UPDATED 10:55 a.m.

The Supreme Court opened its session on tax-filing day with Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., saying two rulings in tax cases would be announced.  The decisions came in MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Department of Revenue (06-1413), limiting the power of states to tax a share of the money that a company based in another state earns when it sells off an investment in a division involved in a separate line of business, and in U.S. v. Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co. (07-308), deciding that a taxpayer seeking a refund for an invalid tax under the Export Clause of the Constitution must first seek a refund from the government before bringing a lawsuit.

The ruling in the MeadWestvaco case brought a strong separate statement by Justice Clarence Thomas, saying that at some point the Court “should reconsider its constitutional authority” to pass upon state taxing power to reach the out-of-state income of multistate businesses.

In MeadWestvaco, the Court by a unanimous vote overturned a ruling by the Illinois Appellate Court in a case in which the state had taxed a share of the more than $1 billion in capital gains that the company made when it sold off its interest in the Lexis/Nexis electronic publishing business in 1994.  “We conclude,” Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., wrote for the Court, “that the state courts misapprehended the principles that we have developed for determining whether a multistate business is unitary.”  The state court ruling thus was vacated.

The Illinois apppellate court had ruled that the state could reach a portion of those capital gains on the theory that Mead Corp. (predecessor of MeadWestvaco), an Ohio company, had made Lexis/Nexis an “operational” part of its business subject to tax on the Illiniois share of Mead’s gains. “The state courts erred,” Justice Alito wrote, “in considering whether Lexis served an ‘operational purpose’ in Mead’s business after determining that Lexi and Mead were not unitary….Our decisions in Container Corp. [v. Franchise Tax Board, 1983] and Allied-Signal [v. Director, Division of Taxation, 1992] did not announce a new ground for the constitutional apportionment of extrastate values in the absence of a unitary business.  Because the Appellate Court of Illinois interpreted those decisions to the contrary, it erred.”

The Court declined the state’s suggestion to affirm the state court tax decision on the alternative theory that Lexis/Nexis had done enough business inside Illinois to justify taxing a portion of Mead’s capital gain. Instead, the Court vacated the ruling and returned it to the state appeals court.

Justice Alito wrote: “Where, as here, the asset in question is another business, we have described the ‘hallmarks’ of a unitary relationship as functional integration, centralized management and  economies of scale…The trial court [in Illinois] found each of these hallmarks lacking and concluded that Lexis was not a unitary part of Mead’s business.  The appellate court, however, made no such determination.  Relying on its operational function test, it reserved judgment on whether Mead and Lexis formed a unitary business.  The appellate court may take up that question on remand, and we express no opinion on it now.”

Justice Thomas, while joining with his colleagues in Alito’s opinion, wrote a concurring opinion “to express my serious doubt that the Constitution permits us to adjudicate cases in this area.  Despite the Court’s repeated holdings  that ‘the Due Process and Commerce Clauses forbid the states to tax “extraterritorial values,” ‘..I am not fully convinced of that proposition.  To the extent our decisions addressing state taxation of multistate enterprises rely on the negative Commece Clause, I would overrule them….The Court’s cases in this area have not, however, rested solely on the Commerce Clause.  The Court has long recognized that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment may also limit states’ authority to tax multistate businesses.”  He went on to express his concern that courts using that alternative ground for limiting state taxing power may read into the Due Process Clause “yet another, unenumerated, substantive right.”

Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in the Clintwood Elkhorn Mining case was unanimous.  The ruling reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals-Federal Circuit that coal companies that had paid taxes on coal exports — a tax later struck down under the Export Clause — could pursue their refund claim in the Court of Federal Claims.

The dispute involves $1,065,936 in coal export taxes paid in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 by Clintwood Elkhorn Mining Co., Gatliff Coal Co. and Premier Elkhorn Coal Co.   While those companies had asked the Internal Revenue Service for refunds, and obtained them, for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, they did not make a similar administrative claim for the earlier years.

Today’s decision in Snyder v. Louisiana can be downloaded here.

The following post is by Anna Neill, a student in the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.

On February 20, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Second Circuit decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., holding that the preemption clause of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976 (21 U.S.C. § 360k(a)) bars common-law claims challenging the safety or efficacy of a medical device marketed in a form that has received pre-market approval from the FDA (more on the background of the case can be found here at SCOTUSwiki). Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court, joined in full by six other justices. Justice Stevens joined the majority opinion except with respect to two parts, and also filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion.

Because § 360k(a) prohibits the imposition of “requirements” that are either different from or in addition to those established by the federal government, the first question the Court addressed was whether the FDA pre-market approval (PMA) process for medical devices establishes “requirements.” Distinguishing the 1996 case of Medtronic v. Lohr, in which preemption was not found for devices that had been approved under a grandfathering process, the Court found that the PMA process constitutes a “rigorous” review “specific to individual devices,” thereby imposing federal “requirements” on the devices so approved. Finding that the PMA had imposed requirements on the device at issue, the Court then turned to the question whether the Riegels’ common-law tort claims relied on “any requirement” that was different from or in addition to the PMA requirements. Adhering to the view of five Justices in Lohr that common-law negligence and strict liability claims do impose “requirements,” the Court explained that a state tort law requiring a device to be safer than the model approved by the FDA would disrupt the federal regulatory scheme, and that the state “requirements” were thereby preempted.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Court granted six cases in an Order List that be downloaded here. The cert. filings in all six cases are now available after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

UPDATED to 2:41 p.m.

In a brief order in mid-afternoon, the Supreme Court refused to order Texas officials to put Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich on the Democratic presidential ballot for the March 4 primary election without first signing a pledge of loyalty to the party’s eventual presidential nominee. Justice Antonin Scalia, Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit, referred the application to the full Court, which denied it without comment. The application was 07A593, Kucinich v. Texas Democratic Party.

* * * * * * * * * *

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether smokers may file court challenges, based on state law, to cigarette companies’ advertising claims that some brands are “light” or “low in tar and nicotine.” The case is Philip Morris v. Good, et al. (07-562).

This was one of six cases newly granted. Although the Court ordered expedited briefing in all of the cases, it is expected that only two will be added to the April calendar, completing that schedule, and the other four will go over to the next Term. The Court has not selected which two to hear in April along with ten previously granted cases.  (UPDATE: Ordinarily, the Court schedules oral argument according to when a case was first filed. Among the six granted Friday, cases 06-923 and 06-1249 have been on the docket the longest.)

The Philip Morris case focuses on the interaction between a federal law that regulates labeling and advertising of cigarettes and a state law — in Maine — that permits lawsuits based upon deceptive commercial practices.  Three former smokers of Marlboro Lights, made by Philip Morris, are pursuing a class action lawsuit claiming that the use of the word “light” or the phrase “low in tar and nicotine” misleads smokers into thinking that the health hazard of such cigarettes is lowered.  The lawsuit contends that smokers, because of their addiction, will smoke so-called “light” cigarettes in such a way as to defeat any filter put on them.  The legal argument is that the advertising claims are violations of Maine’s fair trade practices law. Philip Morris’ appeal to the Supreme Court argued that an answer to the preemption question “will significantly impact the outcome of dozens of pending lawsuits in which plaintiffs are alleging billions of dollars in potential liability” over low tar and nicotine claims.  The First Circuit Court cleared the way for the Maine case to go forward; the Fifth Circuit has ruled against such state law-based cases.

Among other cases granted is a test of whether federal law protects a worker from being fired after being a witness in a company or agency’s internal investigation of sexual harassment on the job (Crawford v. Metro Nashville Government, 06-1595).  The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that only workers who pursue their won complaint about discrimination or persuade the federal government to pursue a charge are protected from retaliation under Title VII of federal civil rights law.

In a separate case involving workers’ rights — here, a claim of age bias in the workplace — the Court granted review of whether a worker or the employer has the burden of proving that the action taken was or was not done for a valid reason other than age (Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 06-1505, grant limited to first question). Justice Stephen G. Breyer is recused from the case. The Second Circuit Court ruled that workers claiming a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act bear the burden of demonstrating that the layoffs at issue in the case were unreasonable and not justified by a reason other than age.

Along with the cigarette law preemption case, the Court will hear another case on whether federal law has taken over the field — here, the enactment of state laws that impose their own labeling requirements to assure that drugs are safe for use (Wyeth v. Levine, 06-1249). The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that federal regulation on drug safety only provides a floor on labeling requirements so states are free to impose more restrictive labeling under their own duty-to-warn tort laws. The case involves an anti-nausea drug, Phenergan, made by Wyeth.

An ERISA case added to the docket tests whether the manager of an employee benefit plan has an illegal conflict of interest if the plan gives that individual the authority both to pay benefits and to rule on eligibility for benefits (MetLife v. Glenn, 06-923).  In addition to that question, the Court added a second issue to be addressed: if that is a conflict of interest, how should that be taken into account by a court reviewing a specific benefit decision.  The Sixth Circuit Court, in conflict with some federal appeals courts but in agreement with others, ruled that the dual role of funding and decider for plan administrators is a potential conflict of interest that must be weighed in judging a plan manager’s benefit eligibility ruling.

Tbe final grant Friday involves a government appeal asking whether a challenger to a federal regulation setting up procedures for a special government program may challenge the regulation itself, or is limited to a complaint against a specific program undertaken under that rule.  The case (Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 07-463) involves a federal regulation on clearing of burned-out forest lands.  The lawsuit in this case arose after a major fire that burned 150,000 acres in the Sequoia National Forest in California.  A salvaging project, the Burnt River Project near California Hot Springs, was challenged by conservation groups, along with the underlying Forest Service regulation under which the project wsas planned. The dispute over that particular project ended, but the Tenth Circuit Court allowed the case to proceed against the regulation, striking down part of it.

Friday’s orders were limited to new grants.  Other orders will be released on Tuesday morning. At that time, the Court may indicate what it will do with a major investors’ securities fraud lawsuit growing out of the Enron scandal (see the post below).  The Court has the options of granting that case, ordering it back to a lower court for a new review, simply denying review of it, or holding it for a time while it considers further what to do.

Today’s orders list is now available here.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday modified its order agreeing to rule on the constitutionality of a three-drug protocol used in carrying out the death penalty by lethal injection, dropping one of the four questions raised in the appeal. In an order amending its grant, the Court said it was confining its review to questions directly bearing on that protocol. The new order can be found here.

Thus, the question that will not be before the Court sought to test whether a state had a duty to have a medical team on hand at an execution to keep the inmate alive, if the process had been started but a court has stayed the execution before it was completed. That, too, was a constitutional question. The petition put it this way: “When it is known that the effects of the chemicals could be reversed if the proper actions are taken, does substantive due process require a state to be prepared to maintain life in case a stay of execution is granted after the lethal injection chemicals are injected?”  The petition can be found here.

The case that the Court agreed on Sept. 25 to hear is Baze v. Rees (07-5439). At the Justices’ Conference on Friday of this week, they will be considering a motion to expedite another lethal injection case — Taylor v. Crawford (07-303) — and to hear that case along with Baze. The Taylor petition raises some additional issues regarding that method of execution.

The Court released its first orders of the October 2007 term this morning. A copy can be found here.

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.)

In an order released this afternoon, the Court permitted three former members of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well the chairmen of two House committees, to file late amicus briefs in support of the petitioner in Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific-Atlanta, et al. (06-43). The order can be found here.

To read the brief submitted by former SEC chairmen William H. Donaldson and Arthur Levitt Jr. and former SEC member Harvey J. Goldschmid, click here. To read the brief offered by Democratic Reps. John Conyers, Jr., of Michigan (Judiciary Committee) and Barney Frank of Massachusetts (Financial Services Committee), click here.

The original deadline to file amicus briefs in support of the petitioner was June 11. For prior coverage of the late amicus filings, as well a further description of the case, click here.

With the two new filings permitted today, 30 total amicus briefs now have been filed with the Court in Stoneridge — 15 for the petitioner and 15 for the respondent.

To see today’s Orders List, click here.

In this space, we’ll give real-time details regarding what opinions are being issued today. Lyle will have further details below.

10:00: 4 grants on today’s Orders list (to be posted). 06-179, 457, 1286, 10119. Orders can now be found here.
10:01: NAHB v. Defenders of Wildlife decided. Rev’d. Written by Alito. 5-4.
10:05: Alito still reciting from Defenders of Wildlife.
10:07: Hein decided. Written by Alito. 5-4.
10:12: Wilkie v. Robbins decided. Written by Souter. 7-2. Rev’d and remanded.
10:19: Morse decided. Written by 5-4 in part.
10:25: Election case decided. Written by the Chief. That’s it - no schools cases.
10:35: Justice Souter is reading his dissent from the bench in the election case.

The new edition of our StatPack can now be found here. We’ve again added a new section; in today’s edition, in addition to the regular features, you’ll now find a circuit scorecard for comparing the “records” of various lower courts so far this Term.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the antitrust laws do not apply to the process of selling new stocks after their initial offering on stock markets. The Court said it could not accept a suggestion by the U.S. Solicitor General for avoiding a conflict between enforcement of the antitrust laws and the laws regulating securities transactions. The case involved claims of an antitrust conspiracy by underwriters to control trading in newly issued stocks. The vote was 7-1, with Justice Stephen G. Breyer writing for the majority. Justice John Paul Stevens was in the majority on result only; he expressed different reasons for the outcome. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy took no part in Credit Suisse Securities v. Billing (05-1157).

In Monday’s orders, the Court agreed to add one new case for decision next Term: a case testing the rights of an individual taking part in a retirement plan to recover money losses in his or her pension account because of faulty management by plan administrators. The Solicitor General, asked earlier for the government’s views, urged the Court to hear and decide the case of LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates , 06-856. Earlier posts on this case can be found here and here.

In the second decision of the day on the merits, the Court ruled in Brendlin v. California (06-8120) that a passenger in a car stopped on the road by a police officer has a right to challenge the legality of the stop, under the Fourth Amendment. The Court was unanimous, with Justice David H. Souter writing.

In the third and final merits decision this morning, the Court ruled that the NInth Circuit Court had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal on when a foreign company doing some business in the U.S. is to be treated as an organ of a foreign government, and thus entitled to have legal claims against it heard in federal, not state, court. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the 7-2 decision in Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services (05-85). The appeal by the Canadian energy company argued that a federal appellate court had the authority to review a federal judge’s order sending a lawsuit against the foreign firm back to state court for trial.

Among cases denied review on Monday was Barbour v. Allen (06-10605), a case testing whether a state has a constitutional duty to provide legal aid to poor inmates on death row, to help them challenge convictions and sentences in state court after the verdict is final. (Amy Howe discussed the case at greater length in this post.)

The Court also declined to return — for the ninth time — to a review of the death penalty procedures that Texas actually stopped using in 1991. The case was Quarterman v. Nelson (06-1254), in which the Fifth Circuit Court essentially cast aside much of its modern jurisprudence on the role that mitigating evidence must be allowed to have in capital sentencing proceedings. The state’s appeal and the background of the case were discussed in this post.

In two cases with major ramifications for businesses operating in multi-state markets, the Court refused to hear constitutional challenges to a state’s imposition of corporate income and franchise taxes on out-of-state businesses that have no physical presence in the state, but do have some customers inside the state. The cases were FIA Card Services v. West Virginia Tax Commissioner (06-1228), a case in which Justice Breyer declined to take part, and Lanco Inc. v. Direction of Taxation, New Jersey (06-1236). The cert. papers in these cases are here.

Two other cases denied review were Tamashiro v. Hawaii Department of Human Services (06-1267, cert. papers), involving a claim by blind vendors of a right to sue state and local government for denying them a preference in operating stands or vending machines in non-federal public buildings, and Cox v. DaimlerChrysler (06-273), on whether it violates ERISA for a state to arrange to take 90 percent of a prison inmate’s pension benefits to help defray the costs of imprisonment. The Solicitor General, asked by the Court for the government’s views, had urged the Court to bypass the appeal by Michigan’s state attorney general, Mike Cox. We earlier discussed the case here.

06-134, India Mission v. New York City is here.
06-5306, Bowles v. Russell, is here.
05-1589, Davenport v. Washington Education Association, is here.

Today the Court agreed to decide a question is left open last week in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, No. 05-1074: whether filing an “intake questionnaire” with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) satisfies a statutory requirement that employees file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before proceeding to court. The case is Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, No. 06-1322.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), along with other federal employment discrimination statutes, requires that workers who believe they have been subject to unlawful employment discrimination file a “charge” of discrimination with the EEOC as a precondition for filing suit in federal court. The statute then requires the EEOC to notify the employer of the charge, investigate it, and seek to mediate the conflict. The statute also requires an employee to wait 60 days after filing the charge before suing in federal court. (Unlike Title VII, the ADEA does not require the employee to wait to receive a “right to sue” letter from the EEOC).

The statute does not, however, specify what constitutes a “charge.” The EEOC has developed regulations and procedures for accepting and processing charges. Among other things, the EEOC has developed a form “Intake Questionnaire” to give to workers who contact the agency regarding claims of employment discrimination (Form 283). The agency also has a “Charge” form (Form 5). The agency’s regulation does not require the use of either form to file a charge of discrimination, but instead states that “A charge shall be in writing and shall name the prospective respondent and shall generally allege the discriminatory act(s).” The question in this case is whether filling out the questionnaire, and sending it to the EEOC, constitutes filing the “charge” of discrimination required by the statute.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Order List is here.

NOTE: The Court did grant cert. in one case, FedEx v. Holowecki.

The opinion in Safeco is here.
The opinion in Uttecht is here.
The opinion in Sole is here.
The per curiam opinion dismissing Claiborne is here.

Today the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether railroads can challenge states’ methods of valuing their assets for tax purposes under a federal statute that prohibits states from discriminating against railroads in imposing property taxes on their in-state operations. The case is CSX Transportation, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, No. 06-1287.

The case involves the interpretation of a provision of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, 49 U.S.C. 11501. That statute bars states from “[a]ssess[ing] rail transportation property at a value that has a higher ratio to the true market value of the rail transportation property than the ratio that the assessed value of other commercial and industrial property in the same assessment jurisdiction has to the true market value of the other commercial and industrial property.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Here’s the scorecard from the Court for today: rulings in five merits cases, three grants, two CVSGs, one summary reversal (and a partridge in a pear tree).

Lyle has this post summarizing the Court’s disposition of five merits cases and this post regarding the grants, CVSGs, and summary reversal.

Lyle has this extended summary and discussion of today’s decision in No. 05-983, Winkelman v. Parma School District.

Gia Kim has this summary of today’s DIG in No. 06-313, Roper v. Weaver.

Kevin has this discussion of No. 06-1265, Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Board of Trade of the City of New York, in which the Court today granted cert.

I have this discussion of today’s cert. grant in No. 06-666, Kentucky Department of Revenue v. Davis.

Lyle reports here on the release of the Court’s calendar for OT2007.

Gretchen has this round-up of news and blog reports on today’s action and this round-up gathering other news related to the Court.

Jason provides links to the orders and opinions here.

Today the Court granted cert. in Klein & Co. Futures, Inc. v. Board of Trade of the City of New York, No. 06-1265, a case involving the commodities futures trading market. In a prior post, we discussed the petition as an example of what practioners can do when their case does not directly implicate a circuit split. The now-granted petition poses the following question : “Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that futures commission merchants lack statutory standing to invoke that right of action because, in the court’s view, they do not engage in such transactions, despite the statutory requirement that the merchants enter into and execute their transactions on, and subject to the rules of, a board of trade and the fact of the merchants’ financial liability for the transactions.”

For those interested, here is the petition, brief in opposition, cert. reply brief, and amicus brief of the Futures Industry Association, Inc. in support of the petitioner.

Read the rest of this entry »

Today’s Orders List is here.
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly is here.
Winkelman is here.
Dayton is here.
The summary reversal in LA County v. Retelle is here.
Hinck is here.
Roper v. Weaver is here.

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to add three new cases for decision at its next Term — cases on a major issue in commodities exchange regulation (Klein & Co. v. Board of Trade, 06-1265), on the power of states to tax the interest on other states’ municipal bonds (Kentucky Department of Revenue v. Davis, petition, BIO), and on the extent to which Supreme Court decisions against making criminal law decisions retroactive bind the states (Danforth v. Minnesota, 06-8273). More on Danforth can be found in posts here, here, and here.

The Court asked for the views of the federal government on two cases: one that seeks to clarify the power of states to tax the profits of businesses that receive dividends from overseas subsidiaries (General Electric v. New Hampshire Revenue Commissioner, 06-1210), and the other on states’ authority to impose their own drug labeling requirements to assure that drugs are safe for use (Wyeth v. Levine, 06-1249, cert. documents linked to here). The U.S. Solicitor General’s responses are not likely to be filed before next Term.

In a summary decision without briefing and argument, the Court ruled 6-3 that Los Angeles police officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment rights of occupants of a house where they carried out a search warrant looking for African-American suspects, but found only Caucasians, instead; the African-Americans had moved and new occupants were in the house. The white couple was ordered out of their bed, naked, and forbidden for a few minutes to get dressed. The Court majority found that the Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that the search should have been called off when the officers concluded that the occupants were not the suspects they were seeking. The majority opinion was unsigned (Per Curiam). Justice David H. Souter would have denied review, and Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined only in the result, arguing that the officers had qualified immunity and thus the Court should not have decided the constitutional question. The case was Los Angeles County v. Rettelle, et al. (06-605).

Read the rest of this entry »

Today’s orders are here.

The opinion in Schriro v. Landrigan (05-1575) is here.

FINAL UPDATE 6:50 p.m.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted no new cases. It issued one ruling — Schriro v. Landrigan (05-1575), reversing the Ninth Circuit. The Court divided 5-4 in ruling that a federal judge did not err in refusing to grant a state prisoner an evidentiary hearing on a claim of inadequate legal advice from his lawyer. The case arose out of a dispute between a man on trial for murder and his defense lawyer offer the client’s opposition to submitting mitigating evidence.

The Court asked for the views of the U.S. Solicitor General on two companion cases and on an original case. The Court invited the government to comment on appeals involving a lawsuit to settle ownership of assets allegedly misappropriated by Ferdinand Marcos when he was Philippine president. One is a petition by the Philippine government, Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel (06-1204, petition here, consol. BIO here, reply here). The cross-appeal is by other claimants, Estate of Roxas v. Pimentel (06-1039).

The original case is Montana v. Wyoming (137 Original), involving a dispute over division of the waters of the Tongue and Powder Rivers under a 1951 Compact. The Court also formally received the report of a Special Master in another original case — New Jersey v. Delaware (134 Original) — and invited the two states to file any exceptions to that report within 45 days. That case involves a dispute over control of development along the New Jersey side of the Delaware River, and out into the river; New Jersey wants to allow construction of a new ship-loading facility for natural gas. Special Master Ralph I. Lancaster, Jr., of Portland, Maine, recommended on April 16 that the Court rule that the two states must share regulatory authority over at least parts of the planned project.

The Court’s decision in the Schiro case appears to make it more difficult for state prisoners seeking federal habeas relief to obtain a hearing on evidence they want to offer to counter their conviction or sentence. An evidentiary hearing can be granted under federal habeas law, the Court said in Monday’s opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, only if the federal judge is satisfied that the evidence to be offered at such a hearing would be strong enough to be likely to change the outcome of the trial or sentencing proceeding.

Read the rest of this entry »

Today’s Order List is here. There were five opinions today:

The opinion in KSR v. Teleflex is here.
Microsoft v. AT&T is here.
United Hauler’s is here.
Scott v. Harris is here. The Court has also posted a video along with its decision here (Real Video).
EC Term of Years Trust is here.