Friday round-up

We are switching to a new system of collecting links for the round-up. If you have a story or post related to the Supreme Court that you would like us to include in the round-up, please send a link to[email protected] so that we can consider it.

Thursdays coverage of the Court largely focused on the opinions it released earlier this week.

On Wednesday, the Court released its opinion inKiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in which it held that the Alien Tort Statute did not authorize a suit by Nigerian nationals against foreign corporations for their conduct abroad. Additional coverage of the opinion comes fromUPI,The Economist, and Michael Bobelian atForbes. This blog has run commentary on the opinion from supporters of both sides, including posts yesterday byAnton Metlitsky,Kristin Linsley Myles and James Rutten,Oona Hathaway, andDonald Childress. Writing at PrawfsBlawg,Howard Wassermanconsiders the opinions discussion of issues of jurisdiction versus issues of substantive law, whileAndy Spaldingpredicts that, afterKiobel, the next generation of ATS litigation . . . will likely focus to a large extent on the territorial nexus question. Also writing at Forbes,Rich Sampargues that while the opinion is likely to make it far more difficult for human rights activists to sue U.S. corporations based on the corporations overseas activities, the opinion left sufficient wiggle room that we can expect to see multinational corporations regularly being sued for their overseas activities for the foreseeable future. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. represents Achmed et al. and the Center for Justice and Accountability asamici curiaein support of the petitioners.]

On Wednesday, the Court also released its opinion inGenesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk, in which it held that the respondents suit was appropriately dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when she had rejected petitioners settlement offer, as she had no personal interest in representing putative claimants. AtThe Blog of the Century Foundation, Moshe Marvit callsSymczyk[t]he most important case you havent heard of. Maybe. Similarly, Steven Schwinn atConstitutional Law Prof Blogdescribes the case as potentially causing a significant blow to the [Fair Labor Standards Act’s] provision that allows an employee to sue on behalf of all others similarly situated unless Justice Kagans dissent is right [and] this is a one-off that should never happen again.

Tuesdays opinion inMissouri v. McNeely, in which the Court held that in drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not inevitably constitute an exigency sufficient to justify conducting a blood test without a warrant, similarly continues to attract attention. Coverage of the opinion comes from David Savage at theLos Angeles Timesand Brandon Gatto atJURIST.

The Court also heard oral argument this week in several cases. AtPatent Docs, Kevin Noonan comments on Mondays oral argument inAssociation for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, in which it is considering the patent-eligibility of human genes. Noonan predicts that the governments compromise position regarding the patent-eligibility of cDNA but not genomic DNA has the best chance of prevailing in the case.

On Monday, the Court also heard argument inUnited States v. Davila, in which it is considering whether any degree of judicial participation in plea negotiations, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1), automatically requires vacatur of a defendants guilty plea, irrespective of whether the error was prejudicial. Rory Little reports on the argument in what he refers to as [t]his little-noticed case forthis blog.

Also forthis blog, Miriam Seifter reports on Tuesdays oral arguments inAmerican Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, in which the Court is considering whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act contains an unexpressed market participant exception permitting a municipal government to take action that would otherwise conflict with the Acts express preemption clause, at least under specified circumstances. Michael Piraino, writing at theHuffington Post, weighs in on Tuesdays other oral argument, inAdoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, in which the Court is considering whether a non-custodial parent of a child can invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 to block an adoption by a non-Indian parent.

Julia Zebley at JURIST reports on Wednesdays oral arguments inSalinas v. Texas, in which the Court is considering whether or when the Fifth Amendments Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendants refusal to answer law enforcement questioning before he has been arrested or read hisMirandarights, andUnited States v. Kebodeaux, in which the Court is considering whetherCongress possesses the Article I authority to provide for criminal penalties for the failure to register as a sex offender under the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, as applied to a person who was convicted of a sex offense under federal law but completed his criminal sentence before the enactment of the registration provision. Steven Schwinn reports on theKebodeauxoral argument forthis blog, emphasizing the ways in which the Justices seemed to be concerned about limits on congressional authority. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the co-counsel to the petitioner inSalinas.]

Briefly:

• Writing at theBrennan Center for Justice, Sidney Rosdeitcher and Katriana Roh preview next weeks oral arguments inAgency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, in which the Court will consider whether a law requiring an organization to maintain a policy explicitly opposing prostitution in order to receive federal funding to provide HIV and AIDS programs overseas violates the First Amendment.
• At the Thomson ReutersNews & Insight blog, Elizabeth Dilts reports on the Courts denial of certiorari on Monday in GlaxoSmithKline v. Humana Medical Plans, which had asked the Court to review whether the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(2), establishes a cause of action for private insurers operating Medicare Advantage plans to sue tortfeasors for double damages. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in the case.]
• Justice Kagan has been named toTIMEs2013 list of its one hundred most influential people in the world. Justice OConnor writes Justice Kagans entry in the issue, emphasizing her incisive legal think[ing] and excellent communicat[ion.]
• At the New York Review of Books, David Cole has an essay remembering the path-breaking reporting and writing about the Court by Anthony Lewis, who passed away in late March.
• Both Geoffrey Stone at theHuffington Postand Jeremy Leaming atACSblogcomment on a speech given by Justice Scalia earlier this week. ConorandCormachave already rounded up earlier coverage of the event.