The Court began its February sitting yesterday with a flurry of activity. It heard oral argument in two cases (Bond v. United States and United States v. Tinklenberg), it issued decisions in two cases (Bruesewitz v. Wyeth and CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue), it granted certiorari in two cases (Pacific Operations Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid and Stok & Associates v. Citibank), and it called for the views of the Acting Solicitor General in two cases (Osage Nation v. Irby and City of New York v. The Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations). This round-up will summarize and collect coverage of these developments, in that order.
Oral Arguments: Bond v. United States (09-1227) and United States v. Tinklenberg (09-1498)
The oral argument in Bond v. United States was the premier event at the Court yesterday, pairing a soap-opera-like tale of jealousy and revenge with a Tenth Amendment question. Heavy news coverage followed. As Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick explains, the primary question at issue in the case is less than glamorous: because “the 3rd Circuit . . . ruled that [the plaintiff] lacked standing to challenge her conviction, finding that only states, not individuals, can bring challenges under the 10th Amendment[,] . . . oral argument in today’s case suffocates under an airless blanket of ‘standing doctrine.’ And standing doctrine is where all interestingness goes to die.†Still, Lyle Denniston reports for this blog that “[t]he Court definitely had difficulty staying focused on†the standing question; moreover, he continues, the argument “showed the Justices keenly interested in some of the most fundamental questions about the nature of the government that was created under the U.S. Constitution.†But putting the merits of the petitioner’s claim to one side, journalists and commentators generally agreed that “[t]he outcome of the case on the standing point did not seem in much doubt†(the New York Times) by the end of the argument. That is, there appeared to be consensus on the Court that the petitioner, Carol A. Bond, has standing to challenge her conviction. The Wall Street Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Washington Post (also here), NPR, CNN, the Associated Press (via NPR), UPI, ABC News, Fox News, ACSblog, the WSJ Law Blog, and Constitutional Law Prof Blog have further coverage of the case.
Although yesterday’s second argument—in the Speedy Trial Act case United States v. Tinklenberg—did not attract as much coverage as Bond, it too garnered attention. In particular, at the end of the argument, it had been five years since Justice Thomas had last questioned a lawyer from the bench during an oral argument. NPR (also here), USA Today, CNN, ABC News, and the Los Angeles Times all have articles marking the milestone. The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times rejects criticism of Justice Thomas’s silence, countering that “[t]here is no requirement that justices speak at oral argument†and that “observers who want to hear the justice’s voice should read his opinions.â€
Decisions: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth (09-152) and CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue (09-520)
Of the two decisions the Court issued yesterday, Bruesewitz v. Wyeth earned the lion’s share of coverage. In an opinion for six justices by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kagan recused), the Court held that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, which created a no-fault program to provide compensation for vaccine-related injuries, preempts all design-defect lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. CNN’s Bill Mears writes that “[i]t was clear the high court struggled over precisely how the federal statute should be interpretedâ€; moreover, as the Washington Post’s Bob Barnes notes, the case produced an unexpected line-up: “[Preemption] questions often divide the court on ideological grounds, but in this case, liberal Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined the court’s consistent conservatives.†The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page lauded the decision, calling it “an important strike against a scare campaign that has caused too many parents to put their children at risk by refusing to inoculate them.†Additional coverage is available from the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, USA Today, the Christian Science Monitor, the WSJ Health Blog, NPR’s Shots blog, CBS News’s Crossroads with Jan Crawford blog, the Associated Press (via NPR), Bloomberg, Reuters, the Washington Times, and Courthouse News Service.
In CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, the Court held that a railroad can challenge state taxes that are imposed on railroads, but not their main competitors, as discriminatory under the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Ginsburg, dissented. The ABA Journal, the Birmingham Business Journal, Dow Jones Newswires (via the Wall Street Journal), Courthouse News Service, and JURIST all have reports on the decision.
Orders: Two Grants, Two CVSGs, and Some Notable Denials
The Court added two cases to next Term’s docket, granting certiorari in Pacific Operations Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid and Stok & Associates v. Citibank. The former presents a question about workers compensation under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, and the latter asks when a waiver of arbitration becomes binding under the Federal Arbitration Act. Business Insurance and Courthouse News Service cover the grant in Pacific Operations Offshore, while Courthouse News Service covers Stok. JURIST briefly describes both cases.
In addition, the Court sought the views of the Acting Solicitor General on two pending cert. petitions, Osage Nation v. Irby and City of New York v. The Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations. Tulsa World and the Associated Press (via NewsOn6 (Tulsa, OK)) have coverage of Osage Nation.
Notable denials include cases about:
*Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â *
Briefly:
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY