Court to hear crack vs. powder case; issues five unanimous rulings.
on Jun 11, 2007 at 10:03 am
UPDATED to 11:50 a.m.
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to take up at its next Term the long-standing dispute over the wide disparity in punishment for crack cocaine crimes than for offenses involving cocaine powder a 100 to 1 ratio. The issue is the authority of federal judges to consider the impact of that disparity in a given case under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Court agreed to hear that issue in Kimbrough v. U.S. (06-6330).
It also agreed to take a case — also to be decided next Term — on the same Sentencing Guidelines issue that the Court had been considering in Claiborne v. U.S. (06-5618) before Mario Claiborne died and the case was ordered vacated as moot. The new case is Gall v. U.S. 06-7949. The issue is whether it is unreasonable, absent special circumstances, for a federal judge to choose a sentence below the Guidelines range.
Although the U.S. Solicitor General had urged the Court to find a Claiborne-issue case and consider deciding it this Term, the Court bypassed the suggested case (Beal v. U.S., 06-8498) and chose the Gall appeal instead. That case, like Claiborne and Beal, is from the Eighth Circuit. Since there was no notation of expedition, the conclusion is apparent that the case, along with em>Kimbrough, will go over to the new Term starting Oct. 1.
In orders issued at the start of Monday’s session, the Court also agreed to rule at its next Term on whether federal courts in trying a case of workplace discrimination must allow testimony by other workers who are not parties to the case but claim they, too, were victims of job bias. The case involving a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is Sprint/United Management v. Mendelson, 06-1221.
Another order invited the U.S. Solicitor General to provide the government’s views on whether states have any authority to bar cell phone companies from listing taxes and fees as separate items on customers’ monthly bills (Sprint Nextel v. NASUCA, 06-1184.
The Court refused to expedite consideration of a new patent appeal by Pfizer Inc., a case in which Justice John Paul Stevens refused last week to provide temporary relief. The case, Pfizer v. Apotex, 06-1582, involves a dispute over patent claims for a medicine for treating high blood pressure. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., took no part in that order; he routinely recuses himself from Pfizer cases.
In a second patent case closely watched by specialists in the field, Zoltek Corp. v. U.S. (06-1155), the Court declined to rule on whether the federal government may be sued for a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment if it or one of its contractors uses a patented product or method without permission. Also denied review in that case was whether the federal courts may hear a damages lawsuit against the federal government if it or a contractor uses a patented item or product, if some part of the use occurred outside the U.S.
The Court’s five decisions on the merits on Monday were all decided unanimously — one from the March sitting, and four from the April session. The Court has 18 cases awaiting decision this Term.
In the first ruling of the day on the merits, the Court decided unanimously that a lawsuit against a private company cannot be shifted to federal court from state court merely because the company was acting under federal agency regulations. The ruling came in Watson v. Philip Morris (05-1284), with Justice Stephen G. Breyer writing for the Court.
As the Court continued issuing decisions, it decided unanimously that home health care workers who are employed by outside agencies, not directly by families, are not entitled to minimum wages and overtime pay under federal law. A Labor Department regulation that exempts those workers is binding, the Court ruled in Long Island Care at Home v. Coke (06-593). That ruling, too, was written by Justice Breyer.
In a third unanimous ruling, in U.S. v. Atlantic Research Corp. (05-562, the Court decided that the federal Superfund law allows a company that has not been sued over a hazardous waste dump or has not reached a settlement may sue another party — including federal agencies — to recover some of the cleanup costs that it has spent. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the Court.
Continuing the pattern of unanimity, the Court ruled in Beck v. PACE International Union (05-1448) that a company that sponsors its own pension plan for workers has no duty to consider merging it with another plan as a method of ending the plan while carrying on the benefits. In this case, the bankruptcy trustee opted to buy an annuity rather than consider merging with an ongoing plan. Justice Antonin Scalia authored the opinion.
The final decision of the day — also decided unanimously, but with four partial dissenters — came in Fry v. Pliler (06-5427), holding that a federal habeas court in judging whether a constitutional error at the trial was harmless must decide whether the error satisfies the strict standard of Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993). Justice Scalia wrote for the majority. Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter joined in partial dissents.
