Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized yesterday evening after she reportedly “developed light headedness and fatigue” while working in her chambers at the Court.  The New York Times and the Washington Post both characterized the Justice’s hospitalization at the Washington Hospital Center as “a precaution.”  Ginsburg has indicated that she plans to stay on the Court for several years to come, and has kept up an active schedule of work and speaking engagements.  The Court’s official statement  is available here.

Read the rest of this entry »

In a prior post, we began identifying cases in which it is possible that replacing Justice Souter with Judge Sotomayor might change the outcome.  In particular, we identified cases in which Justice Souter was in the majority in a 5-4 decision, beginning with cases that did not break down along traditional liberal-conservative lines.  And we identified two cases decided thus far this term – Arizona v. Gant and Vaden v. Discover Bank – that met those criteria.

Looking back beyond the present term, it is clear that such decisions are relatively infrequent.  Since the start of the October 2005 term – during which Justice Alito joined the Court to create its present membership – we have been able to identify only seven decisions matching the 5-4 “quirky lineup” criteria with Justice Souter in the majority.  In the context of criminal cases, perhaps the most significant issue that may be affected by Justice Souter’s retirement is the Court’s willingness to rely on the rule of lenity.  In the civil context, the constitutional limitations on punitive damages emerge as the most significant issue in this collection of cases.

Criminal Cases and the Rule of Lenity

Four of the seven cases since 2005 have been criminal.  One was Gant.  Another was Day v. McDonnough, 547 U.S. 198 (2006), in which Justice Souter sided with Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Alito, to hold that a federal court had the authority to dismiss sua sponte a habeas petition as untimely, despite the State’s erroneous concession that the petition was filed on time.

In another case going against a criminal defendant, Justice Souter likewise voted with the 5-4 majority in James v. United States, 550 U.S. 192 (2007), to hold that attempted burglary (as defined by Florida law) was a “violent felony” within the meaning of the federal Armed Career Criminal Act.  He was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kennedy, and Breyer.

Read the rest of this entry »

Below, recent Stanford graduate Alan Bakowski discusses one of Thursday’s decisions.

In its opinion in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled 5-4 that Kentucky’s disability retirement system does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), even though age is an explicit factor in calculating benefits for at least some workers. Following a somewhat functional approach to the ADEA’s non-discrimination requirement, the Court concluded that Kentucky’s system was not “actually motivated” by bias against older workers but was instead organized around the “analytically distinct” concept of “pension status.” Thus, the Court held that when a retirement plan conditions pension eligibility on age but then discriminates on the basis of pension status, an ADEA plaintiff must show that the disparate treatment was “actually motivated” by age itself rather than pension status.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Breyer, relied heavily on the Court’s 1993 ruling in Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, which held that discrimination based on pension status would not violate the ADEA unless it was being used as a “proxy for age.” Applying Hazen Paper, the majority identified a “clear non-age-related rationale” for the disparities in Kentucky’s disability retirement plan: providing benefits for workers at the level they would have received had they become disabled after reaching eligibility for normal retirement benefits. The majority said the fact that older disabled workers may receive fewer imputed years of service than younger disabled workers results not from age discrimination in the plan itself, but rather because employers may lawfully condition pension eligibility on age. This is evident by looking at the pension scheme as a whole, which “the ADEA treats somewhat more flexibly and leniently in respect to age.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The Court issued opinions in five cases this morning, coverage of which was originally available on our LiveBlog. Ten opinions have yet to be decided this term. The Justices will next release opinions on Monday.
The opinion by Justice Breyer in MetLife v. Glenn (06-923) is available here.

The opinion by Justice Breyer in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (06-1037) is available here.

The opinion by Justice Breyer in Indiana v. Edwards (07-208) is available here.

The opinion by Justice Souter in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (06-1505) is available here.

The opinion by Justice Stevens in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown (06-939) is available here.

The Supreme Court ruled by a 7-2 vote on Thursday that a state may require a criminal defendant who suffers from a mental illness to have a lawyer, rather than allowing the individual to act as his own defense counsel, even when the individual is competent enough to be tried.  The decision came in Indiana v. Edwards (07-208).

This was one of five decisions on the merits released this morning; all of the other four settled issues involving workers’ rights. The Court will next issue decisions on Monday, and may have at least one other decision day next week.  Ten cases remain to be decided, including major disputes on gun rights, a massive oil spill in Alaska, and the death penalty for the crime of child rape.

In the decisions on workplace issues, these were the results, in summary:

** Federal labor law bars a state from curbing the rights of employers to speak out about labor union organizing by their workers. A California law imposing limits on employer speech when the companies are using state funds for that kind of message is preempted by federal labor law. The vote was 7-2 in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown (06-939).

** In a case involving a claim of age bias in the workplace, the employer not the employee has the burden of providing evidence on the issue of whether an employment action was done for reasons other than age.  The Court decided Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (06-1505) by a vote of 7-1, with the dissent only a partial one.  One Justice did not take part: Stephen G. Breyer.

** A pension system does not discriminate illegally against older workers who become disabled after becoming eligible for retirement, when eligibility depends on the worker’s age. The ruling split the Court 5-4 in Kentucky Retirement System v. EEOC (06-1037).

** The administrator of an employee benefit plan has a conflict of interest if allowed to perform the dual role of evaluating claims and paying them. The 6-3 ruling came in MetLife v. Glenn (06-923).

This post is designed only for readers using mobile devices. We will update the text of this post with news of today’s opinions and orders, but updates will not automatically refresh. For a much better experience, readers using standard web browsers or iPhones should follow along using our standard LiveBlog here.

10:01 – The Court has released the opinion in MetLife v. Glenn (06-923), on whether the fact that a claim administrator of an ERISA plan also funds the plan benefits constitutes a “conflict of interest” that must be weighed in a judicial review of the administrator’s benefit determination. The ruling below, which found for the claimant, is affirmed.  Justice Breyer wrote the opinion. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

10:06 – The Court has released the opinion in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (06-1037), on whether the relevance of age as a potential factor in the distribution of retirement benefits to disabled workers establishes a prima facie case of arbitrary discrimination under the ADEA. The ruling below, which found for the EEOC, is reversed.  Justice Breyer wrote the opinion. Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Ginsburg and Alito dissented. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

10:10 – The Court has released the opinion in Indiana v. Edwards (07-208), on whether criminal defendants found competent to stand trial must be permitted to represent themselves. The ruling below, which found for the defendant, is vacated and remanded.  Justice Breyer wrote the opinion. Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

10:14 – The Court has released the opinion in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (06-1505), on whether, in a disparate impact suit under the ADEA, workers or employers bear the burden of persuasion in determining whether the employment decision was based on “reasonable factors other than age.” The ruling below, which found for the employer, is  vacated and remanded.  Justice Souter wrote the opinion. Justice Thomas partially dissented. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

10:17 – The Court has released the opinion in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown (06-939), on whether federal labor law preempts a California statute barring employers from using state money to influence union organizing campaigns. The ruling below, which upheld the state law, is reversed and remanded.  Justice Stevens wrote the opinion. Justices Breyer and Ginsburg dissented. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.

10:18 – That’s the last opinion of the day.  Next opinion day is Monday.  There are now 10 outstanding cases.

The transcript of today’s argument in the consolidated cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21) and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (07-25) is now available here.

The transcript of today’s argument in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (06-1037) is now available here.

At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to hear argument in the consolidated cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21) and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (07-25), asking whether Indiana’s law requiring voters to show ID at polling places violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Paul Smith of Washington, D.C., will argue for the petitioner, and Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher and U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement will argue for the respondent.

At 11 a.m., the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (06-1037), asking whether the use of age as a factor in a retirement plan violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Robert Klausner of Plantation, Fla., will argue for the petitioner, and Malcolm Stewart of the Solicitor General’s office will argue for the respondent.

We will provide links to transcripts of the oral arguments as soon as they are available.

On Monday, the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Baze v. Rees (07-5439), asking whether the combination of drugs used in Kentucky’s lethal injection protocol amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and in Dada v. Mukasey (06-1181), asking whether an alien’s timely filing of a motion to reopen removal proceedings should automatically toll a previously granted order of voluntary departure.

In advance of the arguments, the Court is expected to release the remaining orders from its private conference last Friday. Following the argument in Baze, the Court is expected to release audio from the oral argument.

NOTE TO READERS: We will post the Orders List on Monday as soon as it becomes available.  A post elaborating on the orders will appear following the oral argument in Baze v. Rees.  No new grants are expected.

On Tuesday, the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Gonzalez v. United States (06-11612), asking whether a criminal defendant must himself waive the right to appear before an Article III judge, and in Boulware v. United States (06-1509), asking whether intent to make a return of capital is required for funds diverted and distributed to a shareholder of a corporation without earnings and profits to qualify as non-taxable return of capital in the context of a criminal trial for tax evasion.

Because the Court is returning from a lengthy recess, there may be opinions on the merits in pending cases one or two days this week, but not on Monday.

On Wednesday, the Court is scheduled to hear argument in the consolidated cases of Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21) and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (07-25), asking whether Indiana’s law requiring voters to show ID at polling places violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and in Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (06-1037), asking whether the use of age as a factor in a retirement plan violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

On Friday, the Justices are scheduled to hold a private conference, orders from which could be released as soon as that afternoon. To view our list of petitions to watch at the conference, click here.

On Monday, the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn (06-1221), asking whether workers claiming discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act may introduce so-called “me, too” evidence from other workers alleging similar mistreatment. In advance of the argument, the Court is expected to release orders from the November 30 conference.

On Tuesday, the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Riegel v. Medtronic (06-179), asking whether federal law preempts state lawsuits against medical devices approved by the FDA, and Snyder v. Louisiana (06-10119), asking whether a Louisiana prosecutor improperly struck black jurors from the defendant’s murder trial in light of a subsequent comparison of the case during the penalty phase to the O.J. Simpson trial.

On Wednesday, the Court is scheduled to hear argument in the consolidated cases of Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al Odah v. United States (06-1196), asking whether the Constitution protects the right of alien detainees held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo to seek writs of habeas corpus in federal courts. Due to high interest in the case, the Court will release audio of the argument shortly after its conclusion.

(Full previews of the arguments listed above are available by clicking the respective case names, or by going directly to SCOTUSwiki.)

On Friday, the Justices are to hold what is scheduled to be their final private conference of 2007. Click here for our list of petitions to watch.

No petitioners’ brief are due this week. Respondents’ briefs are due Monday in Quanta v. LG Electronics (06-937), Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (06-1037), Virginia v. Moore (06-1082), Dada v. Mukasey (06-1181), Meadwestvaco v. Ill. Dept. of Revenue (06-1413), Preston v. Ferrer (06-1643), Boulware v. United States (06-1509), United States v. Rodriquez (06-1646), Begay v. United States (06-11543), Gonzalez v. United States (06-11612), Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd. (07-21) and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (07-25), and Baze v. Rees (07-5439). Reply briefs are also due Monday to the supplemental briefs filed in Hall Street Associates v. Mattel (06-989).

The Supreme Court will open its January sitting with the argument on constitutional issues surrounding the lethal injection method of execution. The Court on Friday released the calendar for the session beginning Jan. 7, with Baze v. Rees (07-5439) scheduled at 10 a.m. that first day. That is the Kentucky case raising three issues about the three-drug protocol for execution, now used in 36 states.

Two combined cases from Indiana on requiring photo IDs to vote will be heard in the first hour on Wednesday, Jan. 9. (A PDF of the calendar can be found here.)

The Court will hold two-a-day case arguments in the January sitting, thus there will be no afternoon hearings.

Here is the calendar, day by day, with a summary of issues at stake:

(Links to the respective case pages on SCOTUSwiki.)

Monday, Jan. 7

Baze v. Rees (07-5439) — constitutionality of lethal injection protocol.

Dada v. Mukasey (06-1181) –postponement of agreement for alien to voluntarily leave U.S.

Tuesday, Jan. 8

Gonzalez v. U.S. (06-11612) — waiver of right to Article III judge to preside over jury selection when counsel agreed to have a U.S. magistrate instead

Boulware v. U.S. (06-1509) — taxation on diversion of corporate funds to shareholder of a firm that has no profits

Wednesday, Jan. 9

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (07-21) and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (07-25) — constitutionality of requiring voters to show a photo ID before they may vote (Cases consolidated for one hour of argument)

Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (06-1037) — scope of age bias in disability benefits packages

Monday, Jan. 14

Virginia v. Moore (06-1082) — lawfulness of search following an arrest that violates state law

Preston v. Ferrer (06-1463) — federal preemption of arbitration agreement on talent agent’s fees

Tuesday, Jan. 15

U.S. v. Rodriquez (06-1646) — crimes that qualify for enhanced sentence under armed career criminal law; specific issue involves state drug crime conviction

Begay v. U.S. (06-11543)– whether felony drunk-driving is a violent felony for purposes of enhanced sentencing under armed csareer criminal law

Wednesday, Jan. 16

Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics (06-937) — definition of exhaustion of patent rights when licensee sells products containing the patent

Meadwestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Department of Revenue (06-1413) — validity of state tax on sale of investment in LexisNexis

The following summary was written by Eric Dreiband, a partner in the labor and employment section at the Akin Gump office in Washington, D.C.

In Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC, the Supreme Court will review a Sixth Circuit ruling that the EEOC showed a prima facie case of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Court will decide whether a benefit plan providing lower disability benefits, or denying disability benefits, to workers who are old enough to qualify for ordinary retirement benefits violates the ADEA as amended by the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA).

Charles Lickteig, a Deputy Sheriff for Jefferson County, was denied disability benefits because he was old enough to qualify for normal retirement benefits. Lickteig filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, which subsequently filed charges alleging the Kentucky Retirement Systems (KRS) plan denied or paid fewer disability retirement benefits to older individuals because of age in violation of the ADEA.

Read the rest of this entry »

FINAL UPDATE 5:30 PM: All petitions and briefs in opposition have now been added.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to add 17 new cases to its new Term’s decision docket, including a pair of appeals on the constitutionality of requiring voters to show a photo ID before they may vote (Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 07-21, and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, 07-25). The Court also agreed to decide the constitutionality of execution by lethal drugs when the chemical protocol poses a risk of pain and suffering (Baze v. Rees, 07-5439).

In another order Tuesday, the Court denied a motion to dismiss a previously granted case — LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates (06-856). The case involves the right of a pension plan participant to sue the plan manager to recover losses that worker suffered in a pension account. The motion to dismiss claimed that the individual involved had cashed-out his account, so there remained no live issue. The complete orders list is here.

Below you will find a complete list of the cases granted, including descriptions of the issues involved, links to the Court’s electronic docket and, where available, PDFs of the petitions, briefs in opposition and replies. (The Court rephrased the questions it will decide in three of the granted cases: 06-1181, 06-1509 and 06-11612; the questions the Court composed are shown in the orders for each case.)

• Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics (06-937) (definition of the exhaustion of patent rights when licensee sells products containing the patent): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Kentucky Retirement Sys. V. EEOC (06-1037) (age bias in disability benefits packages): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Virginia v. Moore (06-1082) (lawfulness of search following arrest that violates state law): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Dada v. Keisler (06-1181) (postponement of agreement for alien to voluntarily leave U.S.): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Gomez-Perez v. Potter (06-1321) (federal employees protection against retaliation for complaining about age bias in workplace): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Ali v. Achim (06-1346) (definition of aggravated felony for deportation purposes): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Meadwestvaco v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue (06-1413) (tax on sale of investment in LexisNexis): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• CBOCS West v. Humphries (06-1431) (race retaliation claim under Sec. 1981 of civil rights law): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Morgan Stanley Capital Group v. Public Utility Dist.1 (06-1457) and Calpine Energy Services v. Public Utility Dist.1 (06-1462) (federal regulators’ power to take an energy crisis into account in reviewing electric power sale contracts): docket, docket, petition, petition, brief in opposition, reply, reply.

• Preston v. Ferrer (06-1463) (preemption of arbitration agreement): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Warner-Lambert v. Kent (06-1498) (preemption of claim of fraud on a federal agency): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Boulware v. United States (06-1509) (taxation on diversion of corporate funds to shareholder): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• United States v. Rodriquez (06-1646) (crimes that qualify for enhanced sentence under armed career criminal law; specific issue involves state drug crime conviction): docket, petition, brief in opposition, reply.

• Begay v. United States (06-11543) (whether felony drunk driving is a violent felony for purposes of enhanced sentencing under armed career criminal law): docket, petition, brief in opposition.

• Gonzalez v. United States (06-11612) (waiver of right to Art. III judge to preside over jury selection when counsel agreed to have a U.S. magistrate instead): docket, petition, brief in opposition.

• Crawford v. Marion City Election Board (07-21) and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita (07-25) (constitutionality of requiring voters to show a photo ID before they may vote): docket, docket, petition, petition, brief in opposition, supplemental brief in opposition, reply, reply.

• Baze v. Rees (07-5439) (constitutionality of execution by lethal drugs when the chemical protocol poses a risk of pain and suffering): docket, petition, supplemental brief to the petition, brief in opposition, reply.

(NOTE: This post was originally filed by Lyle Denniston, but has been made more useful by the efforts of Ben Winograd in providing access to the filings in each of the granted cases.)