on Dec 24, 2009 at 9:25 am
Four recent requests for Supreme Court review have attracted some attention.Â The San Jose Mercury News reports on the Schwarzenegger administrationâ€™s â€œone last pleaâ€ for the Supreme Court to review a three-judge panelâ€™s order to ease overcrowding in California prisons.Â The panel ordered California to deplete its prison population by nearly 40,000 inmates over the next two years. Californiaâ€™s application will be considered at the January 15, 2010 conference.
Also next month, Cablevision will â€œask the Supreme Court to revisit (or narrow) a key Supreme Court case that casts a shadow over communications law—the second Turner Broadcasting v. FCC case, decided in 1997, and known to some as â€˜Turner II,â€™â€ writes Marvin Ammori at Balkinization. Broadcasting & Cable notes Cablevisionâ€™s successful application for a stay of the lower courtâ€™s order pending the Courtâ€™s decision on cert.
The BLT highlights a strange circumstance surrounding another new petition: plaintiffs in the protracted Indian trust litigation are â€œfiling a petition for certiorari just two weeks after the sides announced a $1.41 billion settlement to end the case.â€Â Â
And oneÂ lastÂ petitionÂ story today: the state of Kentucky has asked the Court to decide whether the stateâ€™s sex offender residency restrictions may be applied retroactively to offenders convicted before the restrictions hit the books, according to the Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky.
In nomination news, Jennifer Granholm, governor of Michigan, acknowledged in a media roundtable that she was vetted for the Supreme Court vacancy filled by Justice Sotomayor. According to The Detroit News, Granholm says she would have been â€œhonoredâ€ to be nominated but was more interested in finishing her job in Michigan.
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Orin Kerr shares a scan of his latest eBay purchase: an 1865 letter from the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court, on Court stationery.Â The letter itself is a response to an inquiring law firm, informing the firm that a case was dismissed because the appellantsâ€™ lawyers failed to appear in court.
At Above the Law, David Lat continues the commentary on Adam Liptakâ€™s column about ideology and Supreme Court clerksâ€™ career choices.Â (See Tuesday and Wednesdayâ€™s round-ups for links to the column and some reactions).Â Lat also reports the names of a handful of recent clerk hires for October Term 2010.
The New York Times has a story on retired Justice Sandra Day Oâ€™Connorâ€™s new role as chairwoman of the Oâ€™Connor Judicial Selection Initiative, a group that will encourage states to end direct judicial elections. (A CNN story linked in last Thursdayâ€™s round-up offers additional coverage.)
The DC Dicta blog has a post on Justice Ginsburgâ€™s speech last week at the Harvard Club of Washington, DC.Â When asked about the success of her 55-year marriage, Justice Ginsburg reflected on some pre-wedding advice from her mother-in-law-to-be: â€œâ€˜Dear, it pays sometimes to just be a little deaf.â€™ â€¦ I have followed that advice throughout my long married life, but also with respect to some of my colleagues.â€
Finally, at the Loree Reinsurance and Arbitration Law Forum, Philip J. Loree, Jr. offers a detailed analysis of the oral argument in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., a class action arbitration dispute that was argued on December 9.