The Most Important Cases of This Term?

Thursday, March 29th, 2007 12:25 pm | David Stras | Print This Post

In connection with a possible news appearance, I have been asked to identify the most important cases for this Term. The obvious candidates, of course, are the school diversity and partial birth abortion cases. But are there any dark-horse candidates out there that might be quite significant, but that have received little public attention or news coverage? Please feel free to post in the comments or to e-mail me directly. I look forward to your comments on this question.



14 Comments »



  1. From a business standpoint, the trilogy of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, Credit Suisse v. Billing, and Tellabs v. Makor could make this a hugely important Term. The decisions in those cases will either put major brakes on antitrust and securities class actions, or give the class-action bar great forward momentum. The dollars-and-cents stakes are enormous.

    The big business case of the Term was supposed to be Philip Morris v. Williams. The Court decided that case more narrowly than it could have, with the result that the decision is not as huge as it could have been, though it is not as unimportant as some claim.

    Comment by Roy Englert — March 29, 2007 @ 1:11 pm

  2. Medellin.
    Wilkie.
    Morse.

    Comment by Jacques McKenzie — March 29, 2007 @ 1:14 pm

  3. Cases dealing with the power of the USSCt to call the shots and get the lower courts and the Congress to comply with the Court’s earlier decisions: the abortion cases, the Texas death penalty cases (Brewer, Abdul-Kabir, Smith v. Texas).

    The standing cases: Hein, Massachusetts v. EPA, Parents Involved.

    The sentencing cases.

    The antitrust cases.

    The Guantanamo cases, assuming cert is granted.

    Comment by Ross Runkel — March 29, 2007 @ 2:34 pm

  4. Smith v. Texas is a potential sleeper. The Court has an opportunity to clear up some issues on adequate and independent state grounds, an area it has muddied for a long time. See generally, 16B Wright, Miller, & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure secs. 4026-4028.

    Medellin is probably a next-term case.

    Comment by Kent Scheidegger — March 29, 2007 @ 2:38 pm

  5. Hein.

    As for Medellin, the Court should take more cases and Medellin should be taken up this Term.

    Comment by Jacques McKenzie — March 29, 2007 @ 2:51 pm

  6. My view is that Wilkie v. Robbins, No. 06-219, has enormous potential. Were the Bivens remedy doctrine expanded beyond the contours articulated in Chilicky, it could have a serious impact on the detainee cases. A more expansive use of judicial remedies in cases where the legislative remedy is thought too weak for the constitutional trespass at steak could, in turn, be used to argue that the administrative hearings set forth in the MCA and DTA are insufficient. That said, I do not think the Court will expand Bivens because it would be such an egregious power grab of legislative prerogative. At least, I would be hugely disappointed if that were to happen.

    -James Sexton

    Comment by JPS3L — March 29, 2007 @ 3:21 pm

  7. KSR is in a specialized area, but it could have enormous economic implications for many, many industries.

    Comment by Elizabeth Nugent — March 29, 2007 @ 4:00 pm

  8. Hein v. Freedom From

    Comment by Lauren Smith — March 29, 2007 @ 5:02 pm

  9. I’d love to see them resolve Medellin this term also, Jacques, but IMHO there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell they will.

    If SCOTUS decides that the Texas CCA must decide (again) whether the Vienna Convention violation caused Medellin any prejudice, it should take them very little time to answer that question “no” and finally schedule the very long overdue punishment for this truly horrific crime.

    Comment by Kent Scheidegger — March 29, 2007 @ 7:30 pm

  10. Based on my own personal experience wrestling with this issue, I would cast an underdog vote for Carey v. Musladin. It has the potential to severely limit the availability of habeas corpus relief for state prisoners.

    Comment by Scott Street — March 29, 2007 @ 9:18 pm

  11. Clearly no issue this term can trump the importance of Limtiaco v. Camacho, regarding the interpretation of debt limits in the Guam Organic Act!

    Comment by Ted Metzler — March 30, 2007 @ 10:47 am

  12. If SCOTUS decides that the Texas CCA must decide (again) whether the Vienna Convention violation caused Medellin any prejudice, it should take them very little time to answer that question “no” and finally schedule the very long overdue punishment for this truly horrific crime.

    You know, Kent, it’s about providing the right process, not about outcomes. As much as parochial Texas judges would love to put a Mexican to death, that value is counterbalanced, if not outweighed, by the President’s determination pursuant to his own foreign affairs power and the treaty scheme Congress authorized. If the Supreme Court was right to take up Roper v. Simmons, then it certainly should intervene to vindicate the Texas CCA’s willful misconstrual of Presidential powers and our treaty obligations in furtherance of good old Texan bloodlust.

    Comment by Jacques McKenzie — March 31, 2007 @ 12:15 am

  13. Now, wait. I didn’t mean vindicate. I meant eradicate.

    Comment by Jacques McKenzie — March 31, 2007 @ 12:18 am

  14. I would just like to thank everyone for their comments on this post. I now have a pretty nice (and somewhat long) list of important cases for this Term.

    Comment by David Stras — April 3, 2007 @ 12:12 am

Leave a comment