Friday round-up

By Rachel Sachs
on Sep 28, 2012 at 9:38 am

With the official start of the October Term 2012 just a few days away, much of yesterday’s coverage looked forward to the upcoming cases. Reuters (via the Chicago Tribune), NBC News, and The Atlantic preview several of the Term’s most anticipated cases, while the Heritage Foundation has also posted the video of its Term Preview event from earlier this week, which featured comments by Paul Clement and Tom Goldstein.

Other coverage of the Court focused specifically on cases the Court will hear in its October sitting. Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, and David Cole at the New York Review of Books all preview the argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, in which the Court will consider whether the university’s use of race in undergraduate admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, also represented the American Association of Law Schools as amicus curiae in this case.]

Writing for the ABA (via the Civil Procedure and Federal Courts Blog), Jonathan Hafetz previews Monday’s argument in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, in which the Court will examine the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute. At CNN, Vincent Warren has additional commentary on Kiobel. [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, served as co-counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners.]

For this blog, Lyle previews the Court’s upcoming argument in Lozman v. Riviera Beach, in which the Court will consider the appropriate definition of “vessel” for purposes of triggering federal maritime jurisdiction, while Ronald Mann previews the Court’s upcoming argument in United States v. Bormes, in which the Court will consider whether the United States is immune from damages actions brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [Disclosure:  Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as co-counsel to the petitioner in Lozman.]

On Thursday, the Second Circuit heard oral arguments in Windsor v. United States, a challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Bloomberg, JURIST, and Buzzfeed have coverage. The plaintiff had previously filed a petition for certiorari before judgment, but – as Cormac noted in yesterday’s round-up – the Court has not yet acted on the petition.

Briefly:

• Over at Constitution Daily, Lyle explores the legal issues in one of Tuesday’s cert. grants, Missouri v. McNeely, in which the Court will consider whether the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits police officers to obtain nonconsensual, warrantless blood samples from drunk drivers.
• The Crime and Consequences blog and the Sentencing Law and Policy blog report on the decision by an intermediate state appellate court in Florida holding that Miller v. Alabama, in which the Court held that mandatory life-without-parole sentencing schemes for juveniles violate the Eighth Amendment, does not apply retroactively.
• At Verdict, Vikram Amar and Alan Brownstein review a new California law intended to regulate funeral demonstrations without running afoul of the First Amendment; the law follows the Court’s 2011 decision in Snyder v. Phelps, holding that the First Amendment protects from tort actions those who are peacefully protesting matters of public concern near military funerals.
• At Patent Docs, Kevin Noonan summarizes Bayer’s amicus brief in support of certiorari in Merck & Co., Inc. v. Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., in which the Third Circuit held that a reverse payment agreement between a brand-name pharmaceutical company and a generic manufacturer constitutes prima facie evidence of an unreasonable restraint of trade. [Lyle Denniston covered the filing of the petition for this blog last month. Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as co-counsel to the respondents in this case.]
• At Alison Frankel’s On the Case blog for Thomson Reuters, Nate Raymond discusses the procedural history behind Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, in which the Court will consider whether a district court may certify a class action without deciding if the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence supporting its theory of damages. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as co-counsel to the respondents in this case.]
• Michael Doyle of McClatchy Newspapers reports on Tuesday’s grant in Millbrook v. United States, in which the Court will consider the scope of immunity of the federal government from lawsuits by prisoners claiming that prison officials were negligent.
• At the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text & History Blog, Rochelle Bobroff looks ahead to Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, scheduled for argument at the end of October, in which the Court will consider whether the plaintiffs have standing “to question the constitutionality of government surveillance of unspecified targets.”