February 23rd - This Week at the United States Supreme Court

Supreme Podcast show

Summary: On this week's show we discuss the following cases: GRANT OF REVIEW - 2:05 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission Are aggregate limits on individual political contributions under the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, constitutional, as the Supreme Court previously held in Buckley v. Valeo? OPINION - 9:55 Florida v. Harris - Does an alert by a trained narcotics detection dog provide police with probable cause to search a vehicle? OPINION - 15:58 Bailey v. United States - May police detain individuals seen leaving a property about to be searched, as a lawful detention incident to a search, after the individuals have left the immediate vicinity of the property? GRANT OF CERTIORARI - 20:17 Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp. - What constitutes “changing clothes” within the meaning of section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act? OPINION - 25:18 Evans v. Michigan - Does the Double Jeopardy Clause attach when a trial judge erroneously grants a midtrial directed verdict based on a misunderstanding of law? OPINION - 29:34 Chafin v. Chafin - Does the taking of a child to a foreign country pursuant to a Convention return order render an appeal of that order moot? OPINION - 34:45 Chaidez v. United States - Does Padilla v. Kentucky, which held that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when their attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation, apply retroactively? OPINION - 36:09 Gunn v. Minton - Where the success of a malpractice claim against a lawyer relies upon a question of federal patent law, does 28 U.S.C. §1338(a), giving federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over patent claims, deprive state courts of subject matter jurisdiction over the malpractice claim? ORAL ARGUMENT - 38:54 Bowman v. Monsanto Co. - Do farmers infringe patents held in genetically modified seeds when they plant those seeds without authorization from the patent holder?