SCOTUSblog: Orders and Opinions Archives

Orders and Opinions

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Court grants 17 new cases; voter ID, death penalty review

10:30 AM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0)

FINAL UPDATE 5:30 PM: All petitions and briefs in opposition have now been added.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to add 17 new cases to its new Term's decision docket, including a pair of appeals on the constitutionality of requiring voters to show a photo ID before they may vote (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25). The Court also agreed to decide the constitutionality of execution by lethal drugs when the chemical protocol poses a risk of pain and suffering (Baze v. Rees, 07-5439).

In another order Tuesday, the Court denied a motion to dismiss a previously granted case -- LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates (06-856). The case involves the right of a pension plan participant to sue the plan manager to recover losses that worker suffered in a pension account. The motion to dismiss claimed that the individual involved had cashed-out his account, so there remained no live issue. The complete orders list is here.

Below you will find a complete list of the cases granted, including descriptions of the issues involved, links to the Court's electronic docket and, where available, PDFs of the petitions, briefs in opposition and replies. (The Court rephrased the questions it will decide in three of the granted cases: 06-1181, 06-1509 and 06-11612; the questions the Court composed are shown in the orders for each case.)

• Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics (06-937) (definition of the exhaustion of patent rights when licensee sells products containing the patent): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Kentucky Retirement Sys. V. EEOC (06-1037) (age bias in disability benefits packages): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Virginia v. Moore (06-1082) (lawfulness of search following arrest that violates state law): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Dada v. Keisler (06-1181) (postponement of agreement for alien to voluntarily leave U.S.): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Gomez-Perez v. Potter (06-1321) (federal employees protection against retaliation for complaining about age bias in workplace): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Ali v. Achim (06-1346) (definition of aggravated felony for deportation purposes): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Meadwestvaco v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue (06-1413) (tax on sale of investment in LexisNexis): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• CBOCS West v. Humphries (06-1431) (race retaliation claim under Sec. 1981 of civil rights law): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Morgan Stanley Capital Group v. Public Utility Dist.1 (06-1457) and Calpine Energy Services v. Public Utility Dist.1 (06-1462) (federal regulators' power to take an energy crisis into account in reviewing electric power sale contracts): docket, docket, petition, petition, brief in opposition, reply, reply.

• Preston v. Ferrer (06-1463) (preemption of arbitration agreement): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Warner-Lambert v. Kent (06-1498) (preemption of claim of fraud on a federal agency): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Boulware v. United States (06-1509) (taxation on diversion of corporate funds to shareholder): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• United States v. Rodriquez (06-1646) (crimes that qualify for enhanced sentence under armed career criminal law; specific issue involves state drug crime conviction): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Begay v. United States (06-11543) (whether felony drunk driving is a violent felony for purposes of enhanced sentencing under armed career criminal law): docket, petition, brief in opposition.

• Gonzalez v. United States (06-11612) (waiver of right to Art. III judge to preside over jury selection when counsel agreed to have a U.S. magistrate instead): docket, petition, brief in opposition.

• Crawford v. Marion City Election Board (07-21) and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (07-25) (constitutionality of requiring voters to show a photo ID before they may vote): docket, docket, petition, petition, brief in opposition, supplemental brief in opposition, reply, reply.

• Baze v. Rees (07-5439) (constitutionality of execution by lethal drugs when the chemical protocol poses a risk of pain and suffering): docket, petition, supplemental brief to the petition, brief in opposition, reply.

(NOTE: This post was originally filed by Lyle Denniston, but has been made more useful by the efforts of Ben Winograd in providing access to the filings in each of the granted cases.)

Monday, August 20, 2007

Court permits late amicus filings in Stoneridge

03:03 PM | Ben Winograd | Comments (0)

In an order released this afternoon, the Court permitted three former members of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well the chairmen of two House committees, to file late amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific-Atlanta, et al. (06-43). The order can be found here.

To read the brief submitted by former SEC chairmen William H. Donaldson and Arthur Levitt Jr. and former SEC member Harvey J. Goldschmid, click here. To read the brief offered by Democratic Reps. John Conyers, Jr., of Michigan (Judiciary Committee) and Barney Frank of Massachusetts (Financial Services Committee), click here.

The original deadline to file amicus briefs in support of the petitioner was June 11. For prior coverage of the late amicus filings, as well a further description of the case, click here.

With the two new filings permitted today, 30 total amicus briefs now have been filed with the Court in Stoneridge -- 15 for the petitioner and 15 for the respondent.

Second Summer Orders List Released

10:13 AM | Ben Winograd | Comments (0)

To see today's Orders List, click here.

Monday, June 25, 2007

LiveBlog from the Court: 5 opinions, no schools cases

10:11 AM | Jason Harrow | Comments (4)

In this space, we'll give real-time details regarding what opinions are being issued today. Lyle will have further details below.

10:00: 4 grants on today's Orders list (to be posted). 06-179, 457, 1286, 10119. Orders can now be found here.
10:01: NAHB v. Defenders of Wildlife decided. Rev'd. Written by Alito. 5-4.
10:05: Alito still reciting from Defenders of Wildlife.
10:07: Hein decided. Written by Alito. 5-4.
10:12: Wilkie v. Robbins decided. Written by Souter. 7-2. Rev'd and remanded.
10:19: Morse decided. Written by 5-4 in part.
10:25: Election case decided. Written by the Chief. That's it - no schools cases.
10:35: Justice Souter is reading his dissent from the bench in the election case.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Updated StatPack

07:34 PM | Jason Harrow | Comments (0)

The new edition of our StatPack can now be found here. We've again added a new section; in today's edition, in addition to the regular features, you'll now find a circuit scorecard for comparing the "records" of various lower courts so far this Term.

Court bars antitrust in Credit Suisse case

10:03 AM | Lyle Denniston | Comments (0)

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the antitrust laws do not apply to the process of selling new stocks after their initial offering on stock markets. The Court said it could not accept a suggestion by the U.S. Solicitor General for avoiding a conflict between enforcement of the antitrust laws and the laws regulating securities transactions. The case involved claims of an antitrust conspiracy by underwriters to control trading in newly issued stocks. The vote was 7-1, with Justice Stephen G. Breyer writing for the majority. Justice John Paul Stevens was in the majority on result only; he expressed different reasons for the outcome. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy took no part in Credit Suisse Securities v. Billing (05-1157).

In Monday's orders, the Court agreed to add one new case for decision next Term: a case testing the rights of an individual taking part in a retirement plan to recover money losses in his or her pension account because of faulty management by plan administrators. The Solicitor General, asked earlier for the government's views, urged the Court to hear and decide the case of LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates , 06-856. Earlier posts on this case can be found here and here.

In the second decision of the day on the merits, the Court ruled in Brendlin v. California (06-8120) that a passenger in a car stopped on the road by a police officer has a right to challenge the legality of the stop, under the Fourth Amendment. The Court was unanimous, with Justice David H. Souter writing.

In the third and final merits decision this morning, the Court ruled that the NInth Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal on when a foreign company doing some business in the U.S. is to be treated as an organ of a foreign government, and thus entitled to have legal claims against it heard in federal, not state, court. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the 7-2 decision in Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services (05-85). The appeal by the Canadian energy company argued that a federal appellate court had the authority to review a federal judge's order sending a lawsuit against the foreign firm back to state court for trial.

Among cases denied review on Monday was Barbour v. Allen (06-10605), a case testing whether a state has a constitutional duty to provide legal aid to poor inmates on death row, to help them challenge convictions and sentences in state court after the verdict is final. (Amy Howe discussed the case at greater length in this post.)

The Court also declined to return -- for the ninth time -- to a review of the death penalty procedures that Texas actually stopped using in 1991. The case was Quarterman v. Nelson (06-1254), in which the Fifth Circuit Court essentially cast aside much of its modern jurisprudence on the role that mitigating evidence must be allowed to have in capital sentencing proceedings. The state's appeal and the background of the case were discussed in this post.

In two cases with major ramifications for businesses operating in multi-state markets, the Court refused to hear constitutional challenges to a state's imposition of corporate income and franchise taxes on out-of-state businesses that have no physical presence in the state, but do have some customers inside the state. The cases were FIA Card Services v. West Virginia Tax Commissioner (06-1228), a case in which Justice Breyer declined to take part, and Lanco Inc. v. Direction of Taxation, New Jersey (06-1236). The cert. papers in these cases are here.

Two other cases denied review were Tamashiro v. Hawaii Department of Human Services (06-1267, cert. papers), involving a claim by blind vendors of a right to sue state and local government for denying them a preference in operating stands or vending machines in non-federal public buildings, and Cox v. DaimlerChrysler (06-273), on whether it violates ERISA for a state to arrange to take 90 percent of a prison inmate's pension benefits to help defray the costs of imprisonment. The Solicitor General, asked by the Court for the government's views, had urged the Court to bypass the appeal by Michigan's state attorney general, Mike Cox. We earlier discussed the case here.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Today's Opinions

10:25 AM | Jason Harrow | Comments (0)

06-134, India Mission v. New York City is here.
06-5306, Bowles v. Russell, is here.
05-1589, Davenport v. Washington Education Association, is here.

Monday, June 04, 2007

More on Today's Grant

02:27 PM | Kevin Russell | Comments (1)

Today the Court agreed to decide a question is left open last week in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, No. 05-1074: whether filing an “intake questionnaire” with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) satisfies a statutory requirement that employees file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before proceeding to court. The case is Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), along with other federal employment discrimination statutes, requires that workers who believe they have been subject to unlawful employment discrimination file a “charge” of discrimination with the EEOC as a precondition for filing suit in federal court. The statute then requires the EEOC to notify the employer of the charge, investigate it, and seek to mediate the conflict. The statute also requires an employee to wait 60 days after filing the charge before suing in federal court. (Unlike Title VII, the ADEA does not require the employee to wait to receive a “right to sue” letter from the EEOC).

The statute does not, however, specify what constitutes a “charge.” The EEOC has developed regulations and procedures for accepting and processing charges. Among other things, the EEOC has developed a form “Intake Questionnaire” to give to workers who contact the agency regarding claims of employment discrimination (Form 283). The agency also has a “Charge” form (Form 5). The agency’s regulation does not require the use of either form to file a charge of discrimination, but instead states that “A charge shall be in writing and shall name the prospective respondent and shall generally allege the discriminatory act(s).” The question in this case is whether filling out the questionnaire, and sending it to the EEOC, constitutes filing the “charge” of discrimination required by the statute.

Continue reading "More on Today's Grant" »

Today's Orders and Opinions

10:41 AM | Jason Harrow | Comments (6)

The Order List is here.

NOTE: The Court did grant cert. in one case, FedEx v. Holowecki.

The opinion in Safeco is here.
The opinion in Uttecht is here.
The opinion in Sole is here.
The per curiam opinion dismissing Claiborne is here.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Court To Decide Railroad Tax Dispute

03:40 PM | Kevin Russell | Comments (0)

Today the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether railroads can challenge states’ methods of valuing their assets for tax purposes under a federal statute that prohibits states from discriminating against railroads in imposing property taxes on their in-state operations. The case is CSX Transportation, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, No. 06-1287.

The case involves the interpretation of a provision of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, 49 U.S.C. 11501. That statute bars states from “[a]ssess[ing] rail transportation property at a value that has a higher ratio to the true market value of the rail transportation property than the ratio that the assessed value of other commercial and industrial property in the same assessment jurisdiction has to the true market value of the other commercial and industrial property.”

Continue reading "Court To Decide Railroad Tax Dispute" »