Five cases granted review
on Apr 25, 2005 at 10:01 am
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear five cases, including one that could have an impact on the coming sentencing hearing of admitted terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui.
The case is Oregon v. Guzek (docket 04-928), involving a convicted individual’s attempt to bring into a death sentencing hearing evidence that would cast doubt on the conviction. The case seeks clarification of the Supreme Court’s 1988 ruling in Franklin v. Lynaugh.
When the sentencing hearing is held for Moussaoui, who pleaded guilty on Friday to six conspiracy counts — including four that could carry the death penalty, he is expected to attempt to offer as mitigating evidence statements by captured Al Qaeda operatives that may suggest he was not directly involved in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. That kind of evidence might also seem to undercut, at least in part, the factual basis for a death sentence because it could affect the degree of his culpability for the nearly 3,000 deaths that occurred in the attacks.
The Court, in another order, asked the Solicitor General for the government’s views on an appeal by the Ministry of Defense of Iran (04-1095, Ministry of Defense v. Elahi). The appeal tests the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and particularly the so-called “Flatow Amendment” on the potential liability of foreign officers or agents for official acts of terrorism. The specific case involves Cyrus Elahi, killed in Paris in 1990. His brother has sued Iran. Because the government of Iran did not appear in the case, a default judgment was entered against it — $11.7 million in compensatory damages and $300 million in punitive damages.
There is no time limit for the SG to reply.
Even as the Court showed some interest in that terrorism case, it denied review in another — Acree v. Iraq (04-820). That case involved an appeal by 17 current and former U.S. military personnel who were held as prisoners of war during the 1991 who were subject to torture. As usual, the Court gave no reason for its denial of review.
The five newly granted cases will be heard in the new term starting in October.
Following are the other cases granted on Monday:
Domino’s Pizza v. McDonald (04-593). The issue is whether an 1866 civil rights law guaranteeing an equal right of all races to enter contracts applies at all where there is no contractual relationship at issue. An African-American businessman sued Domino’s, claiming racial bias in cutting off his business firm that had been engaged to build four restaurants in Las Vegas. He claimed injuries to himself, not to the business firm that had the contract. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the businessman’s case could proceed.
Lockhart v. U.S. (04-881). This is a test of the federal government’s power to reduce an individual’s Social Security pension or disability benefits as a way to recover money owed on a defaulted student loan. The issue at stake applies only to student loan debts that have been outstanding for more than ten years, but that category embraces more than half of the nearly $7 billion in delinquent student loan debt outstanding. The case involves a disabled Washington State man, who has had to forfeit $3,555 of his Social Security benefits, and faces further losses, as an “offset” to his college student loan debt.
Dolan v. U.S. Postal Service (04-1140, involving a claim by a Glenside, Pa., woman who fell and was injured when she tripped over mail delivered to her front porch. The issue is whether such a claim may proceed on the theory that the government has waived its sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. (04-1140), testing a right to recover attorneys’ fees in a case that has been remanded to state court after having been removed to federal court. The dispute in the case — a consumer class action lawsuit — is over the standard to be used in deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees in that situation. The Circuit Courts are divided on that issue.
