John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases.
As the world gathers at One First Street to watch the Term’s remaining blockbusters indelibly change life as we know it, life in the Relist Watch tidal eddy continues at its normal unrushed pace.
Two of this week’s grants paid their dues in the Relist Watch bush leagues before getting the call to the majors. Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., 11-1507, the disparate impact Fair Housing Act case, first made an appearance here last fall, before the Court CVSG’ed. Ditto (twice) for Law v. Siegel, 12-5196.
Continue reading »
The petition of the day is:
12-1055
Issue: (1) Whether prudential standing is jurisdictional, as the D.C., Second, and Sixth Circuits have held, or whether it is non-jurisdictional and can be conceded or waived by a defending party, as the Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Federal Circuits have held; (2) whether, when Congress enacts a comprehensive and integrated statute governing a single subject matter, a group of petitioners whose interests Congress expressly identified and protected are in the “zone of interests” of that statute and therefore have prudential standing to challenge an agency decision issued under it; and (3) whether regulated industries have constitutional standing to challenge a rule that, as an integral part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme, imposes substantial new burdens on those industries.
Coverage and commentary focused on the five opinions that the Court issued yesterday; this blog’s round-ups of the early coverage of the decisions can be found here and here.
Coverage of the opinion in Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., in which the Court held that an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship for would-be voters is preempted by federal law, comes from Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio (audio), Bill Mears of CNN, Jess Bravin and Tamara Audi of The Wall Street Journal, Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog, Richard Wolf of USA Today, Laura Klein Mullen at JURIST, and Aaron Kase at Lawyers.com. Commentary comes from Derek T. Muller at Excess of Democracy, while at The Daily Beast, Richard L. Hasen argues that although the decision may look like a win for federalism, it “could shift some power in elections back to the states.” Both the Brennan Center for Justice and the Constitutional Accountability Center hailed the decision as a “victory.”
Continue reading »
The petition of the day is:
12-1175
Issue: Whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a school district to pay for a residential placement that is required to treat a child’s mental illness.
This morning the Court granted four new cases and issued five opinions.
Lyle’s report on the opinion in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (including a “Plain English” summary) is here. Marty Lederman’s post examining the possible implications of the decision is here. Tejinder Singh also provided our initial analysis of that decision.
Lyle has coverage of the decision in Salinas v. Texas (including a Plain English summary). Tejinder posted early coverage of the decision this morning.
Lyle has analysis (which includes a Plain English summary) of the decision in FTC v. Actavis here. Early coverage of the decision is here.
NEW: 9:40 Mike Gottlieb has coverage of Alleyne v. United States.
Kevin Russell has our coverage of Maracich v. Spears.
Max Mallory rounded up early news coverage of today’s decisions and orders here.
UPDATED: Max has a post with video introducing the blog’s new format here.
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. That would seem to be the lesson from the Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States, which today resolved a decade-old controversy regarding the constitutional distinction between two kinds of sentences: mandatory minimums and statutory maximums.
Deputy Solicitor General Michael R. Dreeben arguing the case for the U.S. (Art Lien)
Continue reading »
Analysis
Because merely keeping quiet when police ask damaging questions is not claiming a right to silence, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, prosecutors may use that silence against the suspect at the trial. If an individual is voluntarily talking to the police, he or she must claim the Fifth Amendment right of silence, or lose it; simply saying nothing won’t do, according to the ruling.
Continue reading »
This morning the Court issued its decision in Maracich v. Spears. In a blow to plaintiffs’ attorneys, the Court narrowly construed the so-called “litigation exception” to the federal Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), ruling that the exception did not cover (and that the DPPA therefore prohibits) the use of protected data from state drivers’ databases to solicit clients.
Continue reading »
(Photo by Images Money/Creative Commons)
Analysis
Showing a strong suspicion that big drug companies with deep pockets may be using their money to shield shaky patent rights, the Supreme Court on Monday for the first time cleared the way for antitrust lawsuits to challenge payoffs between brand-name drugmakers to keep would-be competitors who make generic substitutes temporarily out of their market.
But winning such lawsuits will hardly be easy, because the Court refused to start with the premise that such payments are probably illegal. The five-to-three decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis (docket 12-416) was based far more on antitrust than patent law, and was at least a warning that settling lawsuits — at least in the drug industry — is a practice not necessarily free from risk. (Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., took no part in the ruling.)
Continue reading »
The Court, by a seven-to-two vote, today held that federal law preempts — that is to say, renders invalid — an Arizona law requiring voter registration officials to reject a voter’s application for registration if it is not accompanied by evidence of U.S. citizenship above and beyond the attestation of citizenship the applicant has made on the federal “Motor Voter” form. And in so doing, the Court definitively holds for the first time–with only Justice Thomas in dissent on this point–that Congress has substantial authority to regulate the manner in which States register voters for federal elections.
Continue reading »
Submit Event
