At its Conference on March 7, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as regulation of lewd expression in the public schools, whether Congress may confer standing to sue when the plaintiff suffers no concrete injury, employees’ personal liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and unwritten promises to defendants in exchange for guilty pleas.
This edition of “Petitions to watch” features petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues. Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case.
Continue reading »
At 10 a.m. on Tuesday, the Supreme Court will again review the constitutional rules for high-speed police chases, in the case of Plumhoff v. Rickard. Arguing for the police officers seeking legal immunity will be Michael A. Mosley, a practitioner in North Little Rock, Arkansas, with twenty minutes of time. Representing the federal government as an amicus in support of the officers will be John F. Bash, an Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, with ten minutes of time. Arguing for the family of a man killed in the car chase will be Gary K. Smith of the Memphis, Tennessee, law firm of Apperson Crump, with thirty minutes of time.
—————
Background
High-speed police chases are a staple of crime movies and television dramas, and Hollywood long ago learned how to maximize their thrill potential. In real life, though, they are a deadly civic menace, and the consequences can be far more serious than the initial crime that police went to investigate before the suspect chose to flee. If police, in pursuit, use “deadly force,” the Fourth Amendment raises the question whether it was excessive.
Continue reading »
Analysis
If a state, trying to make it simple to decide who can be given a death sentence, opts for a choice that looks arbitrary, it is likely to have a difficult time in a Supreme Court that worries about the chances of error. That was demonstrated anew on Monday, when Florida found itself in deep Eighth Amendment trouble with a rule that anyone with an IQ above 70 can be executed if convicted of murder.
A quite definite majority of the Justices — perhaps, notably, including Justice Anthony M. Kennedy — left little doubt that Florida and six other states will not be allowed to maintain an automatic test-score-based cutoff for those who could qualify as mentally retarded and thus can escape the death penalty.
Continue reading »
Several apparent tweaks to Supreme Court security procedures were evident today in the first oral argument since last week’s release of surreptitious recordings of courtroom sessions.
Visitors approaching the courtroom for their second security check – the first is at the entrance to the building – were greeted with a more brightly lighted table for the Court’s police officers to examine personal effects. The checkpoint just outside the courtroom is in the Great Hall, which has relatively dark ambient lighting. Visitors, as always, walk through a magnetometer, while Supreme Court police officers examine purses, notebooks, and other small personal items allowed inside the courtroom. All electronic devices, such as cellphones, are prohibited from the courtroom, as are larger bags and briefcases.
Continue reading »
UPDATED 1:15 p.m. The Court at midday issued an amended order in the Arkansas case dealing with religious objections to a prison policy banning inmates from having beards. The challenging inmate, Gregory Holt, who also uses a Muslim name, had raised six questions in his petition. The amended order limited the grant to the single question whether the policy was invalid under the federal statute “to the extent” that it barred Holt from “growing a one-half-inch beard in accordance with his beliefs.” Holt had offered that as a compromise alternative to the no-beard policy. (The post below has been expanded to include other details about Monday’s orders.)
————–
The Supreme Court, beginning to shape its docket for the next Term starting in October, agreed on Monday to hear five new cases, including a constitutional challenge to a state prison system’s policy barring inmates from wearing beards. The Court also asked the federal government for its view on a new dispute between Florida and Georgia over the regulation of the flow of water from rivers in Georgia into Florida’s Apalachicola River (142 Original).
The Court denied review of two new cases involving the power of state or local governments to regulate housing and other opportunities for undocumented immigrants.
The Court has already rounded out the list of cases it will hear and decide during the current Term, so all new granted cases will go over to October or later.
Continue reading »
Another day, another snowstorm here in our nation’s capital. But — as usual — the Court is open and there is plenty of news coverage. This morning the Court will hear oral arguments in Hall v. Florida, the challenge to Florida’s scheme for identifying defendants who are intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for the death penalty. Lyle Denniston previewed the oral argument for this blog, and Steve Wermiel discussed the case in his column for law students. Other coverage comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, while in his column for The Atlantic Andrew Cohen argues that, “[i]f the Supreme Court meant what it said in Atkins [v. Virginia], the justices must loudly declare that the execution of the mentally retarded in America will not be tolerated, either as a nod to states’ rights or for any other hoary justification.” Continue reading »
This morning at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the February 28 Conference. We will report on the orders as soon as they become available. At 10 a.m. the Justices will hear oral arguments in Hall v. Florida. Lyle Denniston previewed that argument for this blog, and Steve Wermiel discussed it in his column for law students.
On Monday the Court granted five new cases and called for the views of the Solicitor General in one new case. Lyle reported on those orders. On Tuesday the Court issued two opinions. Tuesday’s live blog is archived here. On Wednesday the Court issued three opinions. Wednesday’s live blog is archived here. This is the second week of the February sitting. On Friday, the Justices will meet for their March 7 Conference. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference is here.
Submit Event
