little (09-7777). The petition filed by lawyers for Edward Jerome Harbison argued that lower courts have been upholding other states' lethal injection procedures by making a simple finding that they are similar to the methods the Supreme Court upheld in a Kentucky case two years ago (Baze v. Rees).  The Harbison appeal also argued that, on closer examination, Tennessee's procedure fails to assure that the inmate will be completely unconscious and thus will does not prevent excruciating pain during the three-drug protocol in use in that state.

By on Mar 1, 2010 at 10:04 am
UPDATE: The Kiyemba case discussed below had been scheduled for oral argument on March 23.  The Court has now released a revised March oral argument calendar omitting that case. ----------------- The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the D.C. Circuit Court to take a new look at the case testing federal judges' powers to order Guantanamo Bay detainees released from custody -- a case the Justices had granted and were to hear later this month.  In a brief order, without noted dissent, the Court said the Circuit Court was to decide "what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for the full and final disposition of the case in light of...new developments."  The case is Kiyemba, et al., v. Obama, et al. (08-1234).  The "new developments" are offers to resettle the seven Chinese Muslim Uighurs remaining at Guantanamo. The Justices' action has two immediate effects: first, it wipes out the Circuit Court's earlier ruling that federal judges have no power to order release into the U.S., even temporarily, because that is an immigration matter exclusively for the President and Congress, and, second, it means that the Justices will not have any final ruling this Term on detainee matters, putting the Court on the sidelines while the two other branches of government work out where to go next on policy involving capture and detention of individuals during the government's "war on terror."  President Obama wants to close Guantanamo, but there are efforts in Congress to keep it open in order to assure that no detainee reaches the U.S. shores, even for further detention.  There are also efforts on Capitol Hill to block any criminal trial in the U.S. of a Guantanamo prisoner, including those who have been charged with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

By on Mar 1, 2010 at 10:04 am

The Court has returned Kiyemba v. Obama (08-1234) to the D.C. Circuit to determine what further proceedings in that court, or in the district court, are necessary and appropriate for disposition of the case "in light of the new developments."  The critical new development is...

By on Feb 25, 2010 at 11:08 am
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference this Friday, February 26.  As always, it lists the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.  Links to all previous editions are available in our SCOTUSwiki archive. The petitions on this list are slightly different, however, because nearly all are reproduced from our last edition of Petitions to Watch, which we released for the February 19 conference.  In an unusual move, the Court last week re-distributed in advance for this week’s conference a large number of petitions that had been distributed for the earlier conference.  The only two new petitions on our list, Nos. 08-1458 and 09-347, are at the top of the list below the jump.