Today’s opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in argued cases: The Court today decided six of its remaining twelve argued cases, saving all but one of the Term’s blockbuster rulings for next week, when the Court will issue all remaining decisions.
1. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court in Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Stevens’ opinion here; Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s concurring opinion here; Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s dissenting opinion here; Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here. Hope Yen of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes.” And James Vicini of Reuters reports that “Property can be taken for development-Supreme Court.”
2. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court in Orff v. United States, No. 03-1566. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Thomas’s opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here.
3. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court in Exxon Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., No. 04-70 (consolidated with Ortega v. Starkist Foods, No. 04-79). You can access the syllabus here; Justice Kennedy’s opinion here; Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion here; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here. The Court by a 5-4 margin has held that the supplemental jurisdiction statute requires only one plaintiff to satisfy the amount-in-controversy jurisdictional threshold. The Court had previously split 4-4, with one Justice recused, on this very issue.
4. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion in Mayle v. Felix, No. 04-563. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Ginsburg’s opinion here; Justice David H. Souter’s dissenting opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here.
5. Justice Ginsburg also delivered the opinion in Halbert v. Michigan, No. 03-10198. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Ginsburg’s opinion here; Justice Thomas’s dissenting opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here. Gina Holland of The Associated Press reports that “Supreme Court Strikes Down Michigan Law.”
6. And Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion in Gonzalez v. Crosby, No. 04-6432. You can access the syllabus here; Justice Scalia’s opinion here; Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s concurring opinion here; Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion here; and the oral argument transcript here.
At “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston provides this report on today’s opinions.
Earlier this week, I provided additional details on these cases in a post you can access here.
“Judge cleared in plagiarism case; Accused of cribbing part of a research paper, Gregory Holder calls the JQC decision ‘an affirmation of our system of justice'”: The St. Petersburg Times today contains an article that begins, “Hillsborough Circuit Judge Gregory Holder said late Wednesday that he had been cleared of plagiarism charges by the state Judicial Qualifications Commission.”
Today’s expected rulings from the Supreme Court of California: Not only will the Supreme Court of the United States be issuing major rulings today, but so will California’s highest court. Slated for decision today are a major challenge to the California Coastal Commission (Marine Forests Society v. California Coastal Commission, oral argument audio here in Windows Media format) and a separate case presenting the question whether a defendant’s unintentional forgetting of the obligation to register as a sex offender, based upon an allegedly impaired mental condition, constitutes a defense to the felony offense of “willfully” failing to register as a sex offender. Rulings in these cases will be announced at 1 p.m. eastern time today.
“Junkets for Judges: Contrary to critics’ beliefs, privately sponsored judicial conferences broaden judges’ minds.” Law Professor Jonathan H. Adler today has this essay at National Review Online.
On the agenda: At 10 a.m. eastern time today, the U.S. Supreme Court will announce more rulings in argued cases. My list setting forth the questions presented in the twelve argued cases that remain pending for decision this Term can be accessed here.
The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting: In today’s newspaper, Bob Egelko has an article headlined “Makeup for bartenders before appeals court.”
And in other news, “3 S.F. pot clubs raided in probe of organized crime; Medical marijuana dispensaries used as front for money laundering, authorities say.”
“Pro-Bush group airs TV, radio ad about high court”: USA Today contains this article today.
“55-year prison term for drugs challenged; The first offender’s sentence in Utah for selling marijuana brought opposition from former prosecutors and judges”: This article appears today in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
“Curbing the court priority for some”: The Topeka Capital-Journal today contains an article that begins, “Still angry at what they consider a breach of judicial power, conservatives in the Legislature spent the first day of the special session pushing proposals to limit the powers of the Kansas Supreme Court.”
“Perry spares juvenile killers; 28 sentences commuted to life in prison following a Supreme Court ruling in March”: This article appears today in The Houston Chronicle.
“High Court to Review Privacy Rights; Panel will rule in repressed memory case in which a UC Irvine scholar revealed information about the subject of a study”: Today in The Los Angeles Times, Maura Dolan has an article that begins, “Stepping into the debate over repressed memory, the California Supreme Court decided Wednesday to review whether a famed memory scholar can be found liable for defaming and invading the privacy of the subject of a psychological case study.”
“New high court aide had a blog; Lawyer offered strong opinions on current hot topics”: The Lexington Herald-Leader today contains an article that begins, “The young lawyer whom Kentucky Chief Justice Joseph Lambert yesterday named his chief of staff has strong opinions about Democrats, gay marriage and other hot-button topics, and until recently he enjoyed posting them on the Internet. Jason Nemes, 27, a former Republican congressional aide, discontinued his personal blog — with posts such as ‘Democrats are anti-American’ and ‘Does a fetus feel pain?’ — before taking a job at the state Supreme Court.” The newspaper also offers a related item consisting of “Excerpts from the blog.”
Google offers this cache of the blog’s home page.
“Bush to peg Hartford judge for federal bench”: The Associated Press reports here that “President Bush intends to nominate a Connecticut civil court judge to the federal bench in what would be the first appointment of a black woman to a federal court in New England, U.S. Sen. Christopher Dodd’s office said Wednesday.”
“Please Don’t Go, We Love You So: Liberal nostalgia for Chief Justice William Rehnquist.” Slate has just posted online this jurisprudence essay by Emily Bazelon.
“Civilian dragged into Randolph court martial”: The San Antonio Express-News today contains an article that begins, “In years past, Colorado Springs rape counselor Jennifer Bier deftly turned away defense attorneys who sought to subpoena notes from her therapy sessions with clients. Usually, she just wrote a polite letter explaining Colorado’s strict laws that protect therapist-client privilege and the lawyer would disappear. Then, one day early this year, the military came calling.”
The Associated Press reports today that “Airman’s Rape Trial Could Be Delayed.”
The Denver Post reports today that “Marshals confront therapist but make no arrest; The rape trial of a former AFA cadet begins today; The Springs therapist for the alleged victim refuses to turn over her records.”
The Rocky Mountain News reported yesterday that “Rape counselor’s fate in limbo; Therapist waits for arrest before taking next step.” Also, columnist Mike Littwin had an op-ed entitled “A developing picture no one really wants to see.”
And The Denver Post on Monday contained an article headlined “Therapist opts to skip high court – for now.”
In news from Mississippi: The Clarion-Ledger of Jackson today contains an article headlined “Teel nudged settlement price to Minor’s favor, lawyer testifies; Then-chancery judge gave opinion of what case was worth amid negotiations, attorney says.”
And The Biloxi Sun Herald reports today that “Attorney found Minor actions odd.”
“Arrests Follow Searches in Medical Marijuana Raids”: Thursday’s edition of The New York Times will contain an article that begins, “Federal agents executed search warrants at three medical marijuana dispensaries on Wednesday as part of a broad investigation into marijuana trafficking in San Francisco, setting off fears among medical marijuana advocates that a federal crackdown on the drug’s use by sick people was beginning.”
“9th Circuit Looks for Answers in Makeup Test”: Jeff Chorney has this article online at law.com. When the audio of today’s en banc oral argument becomes available at the Ninth Circuit’s web site, I will post a link to it.
“Judge’s statements spark controversy”: The News & Record of Greensboro, North Carolina today contains an article that begins, “The decision by local court officials to deny the use of the Quran for oaths has garnered national media attention and the scrutiny of a Washington-based Islamic civil rights group.”
“High Court set unreasonable standard”: This editorial appears today in The Allentown (Pa.) Morning Call.
“Court argues if employers can demand women wear makeup”: David Kravets of The Associated Press provides this report on a case argued today before an eleven-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“Defendants gain the right to attend all phases of a trial”: The Newark Star-Ledger today contains this article reporting on a decision that the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued yesterday.
“Appeals Court Tells S.E.C. to Reconsider Directors Rule”: This article appears today in The New York Times.
The Washington Post reports today that “SEC Mutual Fund Rule Is Rejected; Court Orders Review on Chairmen Independence.”
The Los Angeles Times reports that “SEC Ordered to Reconsider Rule; An appeals court tells the agency to examine the costs of requiring mutual funds to have independent chairmen.”
And The Boston Globe reports that “Court orders SEC to review independent-chairman rule; Fate of measure unclear as agency gets new chief.”
“O’Connor, Not Rehnquist? And Gonzales to replace O’Connor?” William Kristol has this essay online this evening at The Weekly Standard.
“The Lives of U.S. Chief Justices”: This segment (RealPlayer required) featuring Nina Totenberg appeared on this evening’s broadcast of NPR‘s “All Things Considered.”
“Reigning Supreme: Who should be the next pick for the nation’s High Court.” That’s the title of the cover story package of Reason magazine’s July 2005 issue, which has just become available online.
The issue contains the following items:
These items all appear to be worth a look.
“Strategic Planning: How the White House is trying to box in the Dems on Bolton and the Supreme Court; Plus, Rove hits the road in New Jersey.” Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey have this essay online today at the web site of Newsweek magazine.
“Why Congress Must Reject Race-Based Government for Native Hawaiians”: The U.S. Senate‘s Republican Policy Committee today issued this paper analyzing S. 147, legislation that would result in the creation of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005.
“Ex-Attorneys General: Cut Convict’s Term.” The Associated Press provides a report that begins, “A day after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales defended mandatory federal sentencing laws, four of his predecessors filed a court brief Wednesday saying a Utah drug dealer received an unconstitutionally long prison term. More than 150 other ex-Justice Department officials also signed the ‘friend of the court’ brief with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which seeks to overturn a 55-year sentence given to a man for carrying a pistol during a string of marijuana deals.”
The “Sentencing Law and Policy” provides more details about this case here.
“Judge Saad Deserves a Vote”: Marshall Manson has this essay online today at CNSNews.com (via “Bench Memos“).
“College dean not liable for trying to review student newspaper”: This article appears today in The Chicago Sun-Times.
The Pantagraph of Bloomington, Illinois reports today that “Court ruling hits college newspapers; B-N schools not worried yet.”
And The Daily Texan today contains an article headlined “Court ruling may imperil student papers; Illinois decision allows officials to read content before publication” and an editorial entitled “Court threatens student voice.”
Editorials available online from The Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Yesterday’s newspaper contained an editorial entitled “California Appeal: Judicial reform that’s not” that begins, “Congress will again consider splitting the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because the nation’s largest circuit court is simply too big. But that’s really not the reason.”
And today’s newspaper contains an editorial entitled “Courthouse Shooting: Kudos and questions.”
How long should Duane Reade remain entitled to collect business interruption insurance benefits for loss of its World Trade Center drugstore in the 9/11 attacks? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued this decision today. Harvard Law Professor Charles Fried argued the case on behalf of the insurer-appellant.
The Story of Trademarking O: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today issued a ruling in a trademark battle between producers of orange-flavored alcoholic beverages.
Incest isn’t best: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has today issued a decision rejecting a state prisoner’s argument that Wisconsin’s incest statute is unconstitutional insofar as it seeks to criminalize a sexual relationship between two consenting adults.
Circuit Judge Daniel A. Manion wrote the majority opinion. And Circuit Judge Terence T. Evans added an opinion concurring in the judgment (see page 18 of the PDF file) in which he admits he doesn’t like “homosexual sodomy.”
Update: The quotation marks immediately preceding this update are meant to communicate that Judge Evans’s objection pertains to the term “homosexual sodomy”; he expresses no personal opinion on the act the term describes.
