Court issues October argument calendar
The Supreme Court on Monday released the argument calendar for its opening sitting beginning on Oct. 1, the first day of the new Term. Several key cases among those granted review will be heard in this session — two Sentencing Guidelines cases, a major case on third-party liability for securities fraud, a significant test of presidential power in implementing treaties, and two election law cases. The calendar can be downloaded here.
Here are the scheduled arguments, day by day (click the docket numbers for the formal statement of the Questions Presented):
Monday, Oct. 1
Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party (06-713, and a companion case, 06-730), on the constitutionality of limits on party identification on primary election ballots; consolidated for 1 hour of argument.
New York City Board of Education v. Tom F., 06-637, parents’ right to tuition reimbursement for their disabled child’s schooling.
Tuesday, Oct. 2:
Gall v. U.S. (06-7949), reasonableness of a federal sentence that is below the Sentencing Guidelines’ range..
Kimbrough v. U.S. (06-6330), reasonableness of the heavier sentences imposed for crack vs. powder cocaine crimes.
Wednesday, Oct. 3:
New York Board of Elections v. Torres (06-766), validity of selection of state judicial candidates by party convention instead of by election.
United States v. Santos (06-1005), definition of “proceeds” under federal money-laundering law.
Monday, Oct. 8
No arguments; legal holiday (Columbus Day).
Tuesday, Oct. 9
Watson v. U.S. (06-571), definition of “use” of firearm for enhanced sentence.
Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific-Atlanta (06-43), liability of third-party entities for securities fraud scheme.
Wednesday, Oct. 10:
Medellin v. Texas (06-984), President’s power to require U.S. states, under the Vienna consular convention, to allow foreign nationals to contest their convictions and sentences in state court, to satisfy World Court decisions.
Is it just me, or is expanding the First Amendment rights of political parties (Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party) at odds with reducing party control over ballot access (New York Board of Elections v. Torres)?
Comment by Jacques McKenzie — July 30, 2007 @ 10:42 am
It is astonishing that the Court is already one case short for the October calendar, and that is with one of the days already a legal holiday! Unbelievable.
Comment by David Stras — July 30, 2007 @ 11:34 am
Its too early to say, but the court isn’t starting off well. They’re starting off with the same number of cases that they argued last year even though they took two days off in the first month in OT2006. They will argue nine this year, they argued nine last year, and ten in OT2005. I’m not too worried.
Comment by Kedar Bhatia — July 30, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Jacques,
You are correct that there is some degree of tension between the claims of the plaintiffs in Washington State Grange and the claims of the plaintiffs in New York Board of Elections — which is one reason political parties favor the plaintiffs in the first case and the defendants in the latter case. But I think that a credible case can be made that the political parties should win the Washington case but lose the New York case. The Washington case involves a state statute that requires a party to allow non-members to participate in the selection of party nominees. That provision sounds to me like a serious infringement of the associational rights of party members. In contrast, the New York case does not involve participation of non-members in the candidate selection process; it only concerns whether parties should have broad control of the method of selection (e.g., convention or primary). If only New York Republicans have a say in who the Republican candidate is going to be, I don’t see much infringement of associational rights if the state (or, in this case, the federal courts) imposes limits on the selection method.
Comment by Richard Samp — July 30, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Richard,
That is an interesting, plausible, and workable way to draw the line, and I plan to read the WLF amicus in Torres, which I noticed after posting my comment.
Perhaps this is answered in the brief, but it seems that your practical solution, while securing a pragmatic fix to the problematic cases that have arisen, would instantiate the wrong principle into our body of constitutional law. What do you say to those who would observe that the word “party” is not mentioned in the Constitution and contend that ballot access is, as a matter of principle in a representative democracy with free and fair elections, a substantive individual right?
Comment by Jacques McKenzie — July 30, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
David,
Isn’t it interesting how eager the Court was to put Medellin right on there? I predict an Executive power blockbuster.
Comment by Jacques McKenzie — July 30, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
“Isn’t it interesting how eager the Court was to put Medellin right on there?”
How do you figure? Medellin was the ninth case granted certiorari and the ninth case scheduled for argument. The cases being moved up in the line are Gall and Kimbrough, the federal sentencing cases.
“I predict an Executive power blockbuster.”
That’s quite possible. We may see an unusual alignment in this case, i.e., not the standard “conservative” v. “liberal” division.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — July 30, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Kent,
Okay, fine. The Court hasn’t demonstrated any particular eagerness. I just said that to draw you out to reply to my “blockbuster” comment.
I agree about the unusual alignment variable.
Comment by Jacques McKenzie — July 30, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Can anyone hypothesize on why the court moved up Kimbrough and Gall while leaving behind Logan and Williams?
Comment by Kedar Bhatia — August 2, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
We can’t know for sure, of course, but an obvious possibility in Gall is that they already decided the issue in the case of the late Mario Claiborne and little more needs to be done. The Court may also be of the opinion that the two cases moved up present issues of wider applicability and therefore higher priority than the ones pushed back.
Comment by Kent Scheidegger — August 2, 2007 @ 2:16 pm