by SCOTUScaster
Posted February 03, 2012, 10:30 AM
On January 10th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in FCC v. Fox. The question in the case is whether the Federal Communications Commission’s standards for indecency are too vague to be constitutional.
We have Erik Jaffe, a Washington, D.C. attorney who specializes in appellate litigation, and Patrick Brennan, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs at the Villanova University School of Law, to discuss the case.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted February 02, 2012, 5:30 PM
On January 23, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Reynolds v. United States. The case concerned whether the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) requires an offender who was convicted before the passage of SORNA to register under it even though the legislation appears to leave that determination to the U.S. attorney general. A lower court determined that SORNA itself required pre-SORNA offenders to register even if the attorney general had not yet deemed that requirement applicable to them.
In an opinion penned by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. By a vote of 7-2, the Court held that SORNA’s registration requirements, properly interpreted, do not apply to pre-SORNA offenders until the attorney general so specifies. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Ginsburg.
To discuss the case, we have Michael DeBow, a professor at the Samford University Cumberland School of Law.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted February 01, 2012, 10:40 AM
On January 11th, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Perry v. New Hampshire. The question was whether, in a criminal case, the Due Process Clause requires a court to evaluate the reliability of an eyewitness identification of the defendant when the circumstances under which the identification occurred were suggestive, regardless of how those circumstances came about. The lower court rejected the defendant’s argument and concluded that a court is required to assess the reliability of identification evidence only when law enforcement employs suggestive identification techniques.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court affirmed the lower court decision 8-1. Where there is no improper law enforcement activity involved, the Court held, it suffices to test reliability through the normal rights and opportunities afforded for that purpose, such as the presence of counsel at post-indictment lineups and vigorous cross-examination. Justice Thomas wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, and Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
To discuss the case, we have Jessie Liu, a partner at Jenner & Block.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted January 30, 2012, 5:44 PM
On January 18th, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Golan v. Holder. The question was whether Congress has the power to restore copyright protection to works that have entered the public domain.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court affirmed 6-2 that Congress does have the authority to put certain works that have entered the public domain back under copyright protection. Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Alito, filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
We have Christopher Newman, assistant professor at the George Mason University School of Law, to discuss the case.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted January 27, 2012, 11:22 AM
On January 10, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Minneci v. Pollard. The question in the case was whether prison inmates may invoke the Bivens doctrine to bring suit against the employees of a private company hired by the federal government to provide services for the prison.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held 8-1 that it could not imply a Bivens remedy here because state law authorized alternative damages actions that provide both significant deterrence and compensation. Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, wrote an opinion concurring in the Court’s judgment. Justice Ginsberg filed a dissenting opinion.
We have Alexander Volokh, assistant professor at Emory University School of Law, to discuss the case.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted January 26, 2012, 11:04 AM
On January 9th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sackett v. EPA. The case involves two landowners who graded a lot in a residential subdivision so that they could build a home there. The Environmental Protection Agency subsequently issued an administrative compliance order to the landowners stating that the graded lot was a wetland, and directing the landowners either to remove the fill and restore the lot to its original condition, or risk civil fines in the amount of thousands of dollars for each day of non-compliance.
The question before the Court is whether the landowners may seek judicial review of the EPA’s compliance order before it is actually enforced against them and, if not, whether the compliance order deprives the landowners of due process of law.
We have Elizabeth Papez, a partner at Winston & Strawn, to discuss the case.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted January 25, 2012, 12:48 PM
On January 10, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Gonzalez v. Thaler. The case presented two questions arising under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The first was whether a judge’s failure to “indicate” the constitutional issue that a state prisoner has raised in a habeas appeal deprives a court of subject-matter jurisdiction to hear that appeal. The second question was when a judgment becomes “final” for purposes of calculating the one-year limit that state prisoners have in which to file a federal habeas petition.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held 8-1 that (1) a judge’s failure to “indicate” the requisite constitutional issue raised by a state prisoner does not deprive a court jurisdiction to hear a state prisoner’s habeas appeal, and (2) for a state prisoner who does not seek review in the state’s highest court, judgment becomes final on the date that the time for seeking such review expires. On that basis, the Court affirmed the decision of the lower court that the state prisoner’s federal habeas petition was time-barred. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion.
To discuss the case, we have Ozan Varol, visiting assistant professor at the Chicago-Kent College of Law.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted January 24, 2012, 10:38 AM
On January 10th, the Supreme Court announced its decision in CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood. The case regarded the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA), which requires credit repair organizations to disclose to consumers that they have a right to sue credit repair organizations that violate the Act. At issue was whether a credit repair company being sued by former customers under CROA could force those customers to arbitrate their claims based on an arbitration provision contained in the customers’ credit card applications.
In an opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court held 8-1 that CROA does not address the arbitrability of claims made under it, and that the Federal Arbitration Act therefore requires the arbitration agreement to be enforced according to its terms. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion.
We have Christopher Drahozal, a professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, to discuss the case.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted January 19, 2012, 9:52 AM
On January 11th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals. The question before the Court is whether Congress, in passing the “self-care” provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act, constitutionally abrogated the Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity of the states. Under the Act's self-care provision, a state worker may sue if the state interferes with the worker’s statutory right to a certain amount of leave for a personal debilitating health condition.
To discuss the case, we have Elizabeth Foley, professor at the Florida International University School of Law.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted January 17, 2012, 8:28 PM
On January 11, 2012, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Pacific Operators Offshore LLP v. Valladolid. The question in the case was whether an employee who spent nearly all his time working on an offshore platform, but was killed in an accident at an onshore facility, suffered his injuries “as the result of” operations conducted on the outer continental shelf, thereby giving his widow a claim for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, by way of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). An administrative law judge and review board denied benefits because the accident occurred onshore, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that a benefits claimant need only establish a “substantial nexus” between the injury and extractive operations on the outer continental shelf.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, the Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. The OCSLA, the Court held, extends coverage to an employee who can establish a substantial nexus between his injury and his employer’s extractive operations on the Outer Continental Shelf. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, which Justice Alito joined.
To discuss the case, we have Richard Epstein, professor at New York University School of Law and professor emeritus at the University of Chicago Law School.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted January 13, 2012, 11:53 AM
On January 11, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. This case presented the question whether the “ministerial exception” to federal employment discrimination statutes--an exception that generally shields religious organizations from claims of unlawful discrimination by employees who perform religious functions--applies to a teacher at a religious elementary school who alleged that the termination of her employment violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lower appellate court concluded that the teacher did not qualify as a “minister” and that the exception therefore provided no defense against the teacher’s lawsuit.
In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts the Supreme Court held unanimously that the teacher did qualify as a minister and that the “ministerial exception” barred her suit challenging the church’s decision to terminate her employment. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion; Justice Alito also filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Kagan.
We have Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School, to discuss the case.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted December 20, 2011, 4:00 PM
On December 7, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. The question is whether a patent can be issued for an observed correlation between blood test results and patient reactions to prescription drugs.
To discuss the case we have Adam Mossoff, professor at George Mason University School of Law.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted December 15, 2011, 10:41 AM
On December 6, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Williams v. Illinois. The issue in the case is whether a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated when an expert witness for the prosecution testified at trial about the results of a DNA test in which the expert witness had not been involved and which had been performed by an out-of-state analyst who was not present at the trial.
To discuss the case we have John O’Quinn, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted December 13, 2011, 1:48 PM
On December 5, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Messerschmidt v. Millender. This case presents the question of whether: 1) police officers are entitled to immunity from suit when their search of a gang member’s residence was based on a warrant that a court later determined to be overly broad and not reasonably supported by probable cause, and 2) whether the standard applicable to immunity determinations in such circumstances is problematic and should be altered.
We have Joshua Skinner to discuss the case.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted December 08, 2011, 11:42 AM
On November 28, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards. The question in the case is whether a private purchaser of real estate settlement services has standing to sue banks and title companies that pay kickbacks for closing a mortgage loan, when there is no claim that the kickbacks affected the price or quality of services provided.
We have Kevin Walsh to discuss the case.
www.FedSocBlog.com
The Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy initiatives. Any expressions of opinion are solely those of the author(s). We hope this blog will foster discussion regarding important current issues.
A project of The Federalist Society
1015 18th St. NW, Ste. 425, Washington, DC 20036
Copyright © 2010-11 The Federalist Society