Friday round-up
on Nov 9, 2012 at 8:39 am
Thursday’s coverage of the Court focused on oral arguments heard earlier in the week. At this blog, Steven Kaufhold recaps Monday’s oral argument in Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, in which the Court considered whether plaintiffs in securities misrepresentation cases under the fraud-on-the-market theory must prove materiality before the district court can certify a class, while Sergio Campos recaps Monday’s oral argument in Comcast v. Behrend, involving whether a district court may certify a class action before it resolves whether the plaintiffs have introduced admissible evidence to support a class-wide award of 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 Comcast.]
This blog also featured a recap by Steve Vladeck of Tuesday’s oral argument in Evans v. Michigan, in which the Court considered whether a retrial is barred under the Double Jeopardy Clause when a trial judge who incorrectly believes that a particular fact is an element of the offense in question grants a midtrial directed verdict of acquittal based on the prosecution’s failure to prove that fact. At Patently-O, Megan La Belle summarizes Wednesday’s oral argument in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., in which the Court considered whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear a party’s challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark once the registrant has promised not to assert its mark against that party’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.] JURIST has recaps of Wednesday’s arguments in both Already and Marx v. General Revenue Corp., a case involving whether a defendant who prevails under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act may be awarded costs for the lawsuit.
Briefly:
- At Wired, David Kravets examines the controversy surrounding and the history behind the pending petition for certiorari in Maryland v. King, which the Court will consider at its Conference today. At issue in the case is whether the collection of DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes violates the Fourth Amendment.
- At the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, Jess Bravin reports on the recently passed Montana Initiative 166, which avers that “corporations are not human beings with constitutional rights.” The state considered this initiative in the wake of the Court’s summary reversal last Term in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, in which the Court invalidated Montana’s 1912 campaign finance law under Citizens United v. FEC.
- At Constitution Daily, Lyle looks at the impact that Tuesday’s same-sex marriage voting results might have on the Court’s decision to review that issue; Terry Baynes has a similar article at Reuters.
- Lawrence Hurley, for E&E Publishing, considers potential changes in the composition of the Court in President Obama’s second term.
- On Thursday evening, the Court declined to overturn the Third Circuit’s stay of execution for Hubert L. Michael, Jr., a Pennsylvania death row inmate. The Philadelphia Inquirer has coverage.
