Tuesday round-up
on Jun 24, 2014 at 8:20 am
In the first of three opinion days this week, yesterday the Court issued opinions in three argued cases. Mark Walsh provided a “view” from the courtroom for this blog, covering the release of the opinions.
In Loughrin v. United States, the Court held that a provision of the federal bank fraud statute which makes it a crime to “knowingly execut[e] a scheme . . . to obtain” property owned by, or under the custody of, a bank “by means of false or fraudulent pretenses” does not require the government to prove that a defendant intended to defraud a financial institution. Rory Little covered the unanimous decision, written by Justice Elena Kagan, for this blog; other coverage comes from Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST. Commentary comes from Noah Feldman in his column for Bloomberg View.
In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, the Court generally – although not completely – upheld the agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary sources. Lyle Denniston covered the opinion for this blog; other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Bill Mears of CNN, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, Adam Liptak of The New York Times, Mark Walsh of Education Week’s School Law blog, Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire, and Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST. Commentary comes from Noah Feldman for Bloomberg View, A. Dan Tarlock for ISCOTUSnow (video), Richard Re at Re’s Judicata, and Andrew M. Grossman at Cato at Liberty.
In Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, the Court rejected Halliburton’s request that it reverse its decision in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, holding that investors in securities fraud cases do not need to show that they have relied on misleading statements from the company, but it added that defendants must receive an opportunity to rebut the presumption of reliance before class certification with evidence of a lack of price impact. Coverage of the decision comes from Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News and Jaclyn Belczyk of JURIST. Commentary on the opinion comes from Noah Feldman for Bloomberg View, Ed Mannino at his eponymous blog, Walter Olson at Cato at Liberty, and Matt Bodie at PrawfsBlawg.
The Court also issued orders from its June 19 Conference, granting three new cases. This blog’s Lyle Denniston has comprehensive coverage of yesterday’s order list. Other coverage of and commentary on yesterday’s grants focused on Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads, in which the Court will consider whether Amtrak’s role in drafting standards for rail passenger service violated the non-delegation doctrine – which prohibits Congress from giving someone else the power to write federal laws. Jaclyn Belczyk covered the grant for JURIST, with commentary coming from Lee Beck at Federal Regulations Advisor and Roger Pilon at Cato at Liberty.
Briefly:
- At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost weighs in on last week’s decision in Lane v. Franks, holding that a government employee’s testimony in a criminal trial about fraud in the program where he works is protected by the First Amendment; Jost contends that “[t]he Supreme Court itself bears part of the blame for Lane’s empty-handed win.”
- At CNN Money, Brian Stelter anticipates the Court’s decision in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, noting that a ruling in Aereo’s favor “could have profound effects on the television business.”
- In an op-ed for USA Today, Joe Kernan urges the Court to grant review in Davis v. Pension Benefits Guaranty Corporation, a challenge by a group of retired USAirways pilots to the PBGC’s role as the trustee for the terminated pension plans that it insures.
- At his Harmless Error blog, Luke Rioux has a survey of both the decisions issued last week and the high-profile cases that have not yet been decided.
[Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel to the petitioner in Loughrin and Lane and on an amicus brief in support of the respondent in Halliburton. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]
