Court takes no new cases
on Mar 19, 2007 at 10:03 am
Final Update 4:48 PM (added links to cert. documents in 06-830). Today’s orders can now be found here.
The Supreme Court on Monday added no new cases to its decision docket for the Term. In one significant order, the Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General for the federal government’s views on a significant antitrust case involving drug manufacturers — Joblove, et al., v. Barr Labs, Inc. (06-830; petition, BIO, reply). The issue is whether it violates the Sherman Act for the maker of a patented brand-name drug to share a part of its future profits to induce the maker of a generic substitute to keep its product off the market. The Court previously had declined to hear four cases on this issue, which has deeply divided lower courts.
The Court took no action on the motion to expedite the two new appeals filed by Guantanamo Bay detainees seeking to regain the right to challenge their detention in federal habeas cases. The parties have agreed to expedite the briefing on those appeals; the federal government’s brief is to be filed on Wednesday, under their agreed schedule. There was no explanation for the Court’s inaction on the move to speed along the cases so that they might be decided in the current Term. The cases are Boumediene v. Bush, 06-1195, and Al Odah v. U.S., 06-1196. (The Court’s electronic docket indicates that the Court has asked the federal government for a response to another detainee’s appeal, the case titled In re Ali (06-1194), which involves a Chinese citizen whose real name is Anwar Hassan. He is being held at Guantanamo Bay, and seeks to test his detention and his classification as an “enemy combatant.” The Court on March 5 allowed his attorneys to file the petition under seal, because it may contain classified material. As of Monday, the case remains under seal, so is not publicly available. The government response is now due on April 16.)
In an unusual order, the Court wiped out its grant of review in a pending case, but then promptly granted it again — this time, without Justice Anthony M. Kennedy participating. The case is Credit Suisse Securities v. Billing (05-1137), which is scheduled for argument on March 27. The order noted that Kennedy “now realizes that he should have recused himself from participation in this case, and does now recuse himself.” There was no explanation for that discovery. The Court said it then reconsidered the case, and granted it anew. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., has been out of the case since the beginning, so it will now be heard next week by a seven-Justice Court. The case raises significant questions about the scope of antitrust immunity for securities trading activity that is fully covered by federal securities laws.
Among a handful of cases that the Court on Monday refused to hear even though at least some of them seemed appeal-worthy, these questions were at issue:
** A federal government appeal testing the power of courts to block the government from taking steps to restore parts of national forests damaged by fire, when the planned logging would disrupt wildlife habitats (U.S. Forest Service v. Earth Island Institute, 06-797).
** Whether a private firm is entitled to restitution as part of the remedy when the federal government breaches a contract (Old Stone Corp. v. U.S., 06-837).
** What method must pension benefit plans use in calculating the effect on retirement of earlier payments to a worker, from another benefit plan or from Social Security. The denial of review leaves a Xerox pension plan subject to two different courts of appeals rulings on the issue of offsets of retirement benefits. The case is Xerox Corp. Retirement Plan v. Miller (06-962).
** Whether an individual or firm that receives a payment based on a law enacted after filing for bankruptcy must count the money as part of the estate for possible distribution to creditors (Kelly v. Bracewell, 06-739).
** Does public disclosure of a federal government plan to take private property count as a factor to reduce the value of property that the government then takes over for public use (Detroit International Bridge v. U.S., 06-639).
** Whether ERISA, the federal law on workers’ benefit plans, preempts state laws that control the assignment of benefits by plan members (Louisiana Health & Indemnity v. Rapides Healthcare, 06-839).
** Whether special masters named to aid federal courts in their rulings are covered by the federal law requiring judicial officers to be impartial (Goetz v. John B., 06-901).
