Court puts off Hamdan appeal
on Oct 3, 2005 at 4:09 pm
The Supreme Court opened its new Term Monday, acting on nearly 2,000 new cases, but it chose – for the time being – to take no action on the most important case on the list. That was the appeal of Salim Ahmed Hamdan in what may be the most significant test yet of the Justices’ willingness to weigh the constitutionality of President Bush’s actions toward war on terrorism suspects. Hamdan has mounted a broad-based challenge to the war crimes tribunals that the President has set up (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 05-184).
There was no explanation for the Court’s failure to act; this almost certainly was not one of the cases the Court was holding back until Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., joined its ranks on Monday. He is likely to be disqualified from the case because he ruled on it as an appellate judge last July 15. It appears likely that the Court will consider the case again shortly, perhaps later this week.
The Chief Justice took no part in any of the orders issued Monday. He presided over the first public session, and will lead the Court’s first private Conference on Wednesday.
The Court asked the federal government’s Solicitor General to offer his views on one case: KSR International v. Teleflex Inc., et al. (04-1350), involving the Federal Circuit’s view on when an invention is “obvious” and thus cannot be patented. There is no timetable for the response. The case involves an invention of a gas pedal for automobiles and light trucks.
Among other cases that the Court left on its docket without action on opening day were these:
Laboratory Corp. v. Metabolite Laboratories, 04-607, on the legal standard for determining whether there has been inducement of infringement on a medical process patent.
CIM Insurance v. Peach, 04-1221, on whether a non-signer of a contract to enforce arbitration of disputes may sue to enforce the arbitration clause.
Schriro v Smith, 04-1475, on the role of a jury in determining whether an individual facing a death sentence is mentally retarded.
New York v. Zappula, 04-1520, on whether the passage of time after Miranda warnings are given to a suspect undermines those warnings.
S.D. Warren Co. v Maine, 04-1527, on permit requirements under the Clean Water Act if a water user adds no pollution to it.
Kane v. Espitia, 04-1538, on whether a prison inmate seeking to represent himself has a right to obtain legal materials to aid his challenge to conviction.
Michigan v. Bolduc, 04-1617, on the power of police to carry on a further investigation if an individual refuses to allow officers without a warrant to search a home.
Florida v. Matheson, 04-1668, on the authority of police to use a drug-sniffing dog to check a vehicle for drugs.
Beard v. Banks, 04-1739, on prison officials’ authority to deny inmates who are considered dangerous any access to newspapers, magazines and photos.
Among the more significant cases that were denied review was a constitutional challenge by gun manufacturers to the District of Columbia law that makes them liable for injuries caused by people using the guns those companies made. The D.C. Court of Appeals, the highest local court, upheld the law, but Congress is now in the process of passing a law to overturn that ruling and bar such lawsuits. The Court refused to defer acting on the case while Congress considers that bill.
Other significant cases that the Court refused to hear included:
Lovitt v. True, 05-5044, asking the Court to reexamine government officials’ duty to preserve evidence – such as DNA findings – that could be of use in challenging a conviction.
Ferguson v. West Virginia, 04-1328, asking the Court to clarify what out-of-court statements are barred from criminal trials because the accused did not have a chance to cross-examine the witness.
Smith v. University of Washington Law School, 04-1409, a challenge to a now-abandoned state university law school admissions program that considers race and ethnic factors.
Steubenville City Schools v. Barrett, 04-1409, on whether it is unconstitutional for a public school to refuse to hire a teacher because his children attend private school.
Boulineau v. Donald, 04-1616, on the constitutionality of a state policy of taking a DNA sample from every one convicted of a serious crime, for use in a crime-solving database.
Globe Newspaper v. Ayash, 04-1634, a First Amendment challenge by the Boston Globe to a $2.1 million default judgment against it for refusing to reveal the identities of news sources for use in a civil lawsuit.
Brant v. First National, 04-1689, asking the Court to clarify when an electronic transfer of funds becomes final, even though a mistake had been made in the amount transferred.
Colorado v. Harlan, 05-87, on the constitutionality of jury deliberations in a death sentence case when some jurors bring into the jury room, and consult, a Bible.
Jobe v. City of Catlettsburg, 05-188, on the constitutionality of a local ordinance making it a crime to place any leaflet under the windshield of a car without the owner’s written permission.
