Friday round-up

Yesterday, the Court heard oral argument in the two cases that were rescheduled from Tuesday due to Hurricane Sandy. Transcripts of both oral arguments are availablehere.

InChaidez v. United States, the Court examined the retroactivity ofits previous decision inPadilla v. Kentucky, in which it held that criminal defendants whose attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to a given offense will subject them to deportation have received ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Coverage of the oral argument comes from Adam Liptak of TheNew York Times, Jonathan Stempel ofReuters, and Elizabeth Wydra at the Constitutional Accountability CentersText & History Blog. The editorial board of TheNew York Timesweighs in on the case, arguing thatPadillashould apply retroactively, whileat ACSblogRebecca Sharpless argues thatbecause Padillamerely applied an old rule, no retroactivity analysis is required. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in Chaidez.]

InBailey v. United States, the Court considered whether police officers executing a search warrant may detain someone who had left the immediate premises to be searched even before the warrant was executed. Coverage of the oral argument comes from theAssociated Press(via The Washington Post), while at ACSblog, Anna-Rose Mathieson argues that the Court should rule in Baileys favor.

Other coverage of the Court focused on oral arguments from earlier this week.JURISTand theNational Law Journal(registration required) have coverage of Wednesdays oral arguments in the drug-sniffing dog cases:Floridav. Jardines, in which the Court is considering whether a sniff by a trained drug-detection dog at the door of a suspected marijuana grow house constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, andFlorida v. Harris, which presents the question whether a trained drug-detection dogs alert provides sufficient probable cause to search a vehicle. Jim Harper atCato@Libertyhas additional commentary on theJardinescase.

This blog also previews three cases scheduled for oral argument at the Court next week. Sergio Campospreviews Mondays argument inComcast v. Behrend, in which the Court will consider whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving the admissibility of the plaintiffs evidence purporting to show that the case is susceptible to the award of class-wide damages. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in the case.] Steven Kaufholdpreviews the Courts other Monday argument, inAmgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, which presents the question whether proof of materiality must be shown before a class can be certified in a securities misrepresentation case based on the fraud-on-the-market theory. Gregory Massingpreviews next Tuesdays argument inSmith v. United States, in which the Court will consider who bears the burden of proof regarding a conspirators withdrawal from a given conspiracy prior to the end of the relevant statute of limitations, such that an element of the conspiracy charge is negated. And the Washington Legal FoundationsOn the Meritsproject previews Wednesdays oral argument inAlready, LLC v. Nike, Inc., in which the Court will consider whether a federal district court retains its Article III jurisdiction to hear a challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark when the registrant promises not to assert that trademark against the challengers then-existing commercial activities. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in the case.]

Briefly:

• AtCorporate Counsel, Shannon Green reports on the amicus brief filed by the Retail Litigation Center in support of the respondent inVance v. Ball State University, in which the Court will examine the definition of supervisor used in harassment cases.
• Bob Egelko of theSan Francisco Chroniclereports on the Courts denial of certiorari inTrancos v. Balsam, a challenge to Californias anti-spam statute.
• AtThe New Republic, Jeffrey Rosenexamines the potential impact of the upcoming election on the composition of the Court.
• Forthis blog, Lyle reports on the brief before the Court filed by the Republican members of the House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, in which they argue that the Court should grant their petition seeking review of the First Circuits holding that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, rather than one of the other petitions pending before the Court regarding challenges to DOMA. Writing atConstitution Daily, Lyle reviews all ten cert. petitions.
• Glamour has named Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg one of its Women of the Year for 2012.