With all of the hullabaloo surrounding the health care cases, it is easy to forget that the bulk of the Court’s work is the relatively mundane but absolutely vital task of clarifying the law in areas that fill the docket of the lower federal courts on a daily basis.
The public generally perceives the Supreme Court as dealing with grand, abstract constitutional principles and writing esoteric opinions filled with judicial philosophy.
Grand juries are proverbially known for two things – utmost secrecy and a malleability that allows a savvy prosecutor to indict a ham sandwich. In Rehberg v. Paulk, the Supreme Court’s decision may well turn on which of these famed grand jury traits carries the day.