Court grants no new cases, seeks SG views
on Apr 16, 2007 at 10:03 am
FINAL VERSION 12:00 PM: Now includes all cert. documents in today’s CVSG’s.
Today’s Order List can be found in full here.
The Supreme Court on Monday did not grant any new cases for decisions on the merits. It asked the U.S. Solicitor General to offer the government’s views on three cases — 06-923, Metlife v. Glenn (Petition, BIO, Reply); 06-937, Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics (Petition, BIO, Reply), and 06-939, U.S. Chamber of Commerce v Brown (Petition, BIO, Reply). There is no time limit for the SG’s responses, but that office is expected to respond in time for the Court to act on the cases during its next Term, starting in October.
The Metlife case questions whether the manager of an employee benefit plan has an illegal conflict of interest if the plan gives the manager both the authority to pay benefits and the power to rule on eligibility. There is a conflict in the Circuit Courts on the issue.
At issue in the Quanta case is whether the owner of a patented system or product uses up its right to license its product and collect royalties when it sells the right to use the system in another company’s products, so that it may not collect a second round of royalties from that other company’s customers. The appeal makes a strong attack on the Federal Circuit Court over its interpretation of the “first sale” doctrine in patent law.
The Chamber of Commerce appeal tests whether federal labor law bars states from curbing the rights of employers to speak out about labor union organizing by their workers, even when the employer does not engage in any threats or reprisals of workers who are sympathetic to unions. The case involves a California law that forbids employers to use any state funds to pay for any expression, pro or con, about organizing. The appeal says that at least 15 other states are considering similar legislation.
Among the issues the Court declined to review:
** Whether a crime victim’s “dying declaration” may be barred as evidence in a criminal trial, under Crawford v. Washington, because it was not subject to cross-examination. The case was Austin v. Michigan (06-886).
** Whether federal civil rights law encourages workers to report single incidents of racial slurs, and protects them from retaliation on the job if they do so. The issue arose in Jordan v. Alternative Resources (06-1086).
** Whether the Court would clarify the doctrine that U.S. courts owe some respect in their decision-making to rulings by courts in other countries. The case was Daewoo Motor America v. General Motors (06-926), growing out of a dispute between Daewoo’s American distributor and General Motors, which took over the bankrupt parent company. A U.S. court dismissed all claims by Daewoo America, citing a ruling by a Korean court in the parent’s bankruptcy case there.
** Whether a private contractor who has no prior relationship with a local government is protected by the First Amendment from beging denied government contracts in retaliation for its public speech or advocacy activity. The issue arose in Lubbock, Texas, v. Oscar Renda Contracting (06-965).
