Breaking News

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 available here.

In Chaidez v. United States, the Court examined the retroactivity of its previous decision in Padilla 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 The New York Times, Jonathan Stempel of Reuters, and Elizabeth Wydra at the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Text & History Blog.  The editorial board of The New York Times weighs in on the case, arguing that Padilla should apply retroactively, while at ACSblog Rebecca Sharpless argues that because Padilla merely 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.]

In Bailey 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 the Associated Press (via The Washington Post), while at ACSblog, Anna-Rose Mathieson argues that the Court should rule in Bailey’s favor.

Other coverage of the Court focused on oral arguments from earlier this week. JURIST and the National Law Journal (registration required) have coverage of Wednesday’s oral arguments in the drug-sniffing dog cases: Florida v. 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, and Florida v. Harris, which presents the question whether a trained drug-detection dog’s alert provides sufficient probable cause to search a vehicle.  Jim Harper at Cato@Liberty has additional commentary on the Jardines case.

This blog also previews three cases scheduled for oral argument at the Court next week.  Sergio Campos previews Monday’s argument in Comcast v. Behrend, in which the Court will consider whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving the admissibility of the plaintiff’s 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 Kaufhold previews the Court’s other Monday argument, in Amgen, 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 Massing previews next Tuesday’s argument in Smith v. United States, in which the Court will consider who bears the burden of proof regarding a conspirator’s 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 Foundation’s On the Merits project previews Wednesday’s oral argument in Already, 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 challenger’s 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.]


  • At Corporate Counsel, Shannon Green reports on the amicus brief filed by the Retail Litigation Center in support of the respondent in Vance v. Ball State University, in which the Court will examine the definition of “supervisor” used in harassment cases.
  • Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle reports on the Court’s denial of certiorari in Trancos v. Balsam, a challenge to California’s anti-spam statute.
  • At The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen examines the potential impact of the upcoming election on the composition of the Court.
  • For this 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 Circuit’s 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 at Constitution Daily, Lyle reviews all ten cert. petitions.
  • Glamour has named Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg one of its Women of the Year for 2012.


Recommended Citation: Rachel Sachs, Friday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 2, 2012, 9:42 AM),