Entries tagged with “US Supreme Court” from Harmfulerror
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts - a state forensic analyst's laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is "testimonial" evidence and is therefore not admissible, per Crawford v. Washington, absent the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the person who prepared the report. A State may enact a "notice-and-demand" statute which allows a state to give pretrial notice of its intention to use an affidavit and places the responsibility on the defense to object by demanding that the State produce the witness. The 5-4 opinion was authored by Justice Scalia. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Alito.
The opinion is consistent with existing Nevada case authority - Las Vegas v. Walsh, 121 Nev. 899, 904-06, 124 P.3d 203, 207-08 (2005) (citing in footnote 11 of the Melendez opinion).
Safford United School District #1 v. Redding - the Fourth Amendment prohibits public school officials from conducting a strip search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing a prescription drug on campus in violation of a school policy, but the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the search so the girl cannot sue for damages. Justice Souter authored the majority opinion. Justice Stevens filed a partial dissent joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring opinion and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part.
Atlantic Sounding Co. Inc. v. Townsend - concerns whether a seaman may recover punitive damages for the willful failure to pay maintenance and cure. 5-4 decision authored by Justice Thomas. Justice Alito authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Kennedy.
Horne v. Flores; Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives v. Flores - concerns an injunction against Arizona for failing to provide sufficient funding for non-English speaking school children. 5-4 decision authored by Justice Alito. Justice Breyer authored the dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.
The remaining 3 decisions of the 2008--09 term will be released on Monday.
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council - Something about fill permits, slurry, the EPA and the Corps. You're on your own for this one. 6-3 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Stevens and Souter, and Justices Breyer and Scalia filed concurring opinions.
Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A. - The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act authorizes reimbursement for private special-education service when a public school fails to provide a "free appropriate public education" and the private school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child preciously received special-education services through the public school. 6-3 decision authored by Justice Stevens. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas.
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Holder - constitutional issue avoided concerning Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, but significant expressions of doubt are voiced. 8-1 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Thomas filed a partial dissent. Scotusblog has lots of analysis on the opinion.
The court granted certiorari in 3 cases:
U.S. v. Comstock - constitutionality of a 2005 federal law giving federal officials authority to order the long-term confinement of persons considered to be sexually dangerous.
Florida v. Powell - whether Miranda warnings to a suspect in police custody must include an explicity assurance that the suspect may have a lawyer in the room during questioning.
Graham County Soil & Water v. U.S. - whether lawsuits seeking to recover misspent federal funds are barred in the information behind the lawsuits was revealed in local agency reports or audits, rather than in federal proceedings.
Scotusblog has links to the opinions of the courts below, petitions, oppositions, and amici briefs.
Yeager v. United States - A jury's acquittal of an Enron executive of securities and wire fraud charges may have erected a double jeopardy bar to his retrial on factually related insider-trading and money-laundering charges on which the jury deadlocked. Prosecutors may not try an individual again on the "hung" counts if they had a common element with those on which the jury acquitted. 6-3 decision authored by Justice Stevens.
District Attorney's Office for Third Judicial District v. Osborne - A state prisoner has no freestanding constitutional right under the due process clause to obtain post-conviction access to forensic evidence in order to subject it to DNA testing to establish his innocence following resolution of trial and habeas proceedings. Access to DNA evidence following a final conviction is a legislative matter. 5-4 decision authored by Justice Roberts with concurrences by Alito, Kennedy and Thomas.
Gross v. FBL Financial Services Inc., - The burden of persuasion required to establish employer liability under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is the same in cases where the employer's motives in acting against the employee are allegedly mixed as in any other ADEA action involving allegations of disparate treatment. The burden does not shift to the employer in mixed motive cases to show that it would have taken the alleged adverse action regardless of the employee's age. A 5-4 decision authored by Justice Thomas.
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey. The terms of an injunction precluding certain lawsuits against insurers of bankrupt Johns-Manville Corp., an asbestos manufacturer, included as part of the company's 1986 bankruptcy reorganization plan, bar state-law actions brought against Manville's insurer over a decade later. The finality of the bankruptcy court's orders after direct review "generally stands in the way of challenging the enforceability of the injunction." A 7-2 decision authored by Justice Souter.
Polar Tankers Inc v. City of Valdez-Alaska - The Court finds invalid a tax imposed by the city of Valdez on cargo ships that used its port. A 7-2 decision.
Nijhawan v. Holder - Clarifies findings that an immigration judge must make in order for a conviction of a crime to be used as the basis for deportation. A 9-0 decision.
Republic of Iraq v. Beaty - in a unanimous decision, authored by Justice Scalia, the Court holds that Americans do not have a right to sue the present government of Iraq for torture and other abuse that took place under the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Boyle v. United States - in a 7-2 decision, authored by Justice Alito, the Court defined the term "enterprise" for federal RICO statutes as the term applies to organizations that are not formal. RICO does not apply to a loose group of criminal suspects who engage in crime together, but does apply to persons who work together in a "structure" - they have a purpose, relationship with each other, and they operate long enough to permit the pursuit of the group's purpose.
United States v. Denedo - in a 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court holds that a military court conviction that has become final can be challenged in appeal within the military judicial system by a former member of the service.
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal - in a 5-4 decision, authored by Justice Kennedy, the Court holds that it was unconstitutional for a state supreme court justice to sit on a case involving the financial interests of a major donor to the judge's election campaign. The Court found the contributions to be extreme. The donor had contributed $3 million to the justice, at a time when his company was appealing a $50 million judgment. The $3 million exceeded the contributions of all other donors combined. The Court finds that under these circumstances, the Due Process rights of the opposing parties were violated.
United States ex rel. Eisenstein v. New York City - in a unanimous decision, authored by Justice Thomas, the Court holds that after a federal judge rules on a private individual's claim to recover misspent federal funds, in a case in which the US government does not participate, that individual has 30 days to file an appeal.
In Dean v. United States, the Court holds, in a 7-2 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts, that under 18 USC 924(c)(1)(A)(i), which provides for a firearm enhancement of 5 years for using or carrying a firearm and an enhancement of 10 years if the firearm is discharged, that the 10 year enhancement applies even if the discharge is accidental as no proof of intent to discharge the firearm is required. Dissenting opinions were filed by Justices Stevens and Breyer. Various rules of statutory construction are discussed throughout the opinion.
In Kansas v. Ventris, the Court holds, in a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Scalia, that a defendant's statement to an informant which was elicited in violation of the Sixth Amendment, was admissible to impeach the defendant's inconsistent testimony at trial. Justice Stevens filed a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Ginsburg.
The majority holds that whether a confession that is not admissible in the State's case in chief nonetheless can be admitted for impeachment purposes depends on the nature of the constitutional guarantee which was violated. The Fifth Amendment guaranteed against compellsed self-incrimination is violated by introduction of a coerced confession at trial, by way of impeachment or otherwise. In contrast, the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search or seizues, where exclusion comes by way of a deterrent sanction rather than to avoid a violation of the substantive guarantee, results in an admissibility determination based upon an exclusionary-rule balancing test. This same result holds for violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment prophylactic rules prohibiting certain pretrial activities by police. The Massiah violation at issue here is a component of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, but the right covers pretrial interrogations to ensure that police manipulation does not deprive the defendant of effective representation by counsel at a stage when legal aid and advice would help him. A violation of Massiah requires the exclusion of the evidence from the State's case in chief, but does not preclude introduction of the evidence for impeachment purposes where the defendant testifies. The majority finds that the interests safeguarded by excluding tainted evidence for impeachment purposes are outweighed by the need to prevent perjury and to assure the integrity of the trial process.
Some good news: the Court notes that the trial court gave a cautionary instruction on the unreliability of rewarded informant testimony. It's by no means the holding of the case, but the footnote is worth attention - especially in light of the otherwise unfavorable decision.
A question concerning prior inconsistent statements is presented under Nevada law which was not squarely addressed in Ventris. Under the Nevada Rules of Evidence, unlike the Federal Rules, prior inconsistent statements are admissible as both impeachment and susbtantive evidence. My reading of Ventris and the cases cited therein is that testimony by an informant that was obtained in violation of Massiah would not be admissible as substantive evidence, but is admissibly only as impeachment evidence in the event that the defendant testifies. Counsel should request a limiting instruction if such statements are introduced. It appears that the Nevada Supreme Court implicitly recognized this limitation in Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314, 331 (2004).
In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Scalia, the Court upheld the Federal Government's power to ban on radio and TV of the words "fuck" and "shit." The majority refers to the words as the "f-word" and the "s-word," but I'm not afraid of the words so there they are. Fortunately, the censors have not yet banned them on the internet, but who knows - that may be next. Anyway, the majority finds that the FCC may sanction television stations for a single utterance of such words by a celebrity during an awards show, even though the station does not control the content of the celebrity's speech. Justice Scalia apparently is not a fan of such persons as he refers to them as "foul-mouthed glitteratae from Hollywood." The Court holds that the flat ban on certain words is not "arbitrary and capricious," but leaves open the question of whether the First Amendment is violated by the ban. The Second Circuit will address that issue on remand. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kennedy filed an opinion concurring in part (he does not join part III-E of the Scalia opinion). Justice Stevens authored a dissenting opinion as did Justice Ginsburg. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg.
After reading the 72 page opinion, I recommend George Carlin- Seven Dirty Words You Can't Say on Television.
The Court also issued an opinion in Cone v. Bell. In one of of the very few capital cases heard this term, the Court issues a 7-2 decision reversed an order of the Sixth Circuit which had affirmed the denial of federal habeas relief. The majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Stevens, held that the lower federal courts were wrong in finding a procedural bar as the facts did not support either of the two procedural bars argued by the state. The Court also hald that a full review of suppressed witness statements and police reports was required to determine whether they would have bolstered the defense mitigation case for the penalty hearing. Although the evidence was insufficient to establish an insanity defense for the trial phase, evidence of habitual use of excess amounts of drugs and the impact of that addiction during the murders was relevant as mitigation. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Scalia.
This morning the US Supreme Court issued an opinion in Harbison v. Bell. In a 7-2 decision the Court holds that federal habeas corpus counsel may represent a defendant in state clemency proceedings.
Yesterday the Court issued an opinion in Rivera v. Illinois. The cases concerned an erroneous denial of a defense peremptory challenge of a potential juror. The trial court refused the challenge on Batson grounds. The Illinois Supreme Court found the district court's ruling to be erroneous but affirmed the conviction after finding that the denial of the challenge was not structural error. The US Supreme Court affirmed and held that so long as all jurors seated in a criminal case are qualified and unbiased, the Due Process Clause does not require automatic reveral of a conviction based on the trial court's good faith error in denying a defense peremptory challenge. It is an issue of state law, not a matter of federal constitutional law.
Three opinions were issued in civil cases:
14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett - courts must enforce a labor contract that requires workers to take claims of age bias to arbitration rather than court.
Entergy Corp. v. EPA - concerning the EPA's authority to compare costs and benefits when deciding what technology to require for structures that affect river and stream flows.
Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs - concerning the state's authority to sell state lands.
The Court also issued an opinion in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Williams, concerning punitive damages, in which it dismisses the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.
Yesterday the Court issued an opinion in Knowles v. Mirzayance. Justice Thomas authored a unanimous opinion as to the result and the finding of no prejudice, and a 6-3 decision on an issue of whether counsel's performance was deficient. The Court reversed a decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which had held that trial counsel was ineffective for counseling a client to withdraw a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity after concluding that such a theory was not viable.
Today the Court issued an opinion in Puckett v. United States. In the 7-2 decision, authored by Justice Scalia, the Court held that under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), a defendant was obligated to object at a sentence hearing to the State's violation of the plea agreement. Because the defendant failed to do so, a plain-error standard of review was applied to the unpreserved issue. Justice Souter issued a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Stevens.
Vermont v. Brillion - The Vermont Supreme Court held that counsel assigned to represent an indigent client were state actors for the purpose of a speedy trial violation and attributed delays caused by assigned counsel to the State for analysis under the Barker v. Wingo test. The US Supreme Court reversed this holding and held that assigned counsel, just as retained counsel, act on behalf of their clients and delays sought by counsel are ordinarily attributable to the defendants they represent. The Vermont Supreme Court also failed to adequately take into account the role of the defendant's own disruptive behavior (he had six attorneys - he "fired" one and threatened to kill another). Delay resulting from a systemic breakdown in the public defender system, however, could be charged to the State. The opinion was authored by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Breyer authored a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Stevens.
Kansas v. Colorado - calculation of witness fees for cases within the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Justice Alito authored an opinion for the unanimous Court. Justice Roberts authored a concurring opinion which was joined by Justice Souter.
Vaden v. Discover Bank - arbitration, federal claims and jurisdiction.
Bartlett v. Strickland - redistricting and the Voting Rights Act. In a 5-4 decision the Court holds that the federal voting rights law does not require the creation of a new legislative district when that would include a racial minority group that has less than 50 percent of the population, as a remedy when minority voters' rights have been diluted. Scotusblog provides analysis of the decision.
The Court granted certiorari in one case - Jones v. Harris Associates. It addresses shareholder claims and the Investment Company Act. Scotusblog provides links to the opinion below and cert. filings.
Negusie v. Holder - An alien who fears persecution in his homeland and seeks refugee status in this court is barred from obtaining that relief if he has persecuted others. The Board of Immigration Appeals determined that the persecutor bar applies even if the alien's assistance in persecution was coerced or otherwise the product of duress. The US Supreme Court reversed that holding as the BIA misaplied the Fedorenko case in making its interpretation.
Summers v. Earth Island Institute - concerns standing to challenge Forest Service regulations.
Pleasant Grove City, Ut v. Summum - 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Alito. Concurring opinions by Justices Stevens (joined by Justice Ginsburg), Scalia (joined by Justice Thomas), Breyer and Souter. Government bodies may accept permanent religious monuments in public parks without violating the rights of others who are denied a chance to have a different religious monument share space in the public space. Such a monument, whether it is government financed or privately donated, is "government speech" which conveys a message that it wishes to get out about "esthetics, history, and local culture." A religious sect, the Summum, contended that its Free Speech rights were violated when a city accepted a Ten Commandments monument in its public park but refused to accept a Seven Aphorisms monument. Justice Alito's opinion found that the Free Speech Clause does not apply to the messages of government and rejects Summum's argument that placement of a monument in a public park involves private speech in a public forum. Justice Alito also noted that the government is not free to convey messages that violate the Constitution's ban on official establishment of religion, but that was not at issue in the Summum case. Inclusion of the lyrics to "Imagine" by John Lennon, at pages 12 and 13 of the opinion, is a nice touch for any Supreme Court opinion.
Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications - 9-0 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts. Concurring opinion by Justice Breyer. Sherman Act and price squeezing. Sorry - I have a brief due and no time to decipher this one.
United States v. Hayes - a 7-2 opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg - a 1996 federal law prohibiting possession of guns by a person convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence applies whenever the victim was in fact the wife or other family relative of the offender. The domestic relationship must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt but it is not a necessary element of the predicate crime. It is sufficient for the government to charge and prove a prior conviction that was, in fact, an offense committed against a spouse or other domestic victim.
Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association, 6-3 opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts - the Constitution allows a state government to ban payroll deductions for labor union political activities when the ban applies to the paychecks of local government workers.
Carcieri v. Salazar (Interior Secretary), 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Thomas - the Court limits the federal government's authority to take parcels of land and put them into trust for the benefit of Indian tribes. This power only applies to tribes that were officially recognized by the government in 1934.
Links to opinions provided by Scotusblog.
Via Scotusblog:
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in five cases today:
Salazar (Interior Secretary) v. Buono : government's appeal testing Congress' power to allow a religious display to remain on public property simply by transferring ownership to a private group or individual. The case also raises issues about who may sue to challenge such displays.
Alvarez v. Smith: The legal standard for a court hearing to test the forfeiture of property used in a drug crime.
Padilla v. Kentucky : The duty of an attorney to advise a client facing mandatory deporation from the U.S. after pleading guilty to trafficking in marijuana.
Union Pacific Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotice Engineers: The scope of federal courts' authority to second-guess arbitration decisions made to resolve labor disputes in the railroad and airline industries.
Smith v. Spisak: Judges' duty to advise jurors on whether unanimity is required in finding factors that bear upon imposing a death sentence.
Johnson v. U.S. : The status of a state conviction for felony battery as a violent crime under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act. The Court granted questions 1 and 2 in the petition, both related to that issue. The Court declined to hear a third question, asking the Court to overrule its 1998 decision in Almendarez-Torres v. U.S. -- allowing a judge, rather than the jury, to rule on prior convictions as a basis for enhancing a criminal sentence. The Court has refused several times to consider that issue, which involves the only exception to the jury role the Court mandated in Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and later cases.
Scotusblog provides links to the opinions below, petitions for certiorari, briefs in opposition, replies and briefs of amicus curiae.
Justice Ginsburg was present for the Court's announcement of the orders and today's oral arguments.
The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari to the Ninth Circuit in a federal habeas corpus case concerning a Nevada conviction. The questions presented in the State's petition are:
1. What is the standard of review for a federal habeas court for analyzing a sufficiency-of-the evidence claim under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)?
2. Does analysis of a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim pursuant to Jackson v. Virginia, 443 US 307, 318-19 (1979), under 28 USC 2254(d)(1) permit a federal habeas court to expland the record or consider non-record evidence to determine the reliability of testimony and evidence given at trial?
The Ninth Circuit's opinion and the brief in opposition are available. Paul Turner at the Federal Public Defender's Office represents Troy Brown. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a ruling by Judge Pro that there was insufficient evidence to support a sexual assault conviction against Troy Brown for murder. False DNA testimony was provided to the jury and the State conceded that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction without the false testimony. At issue is a statistical analysis that was submitted in the federal court proceedings that was submitted as a supplement to a claim raised in state court.
The Court also granted certiorari in Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter (whether a party may immediately appeal a discovery order to disclose materials said to be covered by the attorney-client privilege) and Maryland v. Shatzer (whether Edwards v. Arizona, which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel, applies to an interrogation that takes place nearly three years later). Scotusblog provides links to the lower court opinions, petitions and briefs in opposition in those cases.
Apparently there's a lot of consensus at the United States Supreme Court lately, as today's five opinions are all unanimous as to the judgment and there's only one concurring opinion in the group.
Van de Camp v. Goldstein - Prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability in section 1983 civil rights suits brought against prosecutorial actions that are "intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process," and this includes a District Attorney's supervision, training and information-system management claims associated with providing discovery and impeachment information to a defendant in a criminal case. Absolute immunicty may not apply when a prosecutor is not acting as "an officer of the court," but is instead engaging in investigative or administrative tasks, but discovery issues are directly connected with a trial's conduct and therefore absolute immunity applies. Justice Breyer authored the opinion.
Arizona v. Johnson - Terry v. Ohio -- which authorizes "stop and frisk" searches if the temporary detention is lawful (the officer reasonably suspects that the person apprehended is committing or has committed a crime) and the officer reasonably suspects that the person is armed and dangerous -- applies to passengers during a traffic stop. Based on the "same weighty interest in officer safety," a passenger may be frisked for weapons if an officer reasonably concludes that the passenger might be armed and dangerous. Justice Ginsburg authored the opinion.
Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville - The antiretaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act extend to an employee who speaks out about discrimination in response to answering questions during an employer's internal investgation, not just claims made on her own initiative. Justice Souter authored the majority opinion. Justice Alito authored a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Thomas.
Kennedy v. Plan Administrators for Dupont Savings - ERISA, divorce, assignment and alienation.
US v. Eurodif - uranium and anti-dumping
Pearson v. Callahan - qualified immunity for police officers. Unanimous opinion authored by Justice Alito. The Court overrules the procedure for determining whether officers are immune from a civil rights action that was established in Saucier v. Katz. It explains the standards following stare decisis vs. revisiting precedent. It also finds that the Saucier procedure is often appropriate, but is no longer mandatory in all cases. The Court also finds that the search at issue, which involved "consent once removed" and an informant, was not cleraly established as unconstitutional at the time of entry, so the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee - Title IX action re: gender discrimination. Unanimous opinion authored by Justice Alito. The Court holds that Title IX does not preclude a 1983 civil rights action alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools.
Locke v. Karass - public sector unions and non-member agency fees for litigation expenses. Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion. Justice Alito authored a concurring opinion which was joined by Chief Justice and Justice Scalia. The Court holds that the First Amendment permits a local union to charge nonmembers for national litigation expenses in certain situations.
Waddington v. Sarausad - habeas relief and ambiguous jury instruction. Justice Thomas authored the majority opinion. Justice Souter authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg. The Court holds that the Ninth Circuit erred in granting habeas relief because a Washington court's decision that a jury instruction defining accomplice liability was not ambiguous was not an objectively unreasonable decision. The Court also finds that the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that there was a reasonable likelihood that the prosecutor's closing argument caused the jury to apply the instruction in a way that relieved the State of its burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Spears v. United States - Per curiam opinion concerning the federal sentencing guidelines and the crack/powder cocaine disparity.
On Friday the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in six cases, three of which involve criminal law related issues:
Bobby v. Bies: Whether the holding of a state post-conviction hearing to determine the mental capacity of a capital defendant whose death sentence was affirmed before Atkins v. Virginia (2002), which barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants, violates the Double Jeopardy clause where the issue of mental capacity has already been addressed at trial and on direct appeal.
Safford United School District #1 v. Redding: Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits public school officials from conducting a strip search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing prescription strength ibuprofen on campus in violation of school policy.
Nijhawan v. Mukasey: Whether the petitioner's conviction for mail, bank and wire fraud qualified as an aggravated felony under the immigration laws, the penalty for which is lifetime banishment from the country.
The other three cases are the following:
Forest Grove School District, Petitioner v. T. A.: Whether parents of a student who has never previously received special education services from a school district may be eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for reimbursement of private school tuition.
Cuomo v. The Clearing House Ass'n, L.L.C.,: Whether 12 USC § 484 and 12 CFR § 7.4000 prohibit measures taken by a state prosecutor to enforce state fair lending law against national banks by subjecting those entities to "visitorial powers."
U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York: Whether the 30-day time limit in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) for filing a notice of appeal, or the 60-day time limit in Rule 4(a)(1)(B), applies to a qui tam action under the False Claims Act.
Scotusblog provides links to the lower court opinions, petitions, oppositions, replies and amicus briefs. Briefing will be expedited so the cases may be ruled upon in this term.
This morning the United States Supreme Court issued opinions in two criminal cases.
In Oregon v. Ice, the Court issues a 5-4 decision in which it holds that there is no constitutional violation based upon a judge's imposition of consecutive sentences based upon facts that were not found by the jury. An Oregon statute provides that sentences for multiple crimes are to be served concurrently unless the trial judge finds that the crimes did not occur as part of the same course of conduct or resulted in separate harms. The majority opinion is authored by Justice Ginsburg and joined by Justices Alito, Breyer, Kennedy and Stevens. Justice Scalia authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Souter and Thomas.
In Herring v. U.S., the Court issues a 5-4 decision in which it holds that evidence of a crime is not subject to the Exclusionary Rule if police obtained it while relying on erroneous information supplied by another police officer, unless the situation involves a systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements. The majority opinion is authored by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas. Justice Ginsburg authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Breyer, Souter and Stevens. Justice Breyer filed another dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Souter.
This morning the United States Supreme Court issued opinions in Chambers v. United States and Jimenez v. Quarterman.
In Chambers, the Court concludes that a state court offense of failure to report for penal confinement was not a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The federal statute defines "violent felony" in part as a crime that "involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." The Court holds that it is the generic crime that counts, not how the crime was committed on a particular occasion. Under this categorical approach, failure to report for prison is not a violent felony. The opinion is authored by Justice Breyer. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment which was joined by Justice Thomas.
In Jimenez, the Court addresses AEDPA's 1 year limitation under 28 USC 2244(d) in a case where a defendant is granted an out-of-time appeal by a state court. The Court holds that where a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to file an out-of-time direct appeal during state habeas proceedings, but before the defendant has first sought federal habeas review, his judgment is not "final" for purposes of 28 USC 2244(d)(1)(A) until the conclusion of the out-of-time direct appeal or the expiration of the time for seeking certiorari review of that appeal. Once a state court reopens direct review of a conviction, the conviction is no longer final for 2244(d)(1)(A) purposes. Justice Thomas authored the unanimous opinion.
The United States Supreme Court issued one decision today. In Hedgpeth v. Pulido, the Court issued a per curiam decision, with 3 justices dissenting as to the remand, in which it held that a conviction based on jury instructions containing more than one theory of guilt, where one theory is invalid, is to be judged under the harmless error standard. The Ninth Circuit had found the error to be structural error.
"[A] reviewing court finding such error should ask whether the flaw in the instructions 'had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determing the jury's verdict.'"
The Court's ruling is consistent with a recent opinion by the Nevada Supreme Court, Cortinas v. State, which addressed the same issue.
Monday, December 1
The United States Supreme Court hears argument in Kansas v. Colorado (water rights) and 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett (wjehther collective bargaining agreements may require mandatory arbitration of civil rights claims).
The United States Supreme Court releases its order list. Certiorari was not granted in any new cases.
The Nevada Supreme Court hears argument in V and S Railway v. White Pine County.
Tuesday, December 2
The United States Supreme Court hears argument in Entergy Corp. v. EPA (Clean Water Act) and Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee (whether Title IX barred future constitutionally based gender discrimination claims against federally funded schools.
The United States Supreme Court may release one or more opinions.
The Nevada Supreme Court hears argument in Regency Towers v. Dist. Ct. and Rivera v. Philip Morris.
Wednesday, December 3
The United States Supreme Court hears argument in Philip Morris v. Williams (punitive damages and state procedural rule) and Haywood v. Drown (Supremacy Clause and jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims).
NACJ Board Meeting - noon at the Federal Public Defender's Office.
State Bar CLE - Internet for Lawyers - 9 am or 1:30 pm.
Thursday, December 4
Nevada Supreme Court opinion release day.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in five cases today:
Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Company, Inc: Whether a judge's failure to recuse himself from a case in which he received substantial campaign donations from one of the parties violates the Due Process righs of the other party.
Yeager v. United States: Whether, under the Double Jeopardy Clause, the government may retry defendants acquitted of some charges on factually related counts for which the jury failed to reach a verdict.
Abuelhawa v. United States - Whether a person who uses a cell phone to buy drugs solely for personal use, which is a misdemeanor, can be charged with the separate crime of using a phone to facilitate the sale of drugs, which is a felony.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Whether federal campaign finance laws apply to a critical film about Senator Hillary Clinton intended to be shown in theaters and on-damand to cable subscribers.
Dean v. United States: Whether, under 18 USC 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), the mere discharge of a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking, even if accidental, is subject to a 10-year sentencing enhancement.
Scotusblog provides links to all available briefs and lower court opinions.
Monday, November 10
US Supreme Court orders released (no new cert grants were ordered)
10:00 - US Supreme Court oral argument in Chambers v. United States (whether failure to report to prison is a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminals Act).
11:00 - US Supreme Court oral argument in United States v. Hayes (whether federal gun laws require a domestic relationship between an attacker and victim to qualify as a misdemeanor crime of "domestic violence").
1:00 - US Supreme Court oral argument in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (whether the Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants a right to cross-examine forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports for use in prosecution).
Tuesday, November 11
Holiday. Courts closed.
Wednesday, November 12
10:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Jeffries v. State
11:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Courtesy Cars v. Morgan
1:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Perez-Marquez v. State
United States Supreme Court oral argument in Pleasant Grove City, UT v. Summum (whether donated monuments displayed in public parks qualify as private speech, thus requiring municipalities to display monuments from all other donors).
United States Supreme Court oral argument in Bell v. Kelly (whether the deferential standard in the federal habeas corpus statute should be applied to claims a state court did not conisder).
Thursday, November 13
Nevada Supreme Court opinion release day
10:00 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Anderson v. Ruppco Inc.
10:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Madruga v. Aguilar
1:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Fields v. State
Friday, November 14
10:00 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Ferguson v. Landmark Homes
10:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in State Engineer v. Morris Delee Revocable Trust
11:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Cadle Co. II vs. Fountain
1:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Las Vegas Paving v. Nevada Power
Monday, November 3
US Supreme Court hears argument in Wyeth v. Levine (actions under state law for ineffective drug laws), Ysursa v. Pocatello Education Association (1st Amendment and payroll deductions for political contributions), and Carcieri v. Kemprthorne (tribal trust lands).
Nevada Supreme Court holds en banc oral arguments.
Tuesday, November 4
Election day
US Supreme Court hears argument in FCC v. Fox Television (fines for broadcast of isolated expletives), US v. Eurodif (contracts for uranium and anti-dumping laws) and Jimenez v. Quarterman (whether the reinstatement of an appeal under Texas law tolls or restarts the one-year deadline to file a habeas petition under federal law).
Nevada Supreme Court holds en banc oral arguments, including arguments in Mack v. Estate of Mack and Higgs v. State.
Wednesday, November 5
US Supreme Court hears argument in Negusie v. Mukasey (federal immigration law and refugees who in engaged in persecution due to threats of death or bodily harm) and Van de Kamp v. Goldstein (whether supervising district attorneys possess absolute immunity against claims they failed to ensure line prosecutors disclosed constitutionally required information to criminal defendants).
Bar Admissions Ceremony - Northern Nevada
Thursday, November 6
Nevada Supreme Court opinion release day
Friday, November 7
Bar Admissions Ceremony - Las Vegas
Clark County Bar Association - New Admittees and Meet Your Judges Celebration
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases this morning.
In District Attorney's Office v. Osborne, the Court will consider whether a person may file an action under 42 USC 1983 or the Due Process Clause to obtain access to biological evidence for purposes of new DNA testing in a case in which his judgment is final and it appears that post-conviction remedies may be procedurally barred.
In Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, the Court will consider whether a seaman may recover punitive damages for the willful failure to pay maintenance and cure.
Scotusblog provides links to be petitions, briefs in opposition, replies and amicus briefs.
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “US Supreme Court”.