Yesterday the Court issued four decisions in argued cases, including major decisions on the Fourth Amendment, patent law, the Takings Clause, and excessive force claims by pretrial detainees. Writing for this blog, Mark Walsh provided a “view” of the day’s events from the Courtroom.
In City of Los Angeles v. Patel, the Court held that a Los Angeles ordinance which allows police to inspect hotel guest registries without advance notice or a warrant is unconstitutional because it does not provide an opportunity for precompliance review. Rory Little covered the decision for this blog, with other coverage coming from Tony Mauro (who also covers yesterday’s decision in Kingsley v. Hendrickson) for the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), David Savage in the Los Angeles Times, and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal. Commentary comes from Kent Scheidegger at Crime and Consequences, Lisa Soronen at the IMLA Appellate Practice Blog, Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View, Steven Schwinn at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, and Jim Harper at Cato at Liberty.
In Horne v. Department of Agriculture, the Court held that a raisin marketing program which requires raisin growers to hand over part of their crops to the federal government violates the Constitution. Lyle Denniston covered the decision for this blog, with other coverage coming from David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, NPR’s Nina Totenberg, Jeremy Jacobs of Greenwire, and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal. Commentary comes from Megan McArdle at Bloomberg View; Leland Beck at the Federal Regulations Advisor; Roger Pilon and Ilya Shapiro at Cato at Liberty; Trevor Burrus at Forbes; Ruthann Robson at Constitutional Law Prof Blog; Daniel Fisher at Forbes; Alan Morrison at the George Washington Law Review’s On the Docket; and Carrie Severino at National Review’s Bench Memos.
In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, the Court declined to overrule its 1964 precedent holding that a patent holder cannot recover royalties for the use of its invention after the patent term expires. Coverage comes from Tony Mauro for the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Adam Raymond at New York Magazine, and Howard Fischer for Capitol Media Services. Commentary comes from Gene Quinn at IP Watchdog and Thomas Cotter at Comparative Patent Remedies.
In Kingsley v. Hendrickson, a divided Court held that a pretrial detainee bringing an excessive force claim must show only that jail officers’ use of force was objective unreasonable. Richard Re covered the decision for this blog, with commentary from Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View and Steven Schwinn at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog.
At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Angela Morrison discusses Kerry v. Din, in which a majority of the Court recently vacated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that a U.S. citizen whose spouse’s application for a visa was denied has a right to judicial review of the denial. And the ImmigrationProf Blog continues its online symposium on the decision with a post from Matthew Lindsay.
At The Incidental Economist, Nicholas Bagley discusses the possibility that the Court “tipped its hand” in King v. Burwell, the challenge to the availability of subsidies for individuals who purchase their health insurance on an exchange created by the federal government, in another recent decision. Elizabeth Wydra “debunks the myths” about the case in her appearance on NPR’s On the Media.
At his Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen discusses the timing for the Court to act on an emergency stay application filed by abortion rights groups, who have asked the Court to step in and prevent abortion restrictions from going into effect in Texas on July 1. And in The Huffington Post, Suzanne Goldberg argues that it is time “to reexamine the old-chestnut narrative that abortion rests solely on a tenuous right to privacy and take heed that the Court . . . has a long track record of protecting not only privacy but also the liberty that is part of such deeply personal decision-making.”
Briefly:
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the hotel/motel owners in Patel and among the counsel to the petitioner(s) in McFadden and one of the Madoff cases. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]
A friendly reminder: We rely on our readers to send us links for the round-up. If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY