United States Supreme Court (Fall 2007) News & Views

SCOTUS News & Views Fall 2007
(2007-2008 Session)

May 2008

Execution in officer's death stayed

U.S. Supreme Court will hear appeal concerning performance of lawyers

By Frank Green, Times-Dispatch Staff Writer

5-14-08 -- An execution date for Edward Nathaniel Bell for the 1999 capital murder of a Winchester police officer has been scrubbed for the second time this year. . . . The U.S. Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear Bell's appeal, staying his scheduled July 24 execution. A date for arguments will likely not be set until October, and a decision by the justices is not expected until months later. . . . Bell, 42, murdered Sgt. Ricky Lee Timbrook in Winchester. Timbrook was shot in the head while pursuing Bell on foot. . . . Bell was to have been executed April 8, but that was delayed until July 24 by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine. At the time, there had been no executions in the country since Sept. 25 while the justices considered a challenge to the constitutionality of lethal injection. The Supreme Court allowed executions to resume on April 16. . . . Bell's appeal concerns the performance of his trial lawyers and is not about lethal injection. There are conflicting decisions among appeals courts on the technical issue raised by Bell, and the justices may resolve the matter.

Supreme Court Recusals Hit Home in Controversial
Apartheid Suit

Tony Mauro, Legal Times

5-13-08 -- For want of a quorum, the Supreme Court on Monday allowed a controversial lawsuit brought by South African citizens to proceed against American and foreign corporations for their role in perpetuating apartheid. . . . The companies, backed by the Bush administration and the South African government, had asked the high court to reverse a 2007 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that said the suit could proceed under the Alien Tort Statute. . . . But in the order released Monday in American Isuzu Motors v. Ntsebeza, four justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito Jr. -- indicated they had recused themselves from acting on the petition, depriving the Court of the required six-justice quorum. Under the law, when the Court lacks a quorum, the lower court ruling is effectively affirmed -- which means the case remains alive. . . . Roberts, Breyer and Alito appear to have recused because they own stock in companies that are defendants in the suit, while Kennedy may have bowed out because his son Gregory is a managing partner at Credit Suisse, another defendant.

Court rules that magistrate may preside

By Pete Yost

5-12-08 -- (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal magistrate may preside over jury selection in criminal cases, as long as the attorney for a defendant explicitly permits it. . . . The 8-1 decision came in a drug-trafficking case from Laredo, Texas, where a lawyer for defendant Homero Gonzalez allowed a magistrate to oversee the questioning of prospective jurors. On appeal, Gonzalez argued that the court should have obtained his consent before a magistrate presided. . . . In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said federal law allows the practice and that "this is not a case where the magistrate judge is asked to preside or make determinations after the trial has commenced." Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, saying, "Whatever their virtues, magistrate judges are no substitute" for U.S. District Court judges. . . . U.S. District judges are appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, have life tenure and their salaries cannot be reduced. Magistrates, appointed by U.S. District judges, have no such protection.

April 2008

Supreme Court Upholds Photo ID Law for Voters in Indiana

Mark Sherman, The Associated Press 

4-28-08 --  The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. . . . In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the Court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud. . . . It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case. . . . The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000. . . . Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

High Court: Do Health Insurance Plans Have Conflict Of Interest?

MetLife withdrew the long-term disability benefits of an Ohio woman after she got better.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

4-25-08-- Health insurance is a major issue under debate in the race for the presidency, but this week a controversial aspect of that business arrives at the US Supreme Court. . ..  On Wednesday, the justices are set to examine how judges should approach policyholder disputes involving companies that both evaluate and pay medical disability claims administered under a federal retirement income law. . . . Do such companies operate in a conflict of interest between caring for their policyholders and enriching their shareholders? If such a conflict exists, how rigorously should federal judges examine decisions to deny benefits? . . . Federal appeals courts are sharply divided on how to answer those questions. The high court will confront the issue in the case of an Ohio woman diagnosed with a severe heart condition who was granted long-term disability benefits that were later withdrawn by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife). . . . Because of her condition, the woman, Wanda Glenn, was found to be "totally disabled." She began receiving disability benefits. She also followed her physician's advice and a treatment program, and her health began to improve. When these improvements were reflected in her doctor's reports, MetLife cited the reports and withdrew the benefits. The company said Ms. Glenn was not totally disabled and could find sedentary work.

Another justice sits out another case

By Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer

4-25-08-- A justice was missing, again, when the Supreme Court heard its final argument of the term Wednesday, raising the prospect that the remaining eight justices could split and leave unresolved the very issue they had agreed to settle. . . . The court already has divided 4-4 two times this term, in cases involving special education and lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies. . . . When that happens, the ruling of the lower court is affirmed but has no value in guiding judges in other cases. Settling sticky legal issues that divide lower courts is the bread and butter of the Supreme Court's work. . . . The court appeared divided in Wednesday's case involving a lawsuit alleging age discrimination by the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory in upstate New York. The dispute centers on who bears the burden of proof - the workers over 40 who are challenging their dismissals or the company - in answering whether there was a reasonable explanation other than age for the company's action.

Supreme Court Considers Closely Watched Case That Could Help Workers Claim Disability Benefits

Christopher S. Rugaber, The Associated Press 

4-24-08-- The Supreme Court struggled Wednesday with how much weight to give an insurance company's potential conflict of interest when it denies an employee's health or disability benefits claim. . . . The lawyer representing the woman who sued MetLife Inc. over a disability claim argued that insurance companies have a financial incentive to deny claims. That conflict of interest should weigh heavily in employees' favor when they challenge benefit claims in court, Joshua Rosenkranz said in court papers. . . . The dispute is being closely watched by insurance companies and business groups. Depending on how the justices rule, the dispute could make it easier for employees to win benefit payments in court. . . . Disability benefits are a big business. Disability insurance plans cover 28 million Americans, and insurers paid more than $7.2 billion in long-term disability claims to more than 500,000 people in 2006, according to court papers filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, America's Health Insurance Plans and the American Benefits Council.

Supreme Court Justices Appear Torn Over 'Millionaires' Amendment'

Tony Mauro, Legal Times 

4-23-08 -- Supreme Court justices appeared torn Tuesday over the constitutionality of the so-called "Millionaires' Amendment," a law that allows the opponents of rich, self-financing candidates for Congress to receive higher contributions from individuals and parties than would otherwise be allowed. . . . Led by Justice Antonin Scalia, several justices expressed doubt that the First Amendment allows government to manipulate campaign speech in this way, solely to "level the playing field" among candidates for office. "Do you think we should trust our incumbent senators and representatives to level the playing field for us?" Scalia asked at one point. . . . At another, Scalia asked whether, under the same theory, Congress could pass a law to help those who go up against candidates who are eloquent. "You make him talk with pebbles in his mouth, or what?" Even though the law does not cover presidential campaigns, the 2008 campaign for the White House made its way into the courtroom nonetheless. . . . Andrew Herman, the lawyer arguing against the provision in the case Davis v. Federal Election Commission, was suggesting that not all millionaires are such formidable candidates that their opponents need extra help.

Court to hear case that could help workers claim benefits

By Christopher S. Rugaber, AP Business Writer

4-23-08 -- When Wanda Glenn first sought disability benefits from MetLife Inc. in 2000, she "never in a million years" expected it would end up as a Supreme Court case. . . . But on Wednesday, the justices will hear oral arguments in a dispute that is being closely watched by insurance companies and business groups. Depending on how the justices rule, the case could make it easier for employees to win health and disability benefit payments in court. . . . Disability benefits are a big business. Disability insurance plans cover 28 million Americans, and insurers paid more than $7.2 billion in long-term disability claims to more than 500,000 people in 2006, according to court papers filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, America's Health Insurance Plans and the American Benefits Council.

Supreme Court Turns Down Exxon's Appeal of $112 Million Verdict

Christopher S. Rugaber, The Associated Press 

4-22-08 -- Exxon Mobil Corp. suffered a defeat at the Supreme Court Monday, as the justices refused to consider an appeal by the oil giant of a $112 million damage award in an environmental lawsuit. . . . The court's decision Monday, without comment, effectively ends the litigation. . . . The case began in 1997 when a former Louisiana judge, Joseph Grefer, and his family sued Exxon, alleging that a contractor had contaminated the family's land with radioactive waste. . . . The contractor cleaned pipes for Exxon Mobil and other oil companies and left the waste, which occurs naturally as a result of oil and gas production, on the property. None of the Grefers were sickened by the waste. . . . The Grefers were initially awarded $1 billion in punitive damages and $56 million in compensatory damages by a Louisiana jury. The Louisiana appeals court ultimately reduced the punitive award to $112 million.

Supreme Court Lifts Stays of Executions for Three Death-Row Inmates

Michael Graczyk, The Associated Press

4-22-08 -- The Supreme Court, fresh off its decision that lethal injection was a constitutional method of execution, lifted reprieves Monday for three death-row inmates around the country, including a Texas man who was waiting only a few feet from the death chamber when his life was temporarily spared. . . . Prosecutors in the Texas case and one each from Alabama and Mississippi were moving quickly to set new execution dates after a seven-month national hiatus. . . . The Supreme Court blocked the execution of Carlton Turner Jr., from suburban Dallas, and others last fall while they considered whether Kentucky's lethal injection procedure, similarly used by other death penalty states, was unconstitutionally cruel. . . . The high court rejected the Kentucky case last week in a 7-2 vote. . . . Besides Turner, who killed his parents, the Court Monday cleared the way for the executions of Thomas Arthur of Alabama and Earl Wesley Berry of Mississippi. . . . Turner won his delay late Sept. 27 as he waited in a holding cell a few feet from the nation's busiest death chamber in Huntsville, Texas, where 26 convicted killers were executed last year.

A Radioactive Petition Lands Before the Supreme Court

Tony Mauro, Legal Times 

4-18-08 -- The solicitor general's name on a petition before the Supreme Court carries a lot of weight all by itself. But when it is joined by the top lawyers for the Departments of State, Defense, Commerce and Energy, it is likely to get the full attention of the justices and their law clerks. . . . Those are the names on a petition that will be considered at the Court's conference for possible grant or denial as early as the week of April 21. The case, United States v. Eurodif, involves the import of low-enriched uranium (LEU), a critical ingredient in the production of nuclear power. Billed as the first time the United States has brought an anti-dumping case to the Supreme Court, it also gives the high court a chance to take a skeptical look at another ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. (That court's patent decisions have not fared too well at the hands of the Supreme Court in recent years.) . . . The anti-dumping statute allows the imposition of special duties on foreign imports that are sold in the United States at less than fair value. When American utilities simply buy LEU from the enricher, no one disputes that the law comes into play. But in the case before the high court, the utilities sent unenriched uranium to the enricher, paid the enricher for "separative work units," and received back LEU.

Supreme Court Upholds Kentucky's Lethal Injections

Stevens becomes first member of high court to openly oppose capital punishment since Blackmun's 1994 retirement

Tony Mauro, Legal Times 

4-16-08 -- The de facto nationwide moratorium on executions for the last six months is likely at an end as a result of the Supreme Court's 7-2 decision Wednesday upholding Kentucky's protocol for lethal injections. . . . Two death row inmates had challenged the procedure used by Kentucky and 34 other states, claiming that if improperly administered, it could cause excruciating pain before death, in violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment. . . . But Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., writing for himself and two other justices in the majority, said the inmates had not established the kind of "objectively intolerable risk of harm" necessary to render a procedure unconstitutional. . . . Within hours of the decision, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine lifted that state's moratorium on executions, which he had imposed while the Kentucky case was pending. . . . The splintered decision in Baze v. Rees leaves open possible future challenges to lethal injection, however, and was notable also for the fact that Justice John Paul Stevens declared that he now views the death penalty as unconstitutional. Stevens, who turns 88 on April 20, becomes the first member of the high court to openly oppose capital punishment since Harry Blackmun's retirement in 1994.

Justice Stevens Renounces Capital Punishment

Supreme Court Memo By Linda Greenhouse

When Justice John Paul Stevens intervened in a Supreme Court argument on Wednesday to score a few points off the lawyer who was defending the death penalty for the rape of a child, the courtroom audience saw a master strategist at work, fully in command of the flow of the argument and the smallest details of the case. For those accustomed to watching Justice Stevens, it was a familiar sight. . . . But there was something different that no one in the room knew except the eight other justices. In the decision issued 30 minutes earlier in which the court found Kentucky’s method of execution by lethal injection constitutional, John Paul Stevens, in the 33rd year of his Supreme Court tenure and four days shy of his 88th birthday, had just renounced the death penalty. . . . In an opinion concurring with the majority’s judgment, Justice Stevens said he felt bound to “respect precedents that remain a part of our law.” But outside the confines of the Kentucky case, he said, the time had come to reconsider “the justification for the death penalty itself.” . . . He wrote that court decisions and actions taken by states to justify the death penalty were “the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process” to weigh the costs and risks of the penalty against its benefits.

Supreme Court Sends Tax Case Back to Illinois

Also, justices rule in Clintwood Elkhorn Mining case

Tony Mauro, Legal Times

4-16-08 -- Tuesday was Tax Day at the Supreme Court as it was in the rest of the nation, with the justices handing down two tax rulings, including one that could affect big corporations facing tax bills in several states. . . . Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. took note of the April 15 coincidence as he opened the Court session, announcing that, "Remarkably enough, we have two tax cases to announce today." . . . The first was MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Department of Revenue, closely watched by revenue-thirsty states seeking to tax multistate and international corporations. . . . The dispute arose when Ohio-based Mead sold its LexisNexis research service in 1994, realizing $1.5 billion in capital gain. Illinois assessed Mead $4 million in taxes for what it believed was its apportioned share of taxes on the gain. Mead, now MeadWestvaco, appealed, but Illinois won in state courts under a broad theory that viewed LexisNexis as serving the "operational purpose" of Mead, even though it was not fully integrated or centrally managed as part of Mead's "unitary business."

Supreme Court Restricts the Taxation of Income of Companies Based Out of State

By Linda Greenhouse

4-16-08 -- I A unanimous Supreme Court decision on Tuesday limited the ability of states to tax the income that companies with out-of-state headquarters earn from their investments in businesses in their home state. . . . The ruling vacated a decision of the Appellate Court of Illinois in a case that drew the attention of two dozen states and many multistate corporations. . . . The Illinois court had upheld the state’s right to tax the $1 billion in capital gains earned by the Ohio-based MeadWestvaco Corporation, on the $1.5 billion sale in 1994 of an Illinois-based subsidiary, the Lexis/Nexis online research service. . . . MeadWestvaco, arguing that Illinois did not have the right to reach across state lines to tax the passive income from what amounted to an arm’s-length investment, paid the $4 million tax bill under protest and sued for a refund. . . . Although the amount of tax at issue was relatively small, given MeadWestvaco’s huge gain from an initial investment of $6 million in the Data Corporation, the company that became Lexis/Nexis, the principle at stake was considered an important one. . . . Over many years, the Supreme Court has developed rules to permit states to tax the portion of an out-of-state company’s revenue that reflects its home-state operations, while at the same time shielding multistate companies from duplicate taxation.

Justices let stand youth's 30-year prison term

By James Vicini, Reuters

4-14-08 -- The U.S. Supreme Court let stand on Monday a sentence of 30 years in prison for a youth who killed his grandparents when he was 12, rejecting his appeal arguing that it was cruel and unusual punishment. . . . Attorneys for Christopher Pittman said he is the nation's only inmate serving such a harsh sentence for a crime committed at such a young age. Pittman was tried as if he were an adult. The high court declined to hear his appeal without any comment. . . . In 2005 a jury convicted Pittman of the double murders committed four years earlier when he shot his grandparents with a shotgun as they slept in bed and then set fire to their home in Chester, South Carolina. . . . He received the minimum sentence of 30 years in prison, without the possibility of parole. . . .Defense lawyers argued the antidepressant drug he was taking led him to commit the murders. But the South Carolina Supreme Court rejected that argument and others raised by Pittman's attorneys, and upheld his conviction and sentence.

Ten Commandments back in court

The Supreme Court will consider whether putting them in a park means giving other religions a place in the sun too.

L.A. Times Editorial

04-09-08 -- When the Supreme Court ruled 46 years ago that official prayers in public schools violated the 1st Amendment, it infuriated those who claimed that public institutions should reflect the fact that this is "one nation, under God" -- the God of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, that is. . . . In recent years, however, supporters of religion in the "public square" often have taken a different tack, arguing not that this is a Christian (or Judeo-Christian) nation but that individual believers have a free-speech right to express their religious views on government property. For example, the American Center for Law and Justice, a public-interest law firm founded by religious broadcaster Pat Robertson, is "dedicated to the ideal that religious freedom and freedom of speech are inalienable, God-given rights." . . . What government may not do, the high court said as long ago as 1947, is "set up a church [or] pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another." Given that precedent, the state of Texas argued a few years ago that a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state Capitol didn't violate the 1st Amendment because it was part of a "museum-like setting" that featured other messages. Besides, the "driving purpose" of the display was to symbolize secular law. By a 5-4 vote, the court upheld the display.

Property group appeals to Supreme Court in Atlantic Yards case

by The Associated Press

04-01-08 -- A group of property owners and tenants facing eviction to make room for a new basketball arena in Brooklyn for the New Jersey Nets has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case. . . . The Atlantic Yards project calls for 16 skyscrapers, an 18,000-seat arena for New Jersey's basketball franchise, and thousands of apartments. The area currently is occupied by a rail yard, industrial buildings, and some businesses and homes. . . . An appeals court in February rejected a lawsuit by the 11 property owners and tenants. The plaintiffs had argued that using eminent domain for the project would violate the Constitution because it would primarily benefit the developer, not the public. . . . Originally, 334 people lived in homes and apartment buildings on the site. Now, about 35 remain, according to Develop Don't Destroy, a non-profit community-run group in Brooklyn. The rest have either been bought out by the developer or evicted from apartment buildings the company controls. The number of active businesses on the site has dropped from 33 to seven.. . . Nets principal owner and project developer Bruce Ratner had called the lower court's decision a victory for the public good that would bring thousands of affordable homes and needed jobs to Brooklyn.

Supreme Court Upholds Delaware's Veto Power Over British Petroleum Project

High court appointed a special master to sift through thousands of documents and hear arguments from both sides

Tony Mauro, Legal Times

04-01-08 -- British Petroleum will have to find another site for a planned $600 million natural gas terminal after the Supreme Court on Monday upheld Delaware's right to nix the plan -- even though the bulk of it would sit on New Jersey soil. . . . By a 6-2 vote, the Court ruled that Delaware can exercise what amounts to veto power over the project because a 2,000-foot pier would extend into parts of the Delaware River owned by Delaware. . . . The high court rejected arguments that because the terminal, known as Crown Landing, would be mainly built in Logan Township, N.J., the Garden State had exclusive authority over all parts of it, including the wharf extending into Delaware. . . . The two justices born in New Jersey, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito Jr., were the only members of the Court to side with New Jersey in the dispute. Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself. According to his latest financial disclosure form, Breyer owns between $15,001 and $50,000 in BP stock.

Supreme Court Agrees to Take Free Speech Case on Religious Monument

Justices also agree to step into case involving payroll deductions for labor union political activity

Pete Yost, The Associated Press

04-01-08 -- The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to step into two free speech cases, one involving a church that wants to place a religious monument in a park and the other on payroll deductions for labor union political activity. . . . Officials in Pleasant Grove City, Utah, asked the court to step into the lawsuit brought by the religious group known as Summum, saying that if the group prevails, governments would be inundated with demands to display donated monuments. . . . The dispute stems from Pleasant Grove City's refusal to allow the display of a "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument in the same park that is the home for a Ten Commandments monument donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles 47 years ago. . . . The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled in favor of the church, saying the monument remains the private speech of the donor and that the park is a public forum. . . . The conservative American Center for Law and Justice is representing Pleasant Grove City in the case.

TEXAS

Supreme Court won't hear 7 killers' appeals
Execution dates for Mexicans pending ruling on lethal injection

By Bennett Roth, Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau

04-01-08 -- The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeals of seven Mexican-born prisoners condemned to die in Texas, including two who had committed murders in Houston in the 1990s. . . . The action followed a high court ruling last week in which the justices rebuffed President Bush for directing the state of Texas to abide by a world court ruling and rehear the case of another Mexican on death row. . . . The prisoner, Jose Medellin, had been convicted of the 1993 rape-murders of two Houston teenagers — Jennifer Ertman, 14, and Elizabeth Pena, 16 — who had stumbled upon a gang initiation. . . . Mexico, which opposes the death penalty, sued the United States in the International Court of Justice in the Hague on behalf of some 50 Mexican citizens, including Medellin, on death rows in the United States. . . . The Mexicans said American officials violated the 1963 Vienna Convention when they failed to allow the citizens of another country access to its representatives after arrest. The world court agreed. . . . But in a 6-3 ruling on March 25, the Supreme Court said the president overstepped his bounds when he ordered states in a memo to abide by the world court's ruling. The U.S. court said a president must consult Congress before issuing an order based on a treaty.

WISCONSIN

Judges can still punish acquitted defendants

In refusing to consider a Wisconsin man's appeal, the Supreme Court says jurists can issue prison sentences even if the jury has cleared a defendant of certain crimes.

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

04-01-08 -- The Supreme Court declined Monday to reconsider a legal rule that might surprise most Americans: Judges can punish defendants for certain crimes even after a jury has acquitted them of those charges. . . . In recent years, the justices have described the right to jury trial as one of the bedrock principles of American law. At the same time, they have been unwilling to say that a jury's not-guilty verdict on some charges means the defendant cannot be punished. Instead, the court has said judges may take into account "acquitted conduct" when they decide on a prison term. . . . The case of Mark Hurn of Madison, Wis., provides a stark example of the rule. . . . Hurn was given an additional 15 years in prison for possessing crack cocaine, even though a jury acquitted him of the charge. He was convicted of having powder cocaine in his house, a charge that would warrant between two and three years in prison under federal sentencing guidelines. . . . But he was sentenced to nearly 18 years in prison, as though he had been convicted on both counts.

March 2008

Justice loses challenge on Hill raid

By Jerry Seper

03-31-08 -- The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to hear an appeal by the Justice Department to overturn a court ruling saying the May 20, 2006, raid by FBI agents of Rep. William J. Jefferson's Capitol Hill office was unconsitututional. . . . In a major victory for the Louisiana Democrat, the ruling means that thousands of pages of documents and other items seized in the raid, none of which have been turned over to prosecutors, will have to be reviewed to determine if they are privileged under the Speech or Debate Clause — a constitutional privilege that protects lawmakers from legal action for legislative activities. . . . In August, a federal appeals court panel ruled that FBI agents violated Jefferson's constitutional rights when they raided his office in a bribery and corruption investigation. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit required the Justice Department to return privileged documents taken from the Rayburn Building, but did not include the $90,000 FBI agents found in the freezer of the lawmaker's Washington home.

Supreme Court Hears Case Involving Mentally Ill Defendants Representing Themselves

Tony Mauro, Legal Times

03-27-08 -- When mentally ill defendants are found competent to stand trial, does that also mean they are competent enough to represent themselves in court? . . . The Supreme Court struggled with that question Wednesday during an oral argument that weighed the Sixth Amendment right to self-representation against a state's interest in not having trials "descend into farce." Along the way, some lawyer jokes were also cracked. . . . The issue in the case Indiana v. Edwards is whether a state may impose a higher standard of competence for self-representation than the fairly minimal test for deciding if a defendant is competent to stand trial. The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that Ahmad Edwards, diagnosed as a schizophrenic, was denied his right to represent himself at a 2005 trial for a department store robbery and shooting. . . . The trial judge had determined that while Edwards met the standard for competence to stand trial -- he understood the proceedings and could assist his lawyer -- he did not have the additional competence to represent himself. . . . Indiana, backed by the Justice Department, argue that in the interest of protecting both the reality and appearance of fairness and dignity of the courts, states should be allowed to set higher standards for self-representation. . . . "If the public sees the spectacle of a mentally ill defendant ... attempt to communicate to the jury on his own in a very delusional way, it really casts the justice system into disrepute," Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Michael Dreeben told the justices.

High court to consider self-representation

By Maureen Groppe, Gannett News Service

03-26-08 -- A shoe shoplifting incident that escalated into a lunchtime shooting in downtown Indianapolis nearly a decade ago is now the basis for the Supreme Court to decide how much latitude states have to determine if a defendant is capable of representing himself at trial. . . . The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Wednesday in an Indiana case in which a Marion County judge decided a defendant with a history of mental illness was competent to stand trial, but not to represent himself as he requested. . . . When Ahmad Edwards appealed his conviction of attempted murder and other charges, the Indiana Supreme Court agreed Edwards had the right to represent himself and reversed his conviction. . . . The Indiana attorney general's office appealed, arguing that allowing mentally impaired defendants to represent themselves undermines fair trials and erodes public confidence in the system. . . . "The consequences often are disastrous for both the defendants and the integrity — not to mention dignity — of the criminal justice system," the Indiana attorney general's office wrote in its brief to the court.

Supreme Court Sides With Texas in Dispute With Bush

High court's 6-3 decision drew strong reaction on both sides

Tony Mauro, Legal Times

03-26-08 -- In a landmark decision at the intersection of state, federal and international law, the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that neither the World Court nor President George W. Bush can mess with Texas when it comes to that state's enforcement of its own criminal laws. . . . The justices, in a 6-3 decision that drew strong reaction on both sides, ruled that neither the international court nor a directive by President Bush, both aimed at enforcing a consular rights treaty signed by the United States, amounted to "enforceable federal law" that could be imposed on Texas. . . . The World Court, known formally as the International Court of Justice, had told Texas in 2004 to review the state convictions of 51 Mexican nationals who had not been informed of their rights under the treaty to seek legal assistance from the Mexican consulate. While an earlier version of the case was pending before the Supreme Court in 2005, President Bush issued a memorandum stating he would meet the treaty obligations by "having state courts give effect" to the World Court ruling.

Saucier Than Usual, the Supreme Court Tackles a Precedent

Tony Mauro, Legal Times

03-25-08 -- In granting review in a new case on police immunity Monday, the Supreme Court took the rare step of announcing its intention to examine whether one of its relatively recent precedents, Saucier v. Katz, "should be overruled." The unusual announcement came in the form of an order directing the parties in the new case, Pearson v. Callahan, to brief that issue in addition to the questions presented by the case. . . . The 2001 decision in Saucier established a two-step test for deciding whether police deserve immunity from lawsuits claiming they violated someone's constitutional rights. First, it must be established that the claimant's constitutional rights were violated. If so, the next question is whether that right was clearly established -- in other words, well-enough known that a reasonable officer should have known what it was.

Justice Scalia and Oscar the Grouch

Tony Mauro, Legal Times

03-20-08 -- Tuesday was a historic day at the Supreme Court, not just because of the oral argument in the Second Amendment case D.C. v. Heller. It also marked the first time that Oscar the Grouch entered the annals of Supreme Court jurisprudence. . . . Justice Antonin Scalia is the one to thank for this milestone. He mentioned the famous Sesame Street character in a tart rebuke aimed at Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. The mention was contained in a Scalia dissent filed in the case of Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, decided Tuesday. . . . In that decision, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court upheld the "top two" primary system in Washington state, which allows candidates to list on the ballot their party preferences -- whether or not the party they prefer wants to be identified with them. The parties complained their First Amendment right not to associate with the candidates would be violated, and voters would be confused. . . . In a concurrence, Roberts supported the majority's view that voter confusion was not at all certain just because a candidate says, "I prefer the Democratic party." To illustrate his point, Roberts said that the statement "I like Campbell's soup" would not necessarily imply any connection with the Campbell Soup Co.

High Court Justices Throw Out Death Sentence, Conviction in Case Involving Racial Prejudice

Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the trial judge should have blocked Williams from striking a black juror

Mark Sherman, The Associated Press

03-18-08 -- The U.S. Supreme Court threw out the death sentence and conviction in a murder case Wednesday, citing racial prejudice in the actions of a prosecutor who kept blacks off the jury. . . . By a 7-2 vote, the justices said Louisiana state prosecutor Jim Williams improperly excluded blacks from the jury that convicted Allen Snyder of killing his estranged wife's companion. Snyder is black, and the jurors were white. . . . Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said the trial judge should have blocked Williams from striking a black juror. . . . Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissented. Thomas said he would not "second-guess" the judge. . . . During jury selection in the trial, Williams disqualified all five blacks in the pool of prospective jurors. The Supreme Court ruled in 1986 that prosecutors may not exclude people from a jury solely because of their race. The court already had sent Snyder's case back to the Louisiana courts following a ruling in 2005 that bolstered the prohibition on race bias in jury selection.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments in D.C. Gun Ban Case

Afterwards, gun-control advocates seemed less pessimistic than before the arguments, though they did not predict victory

Tony Mauro, Legal Times

03-19-08 -- When Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is cast as the swing vote in a case before the Court, he often waits until late in the oral argument to tip his hand. . . . But as the Court considered the landmark Second Amendment case D.C. v. Heller on Tuesday, Kennedy was quick to lay bare his view on the scope of the right to bear arms contained in the amendment. The first part, he said, was meant to reaffirm "the existence and the importance" of the treatment of state militias contained in the Constitution itself. The second part, Kennedy asserted, means that "in addition" there is a right to bear arms, which he later declared was a "general right." . . . The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." . . . Kennedy's comments appeared to spell trouble for efforts by the District of Columbia to revive its strict handgun ban, although lawyers for both the Bush administration and gun-rights advocates acknowledged that some lesser regulation of the right would be acceptable. . . . Counting Kennedy, it appeared that five or more justices

Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Broadcast Indecency

Tony Mauro, Legal Times 

03-19-08 -- Thirty years after it approved FCC rules banning the use of "indecent" language on broadcast television and radio, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to look at the issue again -- this time in the context of the fleeting use of expletives in live broadcasts. . . . At issue in the case of FCC v. Fox Television Stations is the seemingly spontaneous use of the "F-word" by Cher in 2002 and Nicole Richie in 2003 on Fox broadcasts of the Billboard Music Awards. . . . In accepting an award, Cher said critics had counted her out for decades, and she added, "So fuck 'em. I still have a job, and they don't." . . . Richie got an award for her role in a reality show that had her living a rural life. "Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse?" she asked on the air. "It's not so fucking simple." . . . After receiving complaints, the FCC ruled that these instances and others violated its 2001 policy that seemed to extend the ban on indecent language to "even relatively fleeting" instances. The commission also ruled against NBC when the singer Bono exclaimed during a Golden Globes award broadcast in 2003 that the award was "fucking brilliant." The commission did not levy fines, however, finding that networks did not have adequate notice of its policy.

U.S. Supreme Court to review '94 murder case

By Christine Clarridge, Seattle Times staff reporter

Archive | The story of a drive-by murder

03-19-08 -- The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether to reinstate the murder conviction of the driver in a fatal drive-by shooting of a Ballard High School student 14 years ago. . . . The Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments this fall in the case of Cesar Sarausad II, who was a 19-year-old University of Washington engineering student when Melissa Fernandes was fatally shot at Ballard High on March 23, 1994. . . . The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco had overturned Sarausad's second-degree murder conviction because it determined that King County Superior Court Judge Larry A. Jordan erred when he told jurors Sarausad could be convicted of murder regardless of whether he knew of any plan for a killing. . . . The appeals panel ruled that the jury should have been told Sarausad could be convicted of murder only if he knew the triggerman had a gun and planned to kill. . . . The state appealed the 9th Circuit decision, and the Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear the case.

Justices Overturn Death Sentence in La.

By David Stout

03-19-08 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned the conviction and death sentence of a Louisiana man who killed his estranged wife in a jealous rage, finding that the trial judge “committed clear error” in excluding black jurors. . . . By 7 to 2, the court ruled in favor of Allen Snyder, whose case came before the justices for the second time last December, two years after they had sent it back to the Louisiana Supreme Court and told that tribunal to consider whether the jury selection had been tainted by racial bias. . . . The Louisiana high court reaffirmed the conviction and sentence by a vote of 4 to 3, but the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned that judgment, finding that, even under the wide deference that appellate courts must grant trial courts, the trial of Mr. Snyder, who is black, was tainted. . . . The opinion, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., found that the prosecutor’s reasoning for excluding all black jurors was highly implausible, and that the trial judge should not have accepted it.

Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Over Reimbursement of Paralegal Costs

Issue is crucial to small firms litigating against U.S. government

Marcia Coyle, The National Law Journal

03-17-08 -- A small security business that waged a long and successful court battle with the federal government over back wages is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that a federal law, enacted nearly 30 years ago, allows reimbursement of paralegal expenses at market rates and not at a law firm's cost. . . . Congress enacted the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) to level somewhat the playing field for small businesses and individuals litigating against the federal government. It allows them, if successful, to be reimbursed for attorney fees and other expenses. But the law is silent on how to treat paralegal services. . . . "For big law firms, EAJA fees don't make any difference to them," said Brian Wolfman of Public Citizen Litigation Group, high court counsel to Richlin Security Service, the firm seeking reimbursement. But paralegals are used heavily by smaller firms in the hundreds of Social Security, veterans and contract cases filed predominantly in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and in other circuits as well, he said. . . . On Wednesday, Wolfman will argue that the Federal Circuit was wrong on law and logic when it held -- contrary to court interpretations of similar fee-shifting statutes -- that paralegal services are not embraced by the statute's phrase "attorney fees," but fall into the category of "other expenses," reimbursable at actual cost. Richlin Security Service v. Chertoff.

Court Will Examine Profanity Rules

By Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer

03-17-08 -- The Supreme Court on Monday stepped into a legal fight over the use of curse words on the airwaves, the high court's first major case on broadcast indecency in 30 years. . . . The case concerns a Federal Communications Commission policy that allows for fines against broadcasters for so-called "fleeting expletives," one-time uses of the F-word or its close cousins. . . . Fox Broadcasting Co., along with ABC, CBS and NBC, challenged the new policy after the commission said broadcasts of entertainment awards shows in 2002 and 2003 were indecent because of profanity uttered by Bono, Cher and Nicole Richie. . . . A federal appeals court said the new policy was invalid and could violate the First Amendment.

Case could expand rights to court-appointed lawyers.

By Chuck Lindell, American-Statesman Staff
03-17-08 -- Walt Rothgery, a modest man with a hard-luck life, is about to be immortalized by the U.S. Supreme Court. . . . His case, resulting from a mistaken arrest six years ago, will be argued before the nation's highest court Monday. The ensuing opinion will be known as the Rothgery decision — discussed by journalists, dissected by legal scholars and cited by lawyers in future legal briefs. . . . "Isn't that something?" said Rothgery, 57, a store manager for a party supply rental business. . . . "Just to be sitting in the (Supreme Court) chambers and hearing a case involving me, I don't really know how I'll feel," he said, groping for the right description. "Awe? Give me another word." . . . Rothgery's case could expand, or at least better define, when criminal defendants are entitled to a lawyer if they cannot afford to hire one. He has the support of the American Bar Association, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and 24 high-profile law professors, including Jordan Steiker of the University of Texas. . . . Rothgery's supporters want Texas counties to appoint a lawyer during a suspect's first court appearance, when charges are explained and a trip to jail is possible. Such a practice could have saved Rothgery from three weeks in jail and the stigma of being arrested, which left him unable to find a job and deeply in debt, lawyer Andrea Marsh said.

D.C. Gun Case Draws Crowd of High Court 'Friends'

By Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer

03-10-08 -- With the Supreme Court examining for the first time in 70 years the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment, a group of gay and transgender gun owners called the Pink Pistols could not miss out on a chance to tell the justices about its special needs. . ..  With the opaque and oddly punctuated 27 words of 18th-century prose at last under the microscope, linguistic professors wanted the court to know that "the Second Amendment's absolute construction functions as a sentence modifier." . ..  With the intentions of the Framers in question and modern social policy at stake, justices considering whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Constitution have received an avalanche of advice from professors, doctors, social scientists, district attorneys, historians, religious groups, members of Congress and, of course, Vice President Cheney.

Supreme Court defers action on TV 'expletives' case

By David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

03-05-08 -- The Supreme Court took no action today on the government's move to levy large fines on broadcasters who let expletives slip on the air during daytime or early evening hours -- leaving the issue still pending before the court. . . . At times, the justices debate a pending appeal and defer action until they have had more time to consider an aspect of the case. The court will next issue orders on pending appeals March 17. . . . Last year, an appeals court in New York blocked the Federal Communications Commission from enforcing its new rule against "fleeting expletives." And Bush administration lawyers had urged the Supreme Court to take up the dispute and to give the FCC a green light to enforce the new policy. . . . The appeal was considered by the high court in its closed conference on Friday, but the justices did not say today whether they had agreed to hear it or deny it. . . . Lawyers for Fox TV and the other networks had urged the justices to stay out of the case. They said the FCC should be forced to explain why the agency had changed course in 2004 and adopted a near zero-tolerance policy for broadcast expletives.

February 2008

Supreme Court Could Limit Damages in Exxon Valdez Case

Packed courtroom hears historic 90 minutes of arguments

Tony Mauro, Legal Times

02-29-08 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared unwilling to toss out the $2.5 billion punitive damage award against Exxon Mobil Corp. for the massive Exxon Valdez oil spill 19 years ago. . . . But the justices also seemed to think that $2.5 billion was too much, pointing toward a possible compromise decision that will give partial victories both to the oil company and the class of 32,000 Alaska fishermen and others involved in the case. . . . The historic 90 minutes of arguments in Exxon Shipping v. Baker represent the culmination of years of litigation seeking compensation for the lingering effects of the 11 million-gallon oil spill on the lives and economy of Prince William Sound. A jury awarded the group $287 million in compensatory damages and $5 billion in punitives, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit cut the punitive award in half.

Supreme Court Says FedEx Employees Can Sue Over Age Discrimination

As a result of the EEOC's failure to notify, the chance for an informal dispute resolution process was lost

Mark Sherman, The Associated Press 

02-29-08 -- The Supreme Court decided Wednesday that employees who claim job discrimination should not suffer because of mistakes made by the federal agency charged with investigating their allegations. . . . The 7-2 ruling allows an age discrimination lawsuit to proceed against FedEx Corp. . . . The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy is critical of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which failed to notify FedEx that 14 employees had filed a complaint. Companies must be told about complaints before discrimination lawsuits can be filed. . . . As a result of the EEOC's failure to notify, the two sides lost the benefit to engage in an informal dispute resolution process. . . . The lower court that will now hear the case "can attempt to remedy this deficiency" by allowing for conciliation and possible settlement, Kennedy wrote.

Justices Side With West Virginia Smokers in Lawsuit Against Tobacco Companies

The Associated Press 

02-27-08 -- The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a tobacco industry request to intervene in a lawsuit by over a thousand West Virginia smokers. . . . The justices declined to examine a trial procedure in which a jury first determines whether smokers as a group are entitled to punitive damages before establishing whether any single smoker is entitled to compensation. . . . Later, a new jury addresses issues unique to each alleged smoking victim who sued. . . . West Virginia courts are allowing the approach, which has been used in other types of lawsuits, including claims for asbestos exposure. . . . The second phases of such trials rarely occur, because the two sides usually settle once they know the value of the case. . . . Tobacco companies oppose use of the legal device, which lawyers call "reverse bifurcation."

Did Allison Engine Case Throw a Rod Before the U.S. Supreme Court?

Tony Mauro, Legal Times 

02-27-08 -- Oral argument in the whistleblower case of Allison Engine Company v. United States took a strange twist Tuesday when Supreme Court justices, at least temporarily, seemed convinced that crucial facts of the case were not quite what they had appeared. After seemingly new information emerged, an exasperated Justice Antonin Scalia said to one of the lawyers, "I wish you had said that in your brief, because we could have saved ourselves a lot of reading." . . . The case is a test of the False Claims Act, which rewards whistleblowers who report when the U.S. government is being defrauded by those who do business with it. At issue is whether the law only covers those cases in which a fraudulent bill is presented directly to the government -- or, alternatively, it could also cover subcontractor situations in which government funds may be misspent, but the actual fraudulent bill is presented not to the government directly but to a company or other institution, like a hospital, that receives federal funds.

Interpreting the Supreme Court's Medical Device Decision

By Justin Ewers

02-22-08 -- On the face of it, the Supreme Court's decision this week to shield medical device makers from lawsuits appeared to be a big win for business—and a possible sign of hard times to come for consumers. In an 8-to-1 decision, the justices ruled against a New York man, Charles Riegel, who died after a balloon catheter made by Medtronic burst after being inserted during an angioplasty in 1996. Riegel's wife sued, but the court sided with the company, saying states don't have the right to impose liability on medical device makers so long as the devices have been approved by the FDA. . . . Consumer advocates were outraged, viewing the decision as the first blow struck by an increasingly pro-business court. The ruling, after all, effectively makes the FDA—an agency that has struggled recently in its monitoring role—the final word on medical devices: If the agency gives a product its approval, consumers harmed by a device may have limited legal recourse. Democrats on Capitol Hill are beside themselves. "In enacting legislation on medical devices, Congress never intended that FDA approval would give blanket immunity to manufacturers from liability for injuries caused by faulty devices," Sen. Ted Kennedy said in a statement. "Congress obviously needs to correct the court's decision."

Justices Will Hear Case on Evidence Suppression

By Linda Greenhouse

02-20-08 -- In theory, a criminal-law doctrine known as the exclusionary rule forbids prosecutors from using evidence obtained by the police as the result of an improper search. In practice, the rule has significant exceptions, like for evidence obtained in good faith through reliance on an invalid search warrant or as the result of erroneous information from a court official. . . . Justices on the current Supreme Court have made no secret of their desire to carve more exceptions out of the nearly 100-year-old exclusionary rule. On Tuesday, the court accepted a new case that could provide a route toward that goal. . . . The question in the case is whether the list of exceptions should be expanded to include evidence obtained from a search undertaken by officers relying on a careless record-keeping error by the police. . . . In this instance, officers in Coffee County, Ala., arrested a man, Bennie Dean Herring, in 2004 after being informed by the Sheriff’s Department in neighboring Dale County that he was the subject of an outstanding warrant. But the warrant, although still in Dale