The petition of the day is:
Issue: (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred by holding, in conflict with the decisions of this Court, and other courts of appeals, that for purposes of preemption under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), a state law of general applicability only “relates to prices, routes and services” when it “binds the carrier to a particular price, route or service”; and (2) whether California's meal and rest break requirements impermissibly “relate to” motor carriers' prices, routes or services under the FAAAA when they require truck drivers to alter and deviate from their preferred routes and suspend services up to five times a day, every day.
The Court closes out the last day of its March argument session with the second of a pair of bankruptcy cases, Harris v. Viegelahn. This surely is one of the more low-stakes cases of the Term: a dispute involving a little more than $4,000, funds from income petitioner Charles Harris earned after he sought bankruptcy relief under Chapter 13, and turned over to the trustee handling that case (respondent Mary Viegelahn), but before Harris converted his case to Chapter 7 (more below on what those chapters mean). But both sides are represented (presumably pro bono) by lawyers from two well-regarded law firms — Robbins, Russell and Wilmer Hale. So it comes as no surprise that the briefs on both sides are excellent. Continue reading »
The cause of electronic privacy gained a bit in the Supreme Court on Monday as the Justices ruled that it is a search, subject to constitutional challenge, when police install a monitoring device on an individual’s body to track movements after being convicted of a crime. The Court did not itself settle, at this point, when such monitoring does violate the Fourth Amendment, leaving that to lower courts to decide first.
The ruling in the case of Grady v. North Carolina, issued without formal briefs or a hearing, was one of a series of actions the Justices took in several rulings and orders. They also granted review of death penalty procedures used in two Kansas murder cases and agreed to clarify when an employee benefit plan may sue a worker to recover funds that the plan claims were wrongly paid. The newly granted cases will be decided at the Court’s next Term. The Court also refused to clear the way for two new constitutional challenges to the new federal health insurance law, the Affordable Care Act.
Continue reading »
The transcript in Brumfield v. Cain is here.
The Supreme Court, supposedly, is an appeals court set up to decide issues of law, and should not have to spend its hours — no, its days — getting familiar with a factual record that may run into many volumes. But if the Court is to decide the case it heard on Monday, Brumfield v. Cain, the Justices and their clerks may need to start right away digging very deeply into at least twenty volumes of a record compiled in a state court.
The legal issue the Court said it would decide is simple enough. But, when that issue came up for argument, eight Justices who took an active part and two lawyers went back and forth for an hour, sometimes impatiently, trying to figure out just what happened in this Louisiana murder case that could lead to the execution of a man found by a federal judge to be mentally disabled — a category that normally would exempt him from the death penalty.
Continue reading »
The last day of the March argument calendar presents the Justices with two consumer bankruptcy cases. The second case is Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, which presents a basic fact pattern doubtless repeated in tens (if not hundreds of thousands) of bankruptcy filings this decade: a bankrupt homeowner, whose home indisputably is worth far less than the mortgage that burdens it, with few other significant debts. Indeed, the Justices face that fact pattern three times this month (earlier this week in Caulkett and next Wednesday in this case and Harris v. Viegelahn). Continue reading »
Oyez has posted audio recordings of last week’s arguments.
The Court heard arguments last week in:
- In the Los Angeles Times, David Savage looks at a case that the Justices considered at their Conference last week, asking “whether a school official’s fear of violence justified disciplining students for wearing American flags on their shirts.”
- At Slate, Judith Schaeffer looks back at comments about Loving v. Virginia made by Chief Justice John Roberts during his confirmation hearing, and she argues that the decision makes “clear” that the state laws at issue before the Court in the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage “infringe on the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry.”
- At ACSblog, Sarah Hunger and Meredith Kincaid discuss the amicus brief that they filed in support of Courtney Lockhart, an Alabama death row inmate who is challenging the state’s practice of allowing trial judges to override a jury’s recommendation and impose a death sentence.
- At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Ann McGinley analyzes last week’s decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, in which the Court sent the case of a female UPS driver who became pregnant back to the lower court for it to reconsider its ruling.
- At the National Review’s Bench Memos, Robert Cheren disputes a statement made by Solicitor General Don Verrilli during last week’s oral arguments.
A friendly reminder: We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.
The petition of the day is:
Issue: Whether the minimum required culpability state for denying a bankruptcy debtor a discharge of a tax debt based on the debtor's participation in a disallowed tax shelter, and spending decisions in light of a known or potential tax debt is: (1) negligence (i.e., the debtor should have known better than to participate in the tax shelter or spend money on something other than a present or potential future tax bill), per the analysis of several circuits including the Tenth Circuit in In re Vaughn; (2) specific intent (i.e., the debtor must specifically intend for his spending to defeat the IRS's ability to collect a tax debt), per the Ninth Circuit's analysis in Hawkins v. Franchise Tax Board; (3) the mental state of knowingly (i.e., the debtor knows it is practically certain that his spending will put money beyond the reach of the IRS's collection efforts), in conformity with this Court's decisions equating willfulness with knowledge; or (4) some other mental state.