Court turns aside Booker sequel
The Supreme Court on Monday sent an emphatic signal that it is not yet ready to start sorting out some of the complications of its January 12 decision in U.S. v. Booker – a decision that deeply unsettled the entire system of federal criminal sentencing. Without comment, it turned aside a new case, Rodriguez v. U.S. (docket 04-1148), despite the Justice Department’s suggestion that it hear the dispute. The case sought to test when a criminal sentence that would violate Booker’s constitutional principle is to be set aside as a “plain error.”
Last week, the Justice Department filed its own appeal, raising the same issue, in U.S. v. Barnett (04-1690). The Solicitor General recommended that the Court hold the case and dispose of it in light of the Court’s action on the Rodriguez appeal. That, however, was before the Court took its surprise action on Monday, refusing to hear Rodriguez.
The Court took no action Monday on another recurring controversy, a dispute over the meaning of its 2003 decision limiting the use of the federal RICO anti-racketeering law to stop blockades seeking to shut down abortion clinics. The Court’s orders did not mention the case of Scheidler v. National Organization for Women (04-1244) or a companion case, Operation Rescue v. NOW (04-1352).
The Court did agree to hear, at its next Term, two new cases.
One case, Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink (04-1329), tests whether a company that has a patent on a product, and ties the sales of another unpatented product to it, is to be determined to have market power sufficient to restrain trade under antitrust law.
The other new case, Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna, et al. (04-1264) asks whether an individual or company seeking to avoid arbitration may do so by filing a separate court case claiming the underlying contract was illegal under state law.
Is the full opinionlist for 6/20 out and postable, folks? Any work on MGM v. Grokster, in particular, please?
TG responds: Sorry for the delay – no Grokster today.
Comment by A. Eisgrau — June 20, 2005 @ 10:15 am
No action on Vermont Republican State Committee, et al., v. Sorrell? (Or will that not come until next week?)
TG responds: The Sorrell petitions won’t be decided until the end of the summer recess.
Comment by phil — June 20, 2005 @ 10:24 am
Supreme Court to Hear Patent Tying Case
Although the Supreme Court did not issue decisions in Grokster or Brand X today, it did agree to hear a patent tying case (SCOTUS Blog | Court Turns Aside Booker Sequel).One case, Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink (04-1329) tests…
Comment by The Importance of... — June 20, 2005 @ 11:08 am
Supreme Court to Reexamine the Interplay Between Patents and Unlawful Tying Agreements
The Supreme Court has reportedly decided today to hear
Comment by Patently-O: Patent Law Blog — June 20, 2005 @ 11:18 am
Supreme Court to Reexamine the Interplay Between Patents and Unlawful Tying Agreements
The Supreme Court has reportedly decided today to hear
Comment by Patently-O: Patent Law Blog — June 20, 2005 @ 11:19 am
Supreme Court to Hear Patent Tying Case
Although the Supreme Court did not issue decisions in Grokster or Brand X today, it did agree to hear a patent tying case (SCOTUS Blog | Court Turns Aside Booker Sequel).One case, Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink (04-1329) tests…
Comment by The Importance of... — June 20, 2005 @ 11:39 am
phentermine side effects
phentermine no prescription phentermine cheap 37 5 phentermine phentermine on line phentermine phent…
Comment by Anonymous — August 22, 2005 @ 2:47 pm