Opinions This Week
The Court will be issuing opinions in one or more argued cases both tomorrow and Wednesday. There’ll be an Order List today.
February 2005 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 62 items published in February 2005, most recent first.
Order List — Four Grants; One CVSG
Here is today’s Order List. The Court granted certiorari in four cases and asked for the SG’s views in another. Still no word on the four petitions challenging the constitutionality of the recess appointment of Judge Pryor.
Court agrees to hear four cases
The Supreme Court on Monday granted review of four cases, one on the free-speech rights of public employees, one on state taxes on gasoline sold by Indian tribes to their customers, and two on jurisdictional issues.
Today’s News – Monday, Feb. 28, 2005
On Sunday The L.A. Times had this editorial piece on Chief Justice Rehnquist’s legacy. UPI’s Michael Kirkland has this article in The Washington Times discussing opinions and oral arguments from last week.
Tuesday’s Argument in Exxon v. Allapattah Services and Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods
Tuesday, in the consolidated argument of Exxon Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc. and Ortega v. Star-Kist Foods, Inc., the Court will take another swing at deciding whether 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (the supplemental jurisdiction statute) allows a federal court with diversity jurisdiction over a claim exceeding the jurisdictional amount to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related claims that do not.
Jose Padilla ordered released — or charged
This is a followup to the Supreme Court’s rulings on June 28, 2004, in Rumsfeld v. Padilla and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
Tomorrow’s Argument In Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line
I’m arguing this case tomorrow at the Court. The question is the extent to which Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act applies to cruise ships, and foreign-flagged cruise ships in particular.
Today’s News – Friday, Feb. 25, 2005
Tom Perrotta has this article in New York Law Journal discussing the Court’s opinions in Blakely and Booker. Ann Woolner has this opinion piece in Bloomberg on Gonzales v. Oregon, in which the Court granted cert. on Tuesday.
City of Evanston v. Franklin
As Tom previously noted, we filed a brief in opposition to certiorari today in No. 04-856, City of Evanston v. Franklin.
Double Jeopardy Violated by Reversal of Midtrial Acquittal
The Court on Tuesday announced its decision in Smith v. Massachusetts, vacating a state conviction on Double Jeopardy grounds where the judge reversed a midtrial ruling of insufficiency of the evidence on one count.
Today’s News – Thursday, Feb. 24, 2005
News on the Court’s opinion, issued yesterday, in No. 03-636, Johnson v. California: Joan Biskupic of USAToday; Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle; Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times; Charles Lane of The Washington Post; Tony Mauro of Legal Times; Michael McGough of The Pittsburgh
April arguments, day by day
Here are brief summaries of the 11 cases the Supreme Court will hear in the weeks of April 18 and April 25. The calendar can be found here. The Court granted review of these cases on January 7 or 14. These will be the final arguments of the Term, unless an emergency case arises.
More on Kelo
Interesting observations on the Kelo case from Dahlia Lithwick in Slate, and from Professors Peter Byrne and Richard Epstein, debating over at Legal Affairs.
Racial segregation in prison may be curbed
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that racial segregation of prison inmates, in their cells and elsewhere in prison operations, is a form of racial classification that must be judged by a rigorous constitutional standard: strict scrutiny.
Today’s News – Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2005
CNN.com has this article on the Court’s opinion, issued today, in No. 03-636, Johnson v. California.
Todays Grants: Tum and Alvarez
The Court today granted certiorari in, and consolidated, two related cases, Tum v. Barber Foods, Inc. (in which Goldstein & Howe represents the petitioners) and IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez.
Wednesday’s Argument in Exxon Mobil v. Saudi Basic
In District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, the Court breathed surprising new life into a relatively simple sixty-year-old case, Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., creating the eponymous “Rooker-Feldman Doctrine.” This Wednesday, the Court hears argument on whether its Rooker-Feldman creation
Court agrees to hear assisted suicide, worker pay cases
The Supreme Court, returning from a four-week recess, stepped into another angry cultural controversy, agreeing on Tuesday to hear the Bush Administration’s challenge to Oregon’s doctor-assisted suicide law – the Death With Dignity Act.
Order and Opinion Links
Lyle has details from the Court on a number of orders and opinions in the post below this one. Here is the orders list. The Court granted our petition in No. 04-66, Tum v. Barber Foods, which is consolidated with No. 03-1238, IBP v. Alvarez. (We had recommended the consolidation.)
Wednesday’s Argument in Orff v. United States
What do you get when you mix trillions of gallons of water, a group of angry farmers, and an almost-endangered fish? A circuit split and a ticket to the United States Supreme Court, of course!
More on Whitman v. DOT
The petitioner in this case is Terry Whitman, an air traffic control assistant for the FAA. Whitman filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska in which he contended that the FAA had disproportionately subjected him to drug testing, in violation of a statute requiring the FAA to ensure that drug testing is random.
Today’s News – Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2005
News on today’s oral arguments in Kelo v. City of New London: Matt Apuzzo in Cincinnati’s The Enquirer; Tim Dowling has this op-ed in Legal Times (subscription required); Paul Farmer has this opinion piece in USAToday; Martin Garbus has this op-ed in The L.A. Times, which also discusses today’s
Invitations to the Solicitor General and a Dissent from the Denial of Cert.
The Court asked for the views of the government in 2 cases today: No. 04-621, Public Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Dynegy Power Marketing, a case involving the filed-rate doctrine.
Marty Lederman Reports from Today’s Oral Arguments
Marty reports that, based on the impression left by the oral arguments, the government-side is going to win today’s property rights cases overwhelmingly. In Kelo, the plaintiffs may get as many as three votes: Scalia; Thomas (who did not ask any questions); and Rehnquist (who was not there).
Georgetown Spector Panel Discussion
Georgetown University Law Center will be hosting a Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd. panel discussion on March 1. Please see this website for more information. [Disclaimer: Goldstein & Howe, P.C. is counsel for the petitioners.]
Dissent from the Denial of Cert. Coming?
Keep your eyes out for No. 04-607, Laboratory Corp. of Am. v. Metabolite Labs. This case is about to be relisted for the fourth time. The patent question in the case (plus the fact that the record hasn’t been requested) suggests that a dissent from the denial of cert. is more likely here than a summary reversal.
April Argument Calendar
With thanks to Doug Ross for the head’s up, here is the April calendar.
Brand X Communications
As I mentioned earlier, we’re joint counsel to the respondents in this case. Here is the brief (and appendix) for the private respondents. We also represent the governmental respondents, but we were much less involved in their brief.
Spector Report
The National Council on Disability has drafted this report on No. 03-1388, Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line (in which we represent the petitioners), and its implications for persons with disabilities. The case will be argued on Monday, February 28.
The mystery four words
I mentioned in an earlier post that the City’s counsel in Kelo told the Court he was going to close with four words, but then his time expired and they remained a mystery.
February/March Hearing List
Here is the list of attorneys who will be appearing in the ten oral arguments of the session beginning tomorrow. Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement will be arguing for the United States as amicus curiae in support of the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments displays in both cases raising that question on Wednesday, March 2d.
A Banner Sitting for Jones Day
Following up on Marty’s post about arguing counsel, it’s worth highlighting that Jones Day is arguing three cases this sitting. On February 22, Los Angeles partner Craig Stewart will argue the Lingle takings case.
Moussaoui: an acquittal in the offing?
The Justice Department chose to bring its terrorism case against Zacarias Moussaoui in Alexandria, VA, precisely because it believed that venue would significantly enhance its chances of getting a conviction and a death sentence in the only case in the U.S. charging an individual with crimes related to the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Tomorrow’s Argument in Kelo v. City of New London
Tomorrow’s first argument is one of the most highly anticipated property rights cases in years – Kelo v. City of New London and New London Development Corporation, No. 04-108.
Case Summary – Lingle v. Chevron USA
Lingle v. Chevron USA, a regulatory takings case that will be argued on Tuesday, involves a Hawaiian statute limiting the rents that oil companies can charge gasoline retailers for the use of service stations. The Ninth Circuit struck down the statute as effecting an unconstitutional taking.
Today’s News on the Chief
News on the Court’s announcement that Chief Justice Rehnquist will not be on the bench Tuesday when the Court’s term restarts: Greg Stohr of Bloomberg; David Stout of The New York Times; David Strickland of New York Newsday; Hope Yen of the AP on ABC News; and this Reuters report.
SG Denied Oral Argument in Exxon/Ortega
The Court today denied the Acting SG’s motion for leave to participate in oral argument one week from Tuesday in Nos. 04-70, Exxon Corp. v. Allappattah Servs. and 04-79, Ortega v. Starkist Foods — despite the fact that 90 minutes have been set aside for argument of the consolidated cases (which deal with the Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute, 28 U.S.C. 1367).
Update on the Chief Justice
The continuing side-effects of Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s treatment for thyroid cancer will again keep him away from the Supreme Court’s public sessions over the next two weeks. Other news stories, linked below, reported his continuing absence.
Minor Pryor Development
Our reply brief in the Evans v. Stephens case advised the Court that we thought another petition would soon be filed in which the judgment was final in the court of appeals and the objection to Judge Pryor’s appointment had been preserved below.
Roe v. Wade Redux
One of the cases that the Court will consider at its conference on Friday is No. 04-967, McCorvey v. Hill.
Yesterday’s Filing
Yesterday we filed this reply to the brief in opposition in No. 04-936, NIBCO, Inc. v. Rivera. This case concerns a Title VII defendant’s right to discovery regarding plaintiffs’ immigration status.
En banc review denied in military tribunal case
Slowing down a case that appears headed for the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit has refused to grant en banc review, at this point, in the case testing the constitutionality of President Bush’s military tribunals set up to try foreign nationals on war on terrorism criminal charges.
A new way to attack death sentences
The Supreme Court, since reinstating the death penalty in 1976, has made it clear that defects in a key factor in many death sentencing cases can be cured by corrective decisions in appeals courts. But that rule may no longer be true – or at least, perhaps not true in many cases.
Firm Developments
The firm is pleased to congratulate our associate, Sonja, on formally accepting an offer to clerk in The Hague, Netherlands, for a judge on the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
More on No. 04-806, Arkansas v. Jolly
Yesterday we filed our brief in opposition to cert. in No. 04-806, Arkansas v. Jolly, the second of four briefs that we did with our students in the Harvard Winter Term class.
Today’s News – Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2005
Tony Mauro of Legal Times has this article (subscription required) on Justice Blackmun’s papers, which were released last year. Michael Bobelian has this article in New York Law Journal (subscription required) discussing Merck v. Integra, in which the Court granted cert. on January 7.
Drug-sniffing dogs: a Fourth Amendment sequel?
The Supreme Court spent little effort on a recent decision allowing police, who have stopped a car for a traffic violation, to walk a drug-detection dog around the vehicle to check for illegal narcotics. It took less than five full pages to decide the case of Illinois v. Caballes on January 24.
The Court’s Upcoming Calendar
Thanks so much for visiting the blog as we cross the desert of the Court’s January-February recess. The Justices last issued opinions or orders on January 24, and they don’t return until 29 days later on February 22. This is the last big break of the term.
Debate Club: Supreme Court term limits
Legal Affairs’ Debate Club is hosting Norman J. Ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and Ward Farnsworth, Professor of Law and Class of 1960 Scholar at the Boston University School of Law, in a debate on the possibility of term limits for the Supreme Court Justices.
Today’s News – Friday, Feb. 11, 2005
The AP has this article in The Chicago Sun Times on a Bush administration request that the Court block O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal from using hallucinogenic tea. Bruce Ackerman has this essay on the next possible Supreme Court Justice nominee.
12