Friday round-up

By Kiera Flynn
on Jun 17, 2011 at 1:41 pm

Yesterday the Court issued decisions in five cases.  The Atlantic provides an overview of all five of yesterday’s decisions. 

JDB v. North Carolina

In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, a case involving a thirteen-year-old student who was questioned by a police officer at school, the Court held that age is a relevant factor to consider in determining whether to issue a Miranda warning prior to questioning.  SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston has in-depth coverage.  Writing for the Los Angeles Times, David Savage notes that the five-four decision “did not set a strict rule for all cases involving police questioning of minors”; Nina Totenberg (who covers three of yesterday’s other decisions as well) has a similar observation at NPR.  The editorial board of the New York Times applauds the decision, emphasizing that for police, the consideration of age when giving Miranda warnings is a “prudent safeguard for that individual’s rights and also for their work.”  At the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr points out a “rather curious sort of argument” from the dissent.  Additional coverage can be found from Mark Walsh of the Education Week Blog, Joan Biskupic at USA Today, Robert Barnes of the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, the Christian Science Monitor, the Charlotte Observer, and the Durham Herald Sun.

Bond v. United States, Smith v. Bayer, and Davis v. United States

PrawfsBlawg described the day as “federal procedure day at the Supreme Court,” and it covers both Bond v. United States and Smith v. Bayer.  Lyle Denniston of this blog had an extensive discussion and analysis of the decision in Bond, including its implications for federalism; at Cato @ Liberty, Ilya Shapiro also analyzes what he describes as Justice Kennedy’s “tight opinion” in Bond.  Jonathan Adler, at the Volokh Conspiracy, has more.  As CNN notes, Justice Kagan’s announcement of the decision in Smith v. Bayer – in which the Court held that a federal court cannot bar a state court class action from going forward – contained “a surprising jolt of levity.”  Debra Cassens Weiss at the ABA Journal, the Workplace Class Action Blog, Bloomberg, CNN, the Associated Press, Forbes, and the Automated Trader all have coverage of the case as well.

Analysis of yesterday’s decision in Davis v. United States came from Orin Kerr – who argued the case on behalf of the petitioner.  At the Volokh Conspiracy, Kerr examines the case’s implications for the exclusionary rule and explains that while “the Court has adopted an exception to the exclusionary rule,” it “has left open a possible exception to its exception ‘if necessary.’”

Tapia v. United States

David Savage at the Los Angeles Times has coverage of yesterday’s decision in Tapia v. United States, in which the Court held that federal district judges cannot impose or lengthen a criminal defendant’s sentence for rehabilitative purposes.  AP coverage can be found here.  Additional coverage can be found at the Courthouse News Service, Sacramento Bee, and blog of the Macon Telegraph.

Briefly:

• In her Circuit Split Watch column for the National Law Journal, Michelle Olsen reports on Heydt-Benjamin v. Heydt-Benjamin, an international child abduction case that the Court will consider at its June 23 Conference.  [Disclosure:  Goldstein, Howe & Russell represents the petitioner in the case.]