Court dismisses election case
on Oct 2, 2006 at 10:03 am
Opening its new Term on Monday, the Supreme Court dismissed a new attempt to test the federal limit on “electioneering broadcasts” during campaign season. In a one-line order, the Court dismissed as moot the appeal in Christian Civic League of Maine v. Federal Election Commission, et al. (docket 05-1447).This was an appeal from denial of a preliminary injunction in a case involving an “as-applied” challenge to the new federal campaign finance law’s restrictions on radio and TV ads by corporations and labor unions close to election time. This marked the second loss in a week for the Maine group; its plea for a permanent injunction was dismissed in U.S. District Court last week, also as moot.
In another order, the Court refused to hear a challenge to the power of state governments to put limits on such election-time communications. That case involved an Alaska law that goes considerably beyond federal law in curbing such communications. The Court denied the petition in Alaska Right to Life Committee v. Miles, et al. (06-124) without comment.
The Court granted no new cases for review, having issued grants last Tuesday in advance of the Term opening. The next opportunity for further grants will come after this week’s private Conference, on Friday.
The Court refused to allow a significant antitrust case to go forward, because it had been filed after a deadline. The case is Northwest Airlines v. Spirit Airlines (06-77). The petition was filed on July 17, but was removed from the Court’s docket on July 20 because it had arrived five days late. Attorneys for Northwest sought to revive the case, asking the Court either to allow the case to be filed “out of time” or else by having Justice John Paul Stevens, as Circuit Justice, grant an extension of time to file. The Court’s orders list showed a denial of the motion to file the case late. It said nothing about the alternative request to Justice Stevens. The petition sought to have the Court clarify the kind of proof needed to challenge below-cost pricing, in order to prove that the pricing actually was below cost and resulted in short-term losses.
In other orders Monday, the Justices invited the U.S. Solicitor General to offer the federal government’s views on four cases, including a significant pair of appeals on attempts by foreign nationals who have been admitted to the U.S. temporarily to obtain licenses to practice law while here. Those cases are Wallace v. Calogero (docket 05-1645, petition here) and Leclerc v. Webb (docket 06-11, petition here) both coming from Louisiana.
The Court also asked for government views on the power of New York City to assess taxes on foreign embassy property used as residences for diplomats — Permanent Mission of India v. New York (docket 06-134, petition here).
The other cases seeking responses from the Solicitor General are UGI Utilities v. Consolidated Edison of New York (docket 05-1323, QP here) and Beck v. Pace International Union (docket 05-1448, petition here). The UGI case is a sequel to last Term’s decision in Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services on lawsuits to recover cleanup costs under the federal Superfund law. The issue in the new case was acknowledged by the Court but not decided: whether someone liable for cleanup costs who has neither been sued nor had its potential liability to the government determined may sue other potentially liable parties to share in the cleanup costs. In the Beck case, the issue is whether the ERISA law applies to a pension plan sponsor’s decision to terminate a plan by buying an annuity, rather than merging the plan with another.
The Court denied review of most of the 1,900 cases that had been awaiting action since last Term. Among the cases turned aside was an appeal in a Mississippi case in which the Court had granted a stay of execution on July 12 — Wilcher v. Epps (06-5147). The stay had been granted on a 6-3 vote. But, on Monday, the Court simply declined to hear the case, testing the right of a death row inmate who had said he was ready to die to change his mind and reinstate his challenge to execution. In its July order, the Court had said that the stay would “terminate automatically” if the petition were denied.
The Court also denied review, for a second time, of whether the Constitution puts any limits on the government’s power to require those on probation or parole to supply a sample of their DNA to keep on file. The case was Johnson v. Quander (05-11230) — a case in which the federal government had waived its right to respond. The Court had denied review of the same issue last June 26, in Sczubelek v. U.S. (05-7955).
The Court did not act Monday on three important cases that it had considered at its Sept. 25 Conference: an appeal by states’ attorneys general seeking immunity to other state courts’ actions in an antitrust case growing out of the settlement of states’ lawsuits against the tobacco industry (King, et al., v.Grand River Enterprises (05-1343), and two separate appeals testing whether there is a right to recover attorneys’ fees in a bankruptcy cases, when that right has been recognized either by contract or by state law (Travelers Casualty v . Pacific Gas, 05-1429, and DeRoche v. Arizona Industrial Commission, 05-1439). Those cases are scheduled to be considered again at this week’s Conference, on Friday.
The Court’s bulky list of orders included denials of review in a number of interesting cases, including these (in order of docket number):
05-1160, Utah v. Shivwits Band, testing the constitutionality of federal law granting the Interior Secretary discretion to acquire lands for Indians. That discretion was upheld in lower court. (Same issue denied review in 05-1428, South Dakota v. Interior Department.)
05-1286, Oklahoma v. Pickens, on the duty of appeals courts to respect a jury’s finding that a death row inmate is not mentally retarded and thus can be executed. A state court overturned such a finding in three cases.
05-1411, Moore v. Maryland, whether an individual who has enough money to pay a criminal defense lawyer has a constitutional right to have the state pay a DNA expert that the individual cannot afford. A state court said no.
05-1443, Motion Systems Corp. v. Bush, et al., testing whether the President’s personal decision on an issue of import trade restrictions may be challenged in court. A lower court said no.
05-1481, Sidley Austin LLP v. EEOC, seeking clarification of the EEOC’s powers to seek remedies for individuals who may not pursue a remedy for themselves. A lower court said EEOC may do so.
05-1505, Allred v. Superior Court, testing trial judges’ authority to bar a lawyer representing a non-party witness in a criminal case from making public statements about the case. State courts upheld such an order.
05-1539, Eklund, et al., v. Byron School District, et al., testing the constitutionality of a public school program that sought to teach students about Islam by having them act out religious exercises and other cultural customs of the faith. Lower courts found no constitutional problem with such a program.
05-1607, U.S. Bank National Assoc. v. Kroske, whether national banks must obey state workplace anti-discrimination laws in the dismissal of their officers. Lower courts found no federal preemption; there is, however, a split in the Circuit Courts on the issue.
05-1658, EmCare v. Belt, whether licensed nurse practitioners and physician assistants are entitled to overtime pay under federal wage-hour law. A lower court ruled that they were. There appears to be a Circuit conflict on the issue.
06-15, Tomic v. Catholic Diocese of Peoria, testing church exemption from federal workplace discrimination laws as to employees not involved in church doctrinal activity. Lower courts are widely split on the scope of the “ministerial exception” to those federal laws. The lower courts dismissed the claim of bias in this case, finding that the courts should not intrude into internal church matters.
06-38, Detroit Entertainment, et al., v. Romanski, seeking clarification of whether the actions of a private entity amount to official action, thus triggering federal civil rights liability. In this case, lower courts found state action when a casino guard made an arrest on private property.
