Monday round-up

By James Bickford
on Jun 20, 2011 at 8:39 am

With more opinions coming this morning, commentators are still poring over the last batch.  At PrawfsBlawg, Miriam Baer comments on Thursday’s seven-two decision in Davis v. United States, in which the Court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when the police have reasonably relied on a court of appeals decision that is later overturned.  Baer suggests that a decision the other way “would have reduced the Court’s credibility with police departments,” while Howard Wasserman argues that the case “marks another gap between constitutional rights and constitutional remedies.”  Chuck Jaffe of MarketWatch concludes that in last week’s decision in Janus Capital Group v. First Derivative Traders, the Court “has given investors one more reason to ignore a fund’s documents, ruling that a fund’s investment adviser may not be sued for securities fraud due to misstatements made in a fund’s prospectus.”

At ACSBlog Brandon Garrett discusses J.D.B. v. North Carolina, in which the Court held that a minor’s age is a relevant factor in a Miranda analysis.  He notes that the Court acknowledged, but did not address, the “separate (but important) question whether juveniles can always be expected to understand the Miranda warnings when they are given,” but he emphasizes that an even more important aspect of the decision “will be the implications of the Court’s approach on efforts to improve police practices.”   Giovanna Shay of PrawfsBlawg comments on Justice Sotomayor’s citation in J.D.B. to a law review article and amicus brief co-written by the same professor.  At ACSBlog, Martin Magnusson discusses the implications of Thursday’s decision in Bond v. United States on the ongoing challenges to the Obama Administration’s health-care legislation.  He observes that “[i]ndividuals challenging federal laws that purportedly overstep the enumerated powers of federal government (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act comes to mind) will now look to Bond for the proposition that states are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism and that individuals can themselves vindicate constitutional principles of federalism.”  And Sergio Campos of PrawfsBlawg reaches back to April to discuss the Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, framing the question at the center of the case as “to what extent… California [can] define procedure for its [substantive] entitlements without conflicting with federal objectives.”

In the Los Angeles Times, David Savage reviews seven of the major merits cases still pending this Term.  Although Savage does not offer any predictions, at Election Law Blog Rick Hasen agrees with Tom’s prediction that Arizona Free Enterprise/McComish v. Bennett will result in a five-four reversal with the Chief Justice writing the opinion.

Finally, some writers are looking ahead to cases in which the Court may grant certiorari.  Michael Kirkland of UPI describes the facts in United States v. Jones, a case on this Thursday’s Conference List in which the federal government asks the Court to review the D.C. Circuit’s decision that a warrant is required to use GPS technology to track criminal suspects.  Mark Caudill of Ohio’s Mansfield News Journal reports on a petition filed by a local judge, who is challenging a Sixth Circuit decision that he cannot hang a poster of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.  And John Elwood of the Volokh Conspiracy and this blog provides an update on a case considered at last week’s Conference, United States v. Juvenile Male, in which the government is challenging a ruling of the Ninth Circuit that “the application of the registration and notification provisions of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act to a juvenile who was adjudicated delinquent under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act before SORNA’s enactment violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution.”  Based on a submission from the Montana Supreme Court, Elwood observes that the case may be moot; alternatively, he notes, “the Government might get the relief it seeks anyway, if the Supreme Court vacates the offending Ninth Circuit opinion . . . because it was rendered moot before the government could obtain review.” 

Briefly: 

• The New York Times reports on the relationship between Justice Thomas and Dallas real estate magnate Harlan Crow, a contributor to conservative causes who is financing a museum about the culture and history of Pin Point, Georgia, the Justice’s hometown. 
• Robert Barnes of the Washington Post reports on the “very different views of the criminal justice system” taken by Justices Alito and Sotomayor, the Court’s two former prosecutors and “two of the court’s most outspoken members on criminal justice issues.”