Supreme Podcast

This week the court issued granted certiorari, review, to four new cases and will hear four cases in oral arguments this week. No opinions were issued. We begin with a review of the oral arguments this week in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards, which concerns the extent to which consumers can sue to enforce federal consumer protection laws where the consumer has not suffered quantifiable damages (an injury-in-fact) for standing purposes. We next review two cases granted certiorari on November 14th which were overshadowed by the health care cases granted certiorari the same week. We start with the Supreme Court's decision to hear the case of Armour v. Indianapolis, which concerns whether the City of Indianapolis could properly choose to reimburse some taxpayers, mostly low and middle income taxpayers, and not others, mostly wealthier taxpayers, for payments into a funding program that was ultimately canceled - or whether such discriminatory treatment violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Finally, we review the Court's grant of certiorari in Astrue v. Capato, wherein the Court will determine whether the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was correct in its statutory interpretation when it held that a child conceived nearly a year after its father's death by way of in-vitro fertilization could qualify for survivor benefits under the Social Security Act. ORAL ARGUMENT TRANSCRIPTS AND AUDIO (click to download) First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards (10-708) Audio Transcript GRANTS OF CERTIORARI (November 14th) (click on case name to download lower court decision) Armour v. Indianapolis (Indiana Supreme Court) Astrue v. Capato (Third Circuit)

This week we dedicate our entire show to a review of the health care cases granted certiorari this week. DOCUMENTS (click to download) Decision of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision of the Northern District of Florida Petition for Certiorari Brief in Opposition Petitioner’s Reply

This week the court issued three opinions, two statements regarding a denial of certiorari and heard six cases in oral arguments. We begin this week with the a review of the oral arguments in United States v. Jones, which considers whether police need a warrant to attach a GPS device to a suspect's car in order to track its movements. We next review the three short opinions issued by the court this week. We then listen to and review excerpts of the oral arguments in National Meat Assn. v. Harris, wherein the Supreme Court considers whether federal law preempts a California statute that prevents the slaughter, sale and inhumane treatment of cows, pigs and other livestock at slaughterhouses, when the animal can no longer stand or walk without assistance. We then review two statements issued by justices of the court regarding the denial of certiorari in Buck v. Thaler, which concerns the testimony of an expert witness in Texas whose testimony that race is a legitimate factor in determining the future dangerousness of a defendant in a capitol cases has led the State of Texas to admit error in six cases in which the prejudicial testimony was sought. Finally, we consider the oral arguments in M.B.Z. v. Clinton, which considers the political question doctrine and whether the federal courts may even consider a challenge to a congressional law which in 2002 declared jerusalem the capitol of israel and directed the State Department to reflect this fact on consular documents, which the Executive Branch under Bush and now Obama refused to do. OPINION (click to download) KPMG LLP v. Cocchi (10-1521) Bobby v. Dixon (10-1540) Greene v. Fisher (10-637) DISSENT FROM DENIAL OF CERTIORARI (click to download) Buck v. Thaler (Sotomayor) Buck v. Thaler (Alito) ORAL ARGUMENT TRANSCRIPTS AND AUDIO (click to download) M.B.Z. v. Clinton (10-699) Audio Transcript Kawashima v. Holder (10-577) Audio Transcript United States v. Jones (10-1259) Audio Transcript Smith v. Cain (10-8145) Audio Transcript National Meat Assn. v. Harris (10-224) Audio Transcript Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp. (10-879) Audio Transcript

This week the court heard six cases in oral arguments, issued its first opinion of the 2011 term and Justice Thomas issued the term's first dissent from a denial of certiorari. This week, in an extended podcast, we review the following seven cases: Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, which the court heard in oral arguments on Monday both of which ask the court to resolve the open question of whether defendants are entitled to effective assistance of counsel during the plea stage of a criminal prosecution, even where the defendant ultimately received a fair trial or knowingly and voluntarily accepted a plea deal. Cavazos v. Smith, which concerns the questionable state court conviction of a grandmother accused of assaulting a baby by shaking it violently resulting in the infant's death. While nearly everyone agrees that the California jury's verdict is questionable the Supreme Court in a divided opinion cautions that there is nothing the federal courts can do about it. Utah Highway Patrol v. American Atheists, Inc., a case which concerns whether the placement of crosses on public lands in Utah to memorialize slain police officers constitutes a government endorsement of religion in violation of the First Amendment. Minneci v. Pollard, wherein the Supreme Court must decide whether to allow a new category of constitutional law suits - claims against federal contractors for violations of constitutional rights. The case stems out of a Bivens claim brought by a prisoner in a federal facility run by federal contractors for cruel and unusual punishment after they required Pollard to where handcuffs for six and a half hours in order to see a doctor after he broke both his arms in an accident, then refused to give him a splint the doctor recommended he wear and failed to help him eat or bathe himself, neither of which he was capable of doing adequately on his own. Perry v. New Hampshire in which the court considers whether a defendant can seek constitutional due process protection from a potentially unreliable out of court identification where no state action was involved in creating the suggestive and potentially unreliable circumstances of the identification. And, Rehberg v. Paulk, a case which seeks answers to the question of to what extent a person who is acting as a complaining witness - that is a person who comes forward and accuses a person of a crime often resulting in a criminal prosecution - is immune from civil liability when the testimony they give before a grand jury is false and causes a specious criminal prosecution to ensue causing harm to an innocent defendant. OPINION (click to download) Cavazos v. Smith (10-1115) DISSENT FROM DENIAL OF CERTIORARI (click to download) Utah Highway Patrol v. American Atheists, Inc. (10-1276) ORAL ARGUMENT TRANSCRIPTS AND AUDIO (click to download) Lafler v. Cooper (10-209) Audio Transcript Missouri v. Frye (10-444) Audio Transcript Rehberg v. Paulk (10-788) Audio Transcript Minneci v. Pollard (10-1104) Audio Transcript Perry v. New Hampshire (10-8974) Audio Transcript Gonzalez v. Thaler (10-895) Audio Transcript

This week the Court granted certiorari to four cases. No oral arguments were heard and no opinions were issued this week. Today, we review three of the four new cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear: (1) United States v. Alvarez, considers the Stolen Valor Act which makes it a crime to to falsely represent that you have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States and whether the Act is an unconstitutional intrusion upon free speech; (2) Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, is a case by native Nigerians who claim that the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, a parent company of the Shell Oil companies, committed violations of international law by subjecting their people to murder, torture, looting and other human rights violations and whether whether a corporation, rather than individuals, can be held liable for alleged human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute; (3) Elgin v. Department of the Treasury concerns the disqualification for employment of four federal government employees for failing to register with the selective service system and whether they may challenge the law under which they were disqualified in a federal district court or must instead pursue the claim before an internal administrative board which likely lacks authority to declare the law unconstitutional; and (4) Mohamad v. Rajoub, is a case brought by the family of an American citizen who was killed in the West Bank of Israel and seeks to hold the Palestinian Authority and the PLO responsible under the Torture Victims Protection Act, which establishes civil liability for individuals who torture or kill. CASES GRANTED CERTIORARI (click on case name to download lower court decision) United States v. Alvarez (9th Circuit) (denial of rehearing) (Bagdasarian) Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (2nd Circuit) Elgin v. Dep’t of the Treasury (1st Circuit) Mohamad v. Rajoub (DC Circuit)

This week the Court granted certiorari to two new cases and heard oral arguments in five cases. We begin with the oral arguments in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, et al. - in which the Supreme Court is asked to decide whether jails can conduct strip searches on anyone and everyone arrested-- even those arrested for minor offenses such as a traffic stop or an unpaid warrant. Next, we turn to the grant of certiorari in Blueford v. Arkansas, which seeks to determine whether double jeopardy protections attach where a jury in a state criminal proceeding in Arkansas announced to the judge that they were unanimous in voting against a sentence of capital murder and first degree murder but deadlocked on manslaughter and were ultimately declared hopelessly deadlocked - causing the prosecutor to seek a new trial on the capital murder charges. Finally, we review the oral arguments in Greene v. Palakovich wherein the Supreme Court is asked to determine whether a supreme court case which announces a new rule relevant to a defendant's case must be considered after a defendant's appeal on direct review has been denied on the merits but before the state high court has denied review. CASES GRANTED CERTIORARI (click on case name to download lower court decision) Blueford v. Arkansas (Arkansas Supreme Court) Freeman v. Quicken Loans Inc. (Fifth Circuit) ORAL ARGUMENT TRANSCRIPTS AND AUDIO (click to download) Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid (10-507) Audio Transcript CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood (10-948) Audio Transcript Greene v. Fisher (10-637) Audio Transcript Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington (10-945) Audio Transcript Judulang v. Holder (10-694) Audio Transcript