Court to hear four more cases
on Jan 12, 2007 at 1:34 pm
UPDATE 1/16, 3 PM. Added Hinck petition.
The Supreme Court on Friday added four new cases to its decision docket in the current Term, including a test of federal courts’ authority to overturn a state trial judge’s decision to remove a juror from a capital trial because of that juror’s views about capital punishment. That case is Uttecht v. Brown (06-413, petition). During jury selection in this Washington State murder case, the trial judge dismissed a juror because of equivocal statements about the death penalty. After the Washington Supreme Court upheld that dismissal, the case went to federal habeas court, leading to a Ninth Circuit ruling that barring a juror is allowed only if it is clear that that juror would not follow the law. The order list can be found here.
In a fee-shifting case, the Court agreed to clarify the kind of court victory that must be won before an individual or group may recover its attorneys’ fees. The case is Struhs, et al., v. Wyner (06-531, question presented). This appeal grows out of a dispute in the MacArthur Beach State Park in Florida, where a group of individuals wanted to display a peace symbol made up of nude individuals on the public beach. The individuals won a preliminary court order, but lost on the final outcome of the case; they sought attorneys’ fees for their initial victory. The Eleventh Circuit ruled they were prevailing parties in the case, so were entitled to recover $25,924 in lawyers’ fees.
Rejecting the advice of the U.S. Solicitor General to avoid review, the Court voted to clarify when a case may be transferred from state to federal court when the lawsuit implicates the actions of federal officials or agencies. That case is Watson, et al., v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. (05-1284, petition, SG brief). Two Arkansas women filed the appeal, seeking to have sent back to state court a challenge under state law that they are making to advertising claims of low tar and nicotine content for two brands of “light” cigarettes made by Philip Morris. Their case involves the meaning of the “federal officer removal” law dating back to the early 19th Century. Philip Morris relied on that law, claiming it was acting under Federal Trade Commission regulation of advertising, when it shifted the lawsuit to federal court. The Circuit Courts are divided on the issue.
Finally, the Court said it would hear a case on the scope of the U.S. Tax Court’s jurisdiction — Hinck v. U.S. (06-376, petition). The Court also overrode the advice of the Solicitor General that it should bypass this case. The issue is whether the Tax Court alone may hear a taxpayer claim that the Internal Revenue Service should have given relief from interest assessed on taxes due. The Federal Circuit Court, in conflict with the Fifth Circuit, ruled that a 1996 federal law gives the Tax Court exclusive authority over such claims. The appeal argues that this dispute implicates taxpayer right to bring refund suits as well as interest and penalty abatement claims, in U.S. District Courts. This particular lawsuit was filed in the Court of Federal Claims; the Federal Circuit ruled that Court had no jurisdiction. Interesting, both this case and the one decided by the Fifth Circuit involve the same nucleus of taxpayers involved in a partnership transaction investigated by IRS.
None of the cases was put on an expedited briefing schedule, so presumably they will be heard in the April sitting, which begins April 16.
