Round-Up: Grants

Update: Linked below are more articles published on two of the cases granted today.

Tony Mauro has an “Online Extra” for the Legal Times that includes information on the consolidated Indiana Voter ID cases (Crawford v. Marion City Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita) and Baze v. Rees, which questions the constitutionality of execution by lethal injection. Mauro also notes that only nine cases were granted from the long conference last year, and he speculates that perhaps the Court’s higher number this year (seventeen) may be in response “to a summer’s worth of questioning and commentary about its shrinking docket.” Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick speaks with Alex Cohen on NPR about those two very controversial cases — Baze v. Rees and the Indiana Voter ID cases. Robert Barnes has this article on the two cases for the Washington Post.

For CBS News, Andrew Cohen posts his predictions for Baze v. Rees, guessing that “the Court next spring will declare invalid the lethal injection procedures Kentucky and certain other states employ when they execute capital defendants” by a 5-4 vote, with Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion.

David Savage reports on the Voter ID case here.

News articles are appearing on cases granted this morning. We’ll update the round-up later today to include articles as they become available.

First to be discussed is the voter ID case challenging an Indiana law that requires voters to present a photo ID. Mark Sherman of the AP reports that the state Democratic party and civil rights groups complain that “the law unfairly targets poor and minority voters.” The NY Times article on the case, here, details some of the case’s history and its relevance to the 2008 elections. Rick Hasen, in his Election Blog post, links back to his older postings on the case and celebrates what he sees as the “good news.”

Available here is the Reuters report on the lethal injection case, Baze v. Rees. Petitioners, two death row inmates from Kentucky, argue that lethal injection inflicts unnecessary pain and suffering. Greg Stohr’s article at Bloomberg includes quotes from the state and the petitioners’ arguments. The AP piece quotes David Barron, the public defender representing the petitioners, as saying “this is probably one of the most important cases in decades as it relates to the death penalty.”

This Reuters report contains details on the Pfizer patent case, which “hinges on whether state or federal law takes precedence when the two clash.”

Christopher S. Rugaber’s AP article briefly explains a technology patent case to be considered by the Court, Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. “At issue,” Rugaber reports, “is whether a patent holder can seek royalties from multiple companies as a patented product works its way through the manufacturing process.”

The Justices granted cert in two cases “stemming from wholesale power contracts” in California, Nevada and Washington State during the height of the energy crisis, reports Mark H. Anderson.

Finally, there is an AP article on Virginia v. Moore, “the case of a man who successfully challenged a drug charge arising from his illegal arrest for driving on a suspended license.”
(Disclaimer: Howe & Russell and Akin Gump represent the respondent in this case).