Plain English / Cases Made Simple
This is our archive of posts in Plain English. You may also be interested in these resources:
Supreme Court Procedure
Glossary of Legal Terms
Biographies of the Justices
(Photo by Images Money/Creative Commons)
Showing a strong suspicion that big drug companies with deep pockets may be using their money to shield shaky patent rights, the Supreme Court on Monday for the first time cleared the way for antitrust lawsuits to challenge payoffs between brand-name drugmakers to keep would-be competitors who make generic substitutes temporarily out of their market.
But winning such lawsuits will hardly be easy, because the Court refused to start with the premise that such payments are probably illegal. The five-to-three decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis (docket 12-416) was based far more on antitrust than patent law, and was at least a warning that settling lawsuits — at least in the drug industry — is a practice not necessarily free from risk. (Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., took no part in the ruling.)
Continue reading »
UPDATED Tuesday pm: Arizona officials have announced that they will now pursue the suggestion offered by the Court’s opinion on how the state might be able to gain a right to require proof of citizenship for voters. The official statement is here.
In a ruling that might easily be misunderstood if not read very closely, the Supreme Court on Monday simultaneously strengthened Congress’s hand in expanding the ranks of eligible voters, and yet assured states that they retain the ultimate power to decide who gets to vote. The apparent bottom line: states cannot now require voters to show proof that they are U.S. citizens, but the Court has given them a plan that could gain them that power.
The decision in the case of Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (docket 12-71) had major potential for sorting out the dual roles of Congress and the states in deciding eligibility to vote, and that was even more vital in the midst of a new national controversy over efforts among some states to narrow eligibility. The end result will give both sides in that controversy encouragement, but perhaps rather confusing legal guidance.
Justice Scalia announces the opinion this morning (Art Lien)
Continue reading »
The Supreme Court long ago ruled that an inventor who discovers a phenomenon in nature, or figures out a “law of nature,” cannot get an exclusive right to use or sell that by obtaining a patent from the federal government. Natural phenomena are the basic tools with which every would-be inventor starts, so locking up the right to use them in a monopoly held by a specific patent owner will frustrate others who might want to look for new ways to interpret that phenomena, the Court has said.
The exclusion of natural substances from eligibility for patents was the theory on which the Court relied Thursday in its unanimous ruling that a company cannot get a patent monopoly on the use and study of human genes that it isolates in the bloodstream, and them takes them out — without changing their natural character — for research.
The case involved a Utah company’s patent for having isolated, outside the human body, two basic genes that contain natural phenomena which suggest that a woman who has them is at significantly higher risk of developing either breast cancer or ovarian cancer. The company had claimed that the act of locating these genes in blood, and then extracting them for study, was a true invention, something that did not exist before.
The Court said the company actually did not create anything at all, but simply extracted the genetic material from its location in human blood, and setting it apart for study.
The Court, however, said that the company might be eligible to get a patent when it created a synthetic form of those genes — in other words, a laboratory imitation of them. Such imitations, according to the ruling, do not exist in nature, and so do not run counter to the rule against patenting nature.
(The decision was announced in the case of Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics.)
June is traditionally a busy month at the Supreme Court, with the nine Justices issuing a flurry of opinions before they head out of town for the summer. (Yes, it’s nice work if you can get it.) And as a general rule, June is often when we see decisions in some of the Court’s highest-profile cases – remember the media frenzy last June when the Court finally announced its ruling in the challenge to the Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare”? This year is no exception: on Monday, a sharply divided Court upheld a Maryland law that allows police to take DNA samples from people who are arrested for “serious” crimes, and Court watchers are still waiting on cases involving same-sex marriage and affirmative action. But civil rights groups are also watching another case closely: Shelby County v. Holder, in which the nine Justices hold the future of the Voting Rights Act in their hands.
Notables of the civil rights movement seated in the Supreme Court to hear challenge to Section V of the Voting Rights Act including John Lewis, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. (Art Lien)
Continue reading »
Amid signs that the ruling was a very easy one to reach, the Supreme Court on Monday allowed the state of Michigan to deny a man accused of murder a legal defense that he previously had but then lost the right to use at a second trial. Allowing the withdrawal of a mental defect defense after the fact, the Court ruled unanimously, did not violate the man’s constitutional rights to fair treatment. It took the Court less than four weeks to prepare that ruling.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the Court in Metrish v. Lancaster (docket 12-547), a case that had been argued on the final hearing day of the Term, on April 24. The decision, while interpreting generously the power of a state supreme court to cast aside a string of lower state court rulings allowing a legal defense, did not appear to make much new law on retroactivity doctrine. Continue reading »
The Obama administration is making a sustained effort to keep the youngest girls who are sexually active from having easy access to the pregnancy-preventing drug known as “Plan B.” Taking another step toward what may be an ultimate test in the Supreme Court, the administration will ask a federal judge in New York at a hearing Tuesday to put on hold his decision to make Plan B available over the counter — without a prescription –to women of all ages.
Such access, the federal lawyers will argue, should be open only to those who are fifteen years old or older — if they can prove their age. That will run counter to the ruling earlier this month by Senior U.S. District Judge Edward K. Korman of Brooklyn, that the government by Wednesday must lift all restrictions on retail sales of at least one of two current versions of Plan B.
Continue reading »
Virginia went to the Supreme Court with one argument, and only one, for its policy of limiting access to state public records to people who live in Virginia. That did not seem to work well at the argument in February, but that is not the test that counts. The Court decided the case Monday, and Virginia won unanimously — primarily on its chosen argument.
The Court, in a decision written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., upheld the power of a state to limit records access to state residents, on the theory that this gives those individuals some help in monitoring the performance of state government agencies. The case was McBurney v. Young (docket 12-17).
Continue reading »
Since the Supreme Court began this Term in October 2012, the Justices have heard oral arguments in several potentially historic cases, involving front-page issues such as affirmative action, same-sex marriage, and voting rights. But today the Justices heard a little over an hour of arguments on a very different but still consequential question: whether human genes can be patented. One former Solicitor General – no stranger himself to high-profile cases – has called Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics the most interesting case in which he has ever been involved. And it quickly became clear that the Justices – although obviously not scientists – also found the case fascinating. We won’t know more than that until the Court issues its decision, probably in late June, but it seems likely that at least five Justices are poised to agree with the challengers that at least some of the human genes at issue in the case cannot be patented.
Continue reading »
When the Supreme Court granted review in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, last December, it asked the United States, Edith Windsor, and the Republican House leaders defending the law to weigh in on a second issue: whether the Court could hear the challenge at all. It even appointed a “friend of the court,” Harvard law professor Vicki Jackson, to argue that it cannot.
Under any circumstances, the Court’s request for briefing on this question would not be something to take lightly. But after yesterday’s argument in the Proposition 8 case, when it became apparent that there might well be five votes to hold that the sponsors of the California initiative lacked a legal right to defend the initiative in court, all eyes focused today even more closely on the first fifty minutes of oral argument, which the Court had set aside to consider the question of its authority to hear the case. During the fifty-plus minutes of oral argument, several Justices did indeed express doubts about at least one of the propositions before them: whether the Court lacked authority to hear the case because the United States – which had asked the Court to review the lower court’s decision striking down DOMA – agreed with the lower court that DOMA is unconstitutional; and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, representing the House Republican leaders, did not have the legal right (known as “standing”) to be in the case. But unlike yesterday, it did not look like there might be five votes on either proposition to keep the Court from moving on to the merits of the DOMA challenge. Continue reading »
After more than an hour of oral arguments this morning in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, it came down to this: attorney Charles Cooper, representing the proponents of that ban, Proposition 8, returned to the lectern for his ten minutes of rebuttal time. He immediately confronted a question from Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom many regard as the critical vote in this case. Kennedy told him bluntly to “address why you think we should take and decide this case.” And with that, the Justice may have confirmed that the real question before the Court is not whether it would strike down Proposition 8, or what the broader effect of such a decision might be, but whether it is going to reach the merits of the case at all – a prospect that would be (to say the least) anticlimactic but seemed to be a real possibility by the end of the morning.
Continue reading »