by SCOTUScaster
Posted May 22, 2013, 12:46 PM
On April 15, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. The issue in this case is whether human genes are patentable.
To discuss the case, we have Gregory Dolin, associate rofessor and co-director of the Center for Medicine and Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted May 21, 2013, 5:20 PM
On April 23, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Moncrieffe v. Holder. The question in this case was whether a conviction under state law that encompasses--but is not limited to--distributing marijuana without remuneration constitutes an “aggravated felony” for purposes of deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
In an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held by a vote of 7-2 that if a non-citizen’s conviction for a marijuana distribution offense fails to establish that the offense involved either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana, the conviction does constitute an “aggravated felony” for purposes of the INA. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan joined the majority opinion. Justices Thomas and Alito filed dissenting opinions.
To discuss the case, we have Scott Broyles, an assistant professor at Charlotte School of Law.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted May 20, 2013, 6:20 PM
On April 29, the Supreme Court announced its decision in McBurney v. Young. The question in the case was whether Virginia's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by declining to grant citizens of other states the right of access to public records that Virginia affords its own citizens.
In an unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that Virginia’s FOIA does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause or the dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
To discuss the case, we have Christopher Green, a professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law and currently visiting at the University of San Diego School of Law.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted May 16, 2013, 5:37 PM
On April 22, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. The question in the case is whether United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, 22 U.S.C. § 7631(f), which requires an organization to have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking in order to receive federal funding to provide HIV and AIDS programs overseas, violates the First Amendment.
To discuss the case we have Erik Jaffe, a Washington, D.C. attorney who specializes in appellate litigation.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted May 15, 2013, 6:05 PM
On April 17, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. The case involved the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which permits non-U.S. citizens to bring a lawsuit in federal court in order to seek relief for certain violations of international law.
This case was first argued February 28, 2012, and considered whether corporations, and not merely individuals, can be held liable in an ATS lawsuit, and whether that issue affects the jurisdiction of the court even to hear the case. On March 5, 2012, however, the Supreme Court put the Kiobel case back on the calendar for re-argument, and directed the parties to brief an additional question--whether and under what circumstances the ATS allows courts to address violations of the law of nations that occur outside the United States.
In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that a presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the ATS, and nothing in ATS rebuts this presumption. Thus, plaintiff-petitioners cannot proceed under the ATS in this case. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined the Chief Justice’s majority opinion. Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgement, which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined.
To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted May 07, 2013, 6:48 PM
On April 17, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Salinas v. Texas. This case considers whether and under what circumstances a defendant who refused to answer questions from officers before he had been arrested or read Miranda rights was protected by the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
To discuss the case, we have Kent Scheidegger, who is the Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted May 06, 2013, 1:04 PM
On April 17, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Kebodeaux. The case involves the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) of 2006, which created both a direct federal requirement for sex offenders to register and a federal penalty for failing to register. The case considers whether a federal court of appeals erred in 1) operating on the premise that Kebodeaux was not under a federal registration obligation until SORNA was enacted, and 2) concluding that Congress lacked the power under Article I of the Constitution to apply SORNA’s registration requirement and penalty to a former sex offender like Kebodeaux, who was no longer in government custody or on supervised release.
To discuss the case, we have Randy Barnett, the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at Georgetown University Law Center.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted May 02, 2013, 11:50 AM
On March 27, 2013, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Millbrook v. United States. The question in this case was whether a proviso in the Federal Tort Claims Act that permits suits against the federal government for assaults committed by federal law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their employment applies in a case where a federal prisoner was allegedly raped by prison guards.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held unanimously that the proviso permitting suits extends to acts or omissions of law enforcement officers that arise within the scope of their employment, regardless of whether the officers are engaged in investigative or law enforcement activity, or are executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest. Because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had taken a more limited view of the proviso’s scope, the Supreme Court reversed the Third Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
To discuss the case we have Andrew Spiropoulos, a professor of law and Director of the Center for the Study of State Constitutional Law and Government at Oklahoma City University School of Law.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted April 30, 2013, 4:23 PM
On February 19, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Florida v. Harris, and on March 26, the Court announced its decision in Florida v. Jardines. Both cases involve the use of narcotics detection dogs and the Fourth Amendment.
The question in Florida v. Harris was whether a narcotics detection dog’s “alert” constitutes probable cause for the search of a private vehicle. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, the Court held that because the training and testing records demonstrated the dog’s reliability in detecting drugs--and the defendant failed to undermine that evidence--the dog’s “alert” provided probable cause for searching the vehicle.
Florida v. Jardines considered whether taking a narcotics detection dog to smell the exterior of a house where police suspect marijuana is being grown constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held by a vote of 5-4 that the dog sniff did constitute a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined the majority opinion. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Breyer.
To discuss the cases, we have Elina Treyger, an assistant professor at George Mason University School of Law.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted April 29, 2013, 3:24 PM
On March 25, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter. The question in the case is whether an arbitrator acts within his powers under the Federal Arbitration Act (as the Second and Third Circuits have held) or exceeds those powers (as the Fifth Circuit has held) by determining that parties affirmatively agreed to authorize class arbitration based solely on their use of broad contractual language precluding litigation and requiring arbitration of any dispute arising under their contract.
To discuss the case, we have Peter “Bo” Rutledge, who is the Herman E. Talmadge Chair of Law at the University of Georgia School of Law.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted April 25, 2013, 9:36 AM
On March 27, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Comcast v. Behrend. The question in this case was whether a district court properly certified a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) when the plaintiffs’ damages model did not attempt to measure only those damages attributable to the antitrust violation that formed plaintiffs’ theory of the case.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held by a vote of 5-4 that the class action in question was improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(3). Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Kennedy, Thomas and Alito joined the majority opinion. Justices Ginsburg and Breyer jointly filed a dissenting opinion, which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.
To discuss the case, we have Ken Lee, a partner at Jenner and Block.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted April 22, 2013, 5:52 PM
On February 20, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in McBurney v.Young. The question in the case is whether, under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, a state may preclude citizens of other states from enjoying the same right of access to public records that the state affords its own citizens.
To discuss the case, we have Christopher Green, a professor at the University of Mississippi School of Law and currently visiting at the University of San Diego School of Law.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted April 19, 2013, 9:37 AM
On March 25, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis. This case involves so-called “reverse-payment” arrangements between brand name drug manufacturers and their potential generic competitors. The brand name manufacturer brings an action for patent infringement against a generic competitor, which defends itself by arguing that their generic product does not infringe and that the patent is invalid. To settle the litigation, the brand name manufacturer agrees to pay the generic competitor a large sum of money in exchange for the competitor’s agreement to delay marketing of the generic drug for period of years. The question in this case is whether such “reverse-payment” agreements are per se lawful (assuming the underlying litigation was not a sham and the patent not obtained by fraud), or instead presumptively anti-competitive and unlawful.
To discuss the case, we have Dan Crane, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted April 16, 2013, 5:05 PM
On March 20, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Decker v. Northwest Environmental Center, consolidated with Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center. In both cases, the issues involve Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations about Clean Water Act (CWA) requirements.
The first issue concerned the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, which provides for judicial review of rules that implement the CWA. The question was whether, notwithstanding the existence of the NPDES, a person may challenge the validity of a CWA rule by a different means--namely, a citizen-suit to enforce the CWA.
The second issue concerned stormwater from logging roads. The question was whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that such stormwater is industrial under the CWA even though the EPA determined otherwise in its regulations--including a new rule issued the Friday before oral argument in this case.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit by a vote of 7-1 and remanded the case for further proceedings. On the first issue, the Court determined that a citizen-suit is permissible where, as here, it is brought against an alleged violator and seeks to enforce an obligation imposed by the CWA or its regulations. On the second issue, the Court held that the EPA’s interpretation of its own regulations was reasonable, and therefore entitled to deference under the Court’s decision in Auer v. Robbins.
Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, Sotomayor and Kagan joined Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Alito. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Breyer did not take part in the consideration or decision of the cases.
To discuss the consolidated cases, we have Daniel Himebaugh, a staff attorney in the Pacific Legal Foundations’ Pacific Northwest Center, where he focuses on land use and environmental litigation.
by SCOTUScaster
Posted April 15, 2013, 5:10 PM
On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Arizona v. The Inner Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. The case concerns the scope of state authority over election procedures, and considers (a) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may apply a heightened preemption test to Arizona’s voter registration law, and (b) whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that the National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona voter registration law directing persons who are registering to vote to show evidence of their eligibility.
To discuss the case, we have Tom Caso, associate professor at Chapman University School of Law.
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 - 2013 The Federalist Society