on Oct 2, 2013 at 8:50 am
Yesterday the Court added eight new cases to its docket for the upcoming Term. Lyle summarizes all eight cases for this blog, while in the Los Angeles Times David Savage reports on two of yesterday’s grants: Petrella v. MGM, a dispute over the copyright for the movie “Raging Bull,” and Harris v. Quinn, in which the Court will consider whether home health-care workers who are public employees can be required to pay union fees. In United States v. Quality Stores, the Court will consider whether severance payments to workers are “wages” that are subject to payroll taxes. Greg Stohr reports on that grant for Bloomberg Businessweek, while Robert Wood discusses the case at Forbes. At E&E Publishing, Jeremy Jacobs reports on the grant in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States, a challenge to the U.S. Forest Service’s rails-to-trails program. In Navarette v. California, the Court will consider whether a police officer who receives an anonymous tip about a reckless or drunken driver must corroborate that tip before stopping the vehicle. Bob Egelko reports on the case for the San Francisco Chronicle; other coverage comes from Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences. In United States v. Castleman, the Court will consider whether a state conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” for purposes of federal gun laws. Kent Scheidegger notes the grant in Castleman at Crime and Consequences.
The Court’s order list also contained a lone denial of certiorari, in the case of Florida death row inmate Marshall Gore. Kent Scheidegger comments on the case at Crime and Consequences.
Looking ahead to other cases on the upcoming Term’s merits docket, at Cato at Liberty Trevor Burrus discusses an amicus brief that Cato and the National Federation for Independent Business filed in Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall, in which the Court will consider whether various agreements between a union and a Florida casino violated the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibits an employer from giving a “thing of value” to a union seeking to represent its employees.
Last week the Departments of Justice and Education issued a letter intended to provide guidance to colleges and universities regarding the Court’s decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, the challenge to that school’s use of affirmative action in its undergraduate admissions process. Ilya Shapiro criticizes the letter at Cato at Liberty.
This afternoon the UC Hastings College of the Law will host a Supreme Court preview, featuring (among others) regular SCOTUSblog contributor Rory Little. More information is available here.