Court bypasses Hamdan, grants 3 cases
on Oct 11, 2005 at 9:57 am
The Supreme Court took no action Tuesday on the constitutional controversy over the Bush Administration’s plan to stage war crimes trials for terrorism suspects. This was the second time in two weeks that the Court bypassed the petition in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (05-184). The absence of action is likely to increase speculation that the Court will deny review, but that some Justices may be preparing dissents from that denial. (See the comment below from Steve Truitt, suggesting an alternative reading of the Court’s inaction.)
The orders issued this morning were the first results of a Conference led by the new Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, Jr. The Court also issued the first decision in which Roberts had participated: an unsigned, unanimous ruling in Dye v. Hofbauer (04-8384). The Court overturned a decision by the Sixth Circuit, in a murder case that has lingered in that Court for years and produced two conflicting panel rulings, after one judge had retired and a new panel formed. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled that the Circuit Court was wrong in finding that the state prisoner, Paul Allen Dye, had failed to raise in state court a issue of prosecutorial misconduct, renewed in his federal court challenge. The Court also said the Circuit Court erred in its alternative finding that any claim of prosecutorial misconduct had been too vague and general.
Among the other orders Tuesday, the Court agreed to hear two environmental law cases and a test of legal immunity for county government when it operates a drawbridge over navigable waters. The Court also asked the U.S. Solicitor General to express the government’s views on four cases — one involving the “fee-shifting” provision of federal law involving the educational rights of disabled students, and three cases involving issues of federal court jurisdiction, two of which involved federal employees’ health benefits.
Here are the three new cases granted Tuesday:
In S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Department of Environmental Protection (04-1527), the Court agreed to decide whether a company that draws water out of a river, and returns it without pollution, must get a permit to do so under the Clean Water Act.
In the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. U.S. (04-1034) and Carabell v. Army Corps of Engineers (04-1384), the Court agreed to clarify the power of the federal government to regulate the filling or pollution of wetlands that are not closely linked to waterways. The Court may spell out further the scope of its 2001 decision, Solid Waste Agency v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, finding that Congress could not regulate isolated, non-navigable waters even though those were used by migratory birds.
The sovereign immunity case is Zurich Insurance Co. v. Chatham County (04-1618). Seven questions are raised in the petition, all dealing with a county government’s claim of sovereign immunity when a drawbridge over a waterway collapsed, damaging a boat underneath. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that Chatham County was acting as an “arm of the state” in operating the drawbridge, and thus was entitled to “residual sovereign immunity” based on the common law, rather than the Eleventh Amendment. The petition contends that the county alone would be liable for any money damages for defective operation of a drawbridge. [UPDATE: The Court has amended the grant of the petition for a writ of certiorari to be limited to the following question: “Whether an entity that does not qualify as an ‘arm of the State’ for Eleventh Amendment purposes can nonetheless assert sovereign immunity as a defense to an admiralty suit.”]
Here are issues in the four cases on which the Court sought the views of the Solicitor General:
In 05-18, Arlington Central School District v. Murphy (05-18), the question is whether federal law — the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act — allows parents who win a case on placement of their disabled child to recover fees for an educational expert they used to help make their case.
In Vines v. Univ. of Louisiana at Monroe (04-1615), the question turns on a Circuit Court conflict over the right to use a federal court decision in an age discrimination case based on federal law to bar a parallel case in state court based on state law.
In Empire Healthchoice Assurance v. McVeigh (05-200), the issue is whether the federal courts may hear a suit filed by a federal government contractor to enforce — on behalf of the U.S. government — a clause in a health benefits plan for federal workers. That was one of two cases in which government views were sought on jurisdictional issues under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act.
In the other case, Cruz v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois (04-1657), the question is whether the jurisdictional limits of the Act can be expanded to include a federal common law claim brought by a private insurer against its insureds.
The Court will take action on those four cases after it hears from the Solicitor General later in this Term.
Among a long list of cases the Court declined to review was a test of the constitutionality of clergy-led prayers to open meetings of local governing boards. The Court refused to hear a constitutional challenge to the long-standing practice of the Chesterfield County, Va., board of supervisors of inviting local clergy — but only from congregations practicing monotheistic faiths — to lead an invocation at the start of board meetings. (Simpson v. Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, 05-195.) The Fourth Circuit found the practice valid, under the Supreme Court’s 1983 ruling upholding chaplain’s prayers at the beginning of sessions of Congress (Marsh v. Chambers.)
