Yesterday the Court issued three opinions in argued cases. In United States v. Clarke, a unanimous Court – in an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan – held that a taxpayer who wants to question IRS agents about their motives for issuing a summons can do so if he can point to “specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith.” I provided early coverage of the brief opinion for this blog, while Noah Feldman discusses the decision in his column for Bloomberg View.
In Lane v. Franks, a unanimous Court – in an opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor – held that the First Amendment protects a state employee who was fired in retaliation for his testimony in a federal criminal trial about fraud in a community college program, but it also held that the community college president who fired him is entitled to qualified immunity for his conduct. Ruthann Robson covered the decision for this blog; other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR and Mark Walsh of Education Week. Commentary comes from Noah Feldman for Bloomberg View, Leslie Griffin at Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Sheldon Nahmod at Nahmod Law, Hera Arsen at the Ogletree Deakins blog, and Scott Oswald at Law360 (registration required).
In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, the Court (in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas) held that Alice Corporation’s patent claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea and therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Coverage comes from Bill Mears of CNN and Daniel Fisher of Forbes, with commentary from Kristen Osenga at PrawfsBlawg.
Briefly:
[Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to petitioner Edward Lane in Lane v. Franks. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY