Thursday round-up

Yesterday was another busy day at the Court, with opinions announced in five argued cases, and oral arguments in two more.

InChaidez v. United States, the Court held thatPadilla v. Kentucky, in which the Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to inform criminal defendants of the deportation risks of guilty pleas, does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review. Adam Liptak ofThe New York Timeshas coverage of the decision, as do David G. Savage ofThe Los Angeles Times, Robert Barnes ofThe Washington Post, Lawrence Hurley and Jonathan Stempel ofReuters, and TheAssociated Press. Kent Scheidegger ofCrime and Consequencesargues that the opinions show that Justice Kagan, but not Justice Sotomayor, understands the rule ofTeague v. Lane, which restricts the retroactive application of new rules after the judgment has become final. And Joseph Ax ofReutersreports on several New York state court decisions that have been invalidated by yesterday’s ruling.

InEvans v. Michigan, the Court decided that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a retrial after a court-ordered acquittal, even when that acquittal was erroneous. David Shepardson ofThe Detroit Newshas coverage, as do Debra Cassens Weiss of theABA Journal, Jonathan Stempel ofReuters, andThe Associated Press. AtCrime and Consequences, Bill Otis argues that both Justice Sotomayor’s majority opinion and Justice Alito’s solo dissent were wrong, and that retrial should have been allowed because the defendant invited the error at trial.

InJohnson v. Williams, the Court unanimously decided thatwhen a state court rules against a defendant in an opinion that rejects some of the defendants claims but does not expressly address a federal claim, a federal habeas court must presume, subject to rebuttal, that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits. Lyle reports on the opinion forthis blog, with further coverage from Kevin Doyle ofMcClatchy Newspapers(via the Miami Herald).

InHenderson v. United States, the Court held that whether or not a legal question is settled at the time of trial,an error is plain within the meaning of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) so long as it was plain at the time of appellate review. Chris Green ofThe Originalism Blogoffers some perspectives from the early nineteenth century on the issue raised by the case.

In the last opinion of the day, the Court unanimously held inGunn v. Mintonthat exclusive federal jurisdiction over “any casearising under any Act of Congress relating to patents,” under28 U.S.C. 1338(a), does notdeprive the state courts of subject matter jurisdiction over a state law claim alleging legal malpractice in a patent case. Lawrence Hurley ofReutersand Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal (viaThe American Lawyer)have coverage, while Dennis Crouch ofPatently-Ohas analysis of the opinion.

The Court also heard oral argument in two cases yesterday. InMcBurney v. Young, the Court is considering whether the Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Dormant Commerce Clause prevent a state from offering lesser rights of access to public information to citizens of other states than it offers to its own citizens. Lyle has a recap of the argument forthis blog, while Adam Liptak ofThe New York Timeshas coverage, as do Robert Barnes ofThe Washington Post, Brad Heath ofUSA Today, Josh Gerstein ofPolitico, and Jesse J. Holland ofThe Associated Press.

InPPL Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, the Court is considering how to determine when U.S. corporations should receive tax credits for the foreign taxes that they pay. Daniel Fisher ofForbeshas coverage of the case, as do Patrick Temple-West ofReutersand Siobhan Hughes ofMarketWatch. Kali has posted transcripts of both arguments onthis blog.

Other coverage yesterday focused on whether the administration will weigh in with an amicus brief in favor of the challenge to Proposition 8 inHollingsworth v. Perry. Chris Geidner ofBuzzfeedreports that President Obama declined to comment in an interview on Wednesday, while Julie Pace ofThe Associated Pressreports on the administration’s deliberations on the issue, and Greg Sargent of The Washington Post’sPlum Lineblog argues that the president can make history by supporting the challenge.

Tuesday’s grant of cert. inMcCutcheon v. Federal Election Commissioncontinues to attract coverage, with T.W. Farnam of The Washington Postarguing that the case could be “the newCitizens United,” and at The Daily Beast Adam Winkler reports that “some people are already referring to it as ‘Citizens United II.'” Jacob Sullum of Reasonhas further coverage, while Bill Araiza ofPrawfsBlawglooks back at the late Chief Justice Rehnquist’s evolution on campaign finance issues.To The Pointhas coverage of the campaign finance and voting rights cases before the Court this term. (h/t Rick Hasen)

The challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act inShelby County v. Holderalso continues to draw coverage, with Linda Greenhouse devoting her Opinionator column inThe New York Timesto an explanation of how the Act is now “hanging by a thread,” and Sahil Kapur ofTalkingPointsMemopredicting that at oral argument next week, “proponents of the law will be facing five very skeptical justices.” Richard Wolf ofUSA Todayhas further coverage of the case.

Briefly:

• Amy has analysis of Tuesday’s decision in Chafin v. Chafin, in which the Court decided that the return of a child to a foreign country pursuant to an order under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction does not render an appeal of that order moot, for this blog.
• Daniel Fisher ofForbesreports that ten of the fifteen opinions released so far this term have been decided by votes of nine to zero, and he argues that “if the last two years have shown anything, its that the justices are professionals and stubbornly refuse to behave the pundits expect them to.”
• Ilya Shapiro ofCato at Libertycomments on Tuesday’s decision inBailey v. United States, in which the Court decided thatpolice officers preparing to execute a search warrant cannot detain recent occupants of the premises to be searched a mile away from those premises.
• Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chroniclereports on Tuesday’s denial of cert. inNational Association of Optometrists and Opticians v. Harris.