Today’s orders and opinions
on Jun 7, 2010 at 10:26 am
No grants or calls for the views of the Solicitor General today. Â The full order list is here. Â Notably, the Court denies the petition in the No Child Left Behind Act case Pontiac School District v. Duncan (09-852).
The Court issued opinions in three argued cases:
In Krupski v. Costa Crociere (09-337), the Court reverses and remands, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor. Â The vote is unanimous, with Justice Scalia concurring in part and in the judgment.
- Holding: The determination of whether a party who makes a mistake in identifying the other party being sued may still file their claim in a timely manner depends upon what the party to be added to the case knew or should have known about the dispute.
In Hamilton v. Lanning (08-998), the Court affirms in an 8-1Â opinion by Justice Alito, with Justice Scalia dissenting alone. Â [Disclosure: Akin Gump and Howe & Russell represented the respondent in this case.]
- Holding: The proper way to determine whether a Chapter 13 debtor’s income is above the median is to use the “forward-looking approach.”
In Barber v. Thomas (09-5201), the Court affirms on a 6-3 vote. Â Justice Breyer writes the opinion, while Justice Kennedy dissents, joined by Justices Stevens and Ginsburg.
- Holding: The federal Bureau of Prisons’ method for calculating inmates’ good-time credits is upheld.
The Court also certified a question to the Montana Supreme Court in this per curiamÂ opinion in United States v. Juvenile Male (09-940), saying that the answer “will help determine whether this case presents a live case or controversy” and reserving all proceedings in the case pending the state supreme court’s response.
- Question: Is respondentâ€™s duty to remain registered as a sexÂ offender under Montana law contingent upon the validity of the conditions of his now-expired federal juvenile-supervision order that required him to register as a sex offender, or is the duty an independent requirement of Montana law that is unaffected by the validity or invalidity of the federal juvenile-supervision conditions?
The full texts of the opinions appear below, along with the briefs in Juvenile Male.
Title: United States v. Juvenile Male
Issue: Whether application of the registration and notification provisions of the Sex Offender Registration andÂ Notification Act to a juvenile who was adjudicated delinquent under the Federal JuvenileÂ Delinquency Act before SORNAâ€™s enactment violatesÂ the ex post facto clause of the Constitution.