Orientation to Legal Careers
SS 1002
Selected Pending Supreme Court Cases as of 1/22/2008.
In several assignments you
will be required to review a case that is currently pending before the US
Supreme Court. There are many to choose from so I have prepared a list of about
10 significant cases for you to choose from. Once you choose, you will want to
look at the material here and at the links for more information about each
case.
For your case you will be
required to first find the lower court (court of appeals or State Supreme
Court) decision that is being appealed. You will turn in a “brief” of that case
and a subsequent “news report” on the pending Supreme Court case. One of the
best available resources for this information is the Oyez/ On the Docket site
put out by Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism. [1]
Much of the descriptive material here comes straight from that site. You will
want to look at the materials they have linked for your case and you can
certainly do further research by looking up news articles or other relevant
information about your case. In many
instances you will need to use Lexis to find the relevant lower court opinion.
Current Case List – as of Jan 18, 2008
1. District of
Columbia v. Heller, 07-290
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004636.php
The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, No.
07-290, involves three District of Columbia firearms ordinances. The first,
D.C.Code Sec. 7-2502.02(a)(4), generally bars the registration of handguns. The
second, D.C. Code Sec. 22-4504(a), prohibits carrying a pistol without a
license. The third, D.C. Code Sec. 7-2507.02, requires that all lawfully owned
firearms be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked.
A group of plaintiffs brought
suit; several alleged that they wanted to keep handguns at home for
self-defense, while one wished to keep her legal shotgun assembled and unlocked
within her home. Finally, plaintiff Dick Heller, who as a D.C. special police
officer is entitled to carry a gun while working as a guard at the Federal
Judicial Center (which offices retired Supreme Court justices), was denied the
right to register his gun to keep at home.
2) U.S. v. Williams, Docket: 06-0694
Appealed From: 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals (April 6, 2006)
“The case involves Michael
Williams, who was convicted in federal district court of "pandering"
(promoting) child pornography.
The federal PROTECT Act proscribes
the pandering of "any material or purported material in a manner that
reflects the belief, or that is intended to cause another to believe" that
the material is illegal child pornography. The Act represents Congress's
attempt to outlaw sexually explicit images of children - including both images
of real children and computer-generated images of realistic virtual children.” http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004381.php
Related:Children of Porn, Dahlia
Lithwick Slate Oct 30, 2007
See http://www.slate.com/id/2176973/
and Oyez site
3 & 4) Boumediene, Lakhdar, et al. v. Bush, George, et
al. / Al Odah, Khaled, et al. v. U.S. Docket: 06-1195 / 06-1196 Appealed From: Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia
By OTD Staffhttp://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004556.php
The consolidated cases, Boumediene
v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States, Nos. 06-1195 and 06-1196, represent the
ongoing struggle between the executive and legislative branches on the one
hand, and the judicial branch on the other, to define the scope of the
government's power to conduct the war on terror.
In 2002 Lakhdar Boumediene and
five other Algerian natives were seized by Bosnian police when U.S.
intelligence officers suspected their involvement in a plot to attack the U.S.
embassy there.
The U.S. government classified the
men as enemy combatants in the war on terror and detained them at the
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, which is located on land that the U.S. leases from
Cuba.
Boumediene filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, alleging violations of the Constitution's Due Process Clause,
various statutes and treaties, the common law, and international law. The
District Court judge granted the government's motion to have all of the claims
dismissed on the ground that Boumediene, as an alien detained at an overseas
military base, had no right to a habeas petition.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit affirmed the dismissal but the Supreme Court reversed in Rasul v.
Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), which held that the habeas statute extends to
non-citizen detainees at Guantanamo….”
Note – If you choose this case you need only Brief one of the
lower court opinions.
5) Baze v. Rees, Docket: 07-5439
Appealed From: Supreme Court of
Kentucky
Oral Argument: Jan. 7, 2008
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004624.php
“In the case, Baze v. Rees, No.
07-5439, two inmates are challenging Kentucky's four-drug lethal injection
protocol. .. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of lethal
injection last year, noting that of the 38 states that permit capital
punishment, the majority use the injection method because it is
"universally recognized as the most human method of execution and the
least apt to cause unnecessary pain." Baze v. Rees, 217 S.W.3d 207, 210
(Ky. 2006).
The lethal injection method calls
for the administration of four drugs: Valium, which relaxes the convict, Sodium
Pentathol, which knocks the convict unconscious, Pavulon, which stops
breathing, and potassium chloride, which essentially puts the convict into
cardiac arrest, ultimately causing death.”
See also: SCOTUS – analysis focus
on the Mechanics of Execution
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/analysis-focus-on-the-mechanics-of-execution/
Killing me Softly” by Dahlia
Lithwick, http://www.slate.com/id/2181491/
6) Crawford v. Marion City Election Board (07-21) and
Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita
(07-25) (constitutionality of requiring voters to show a photo ID before they
may vote)
“The Supreme Court has agreed to review the constitutionality of Indiana's strict voter identification law...
The case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board… is a challenge to the 2005 Indiana law requiring all voters who cast a ballot in person to present a photo ID issued by the United States or the State of Indiana. Until July 2005, voters needed only to sign a poll book to demonstrate that their signature was consistent with the voter registration on file.
Plaintiffs, … argued that the law constituted an undue burden on the right to vote. They contended that some would-be voters who are either homeless or who do not drive -- and therefore do not need state-issued IDs -- would be prevented from voting. Moreover, they argued in their petition for certiorari, those citizens are unlikely to obtain the required identification either because of the cost or paperwork involved in doing so.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court in approving the law. Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 472 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2007). Judge Richard Posner, joined by Bush appointee Diane Sykes, wrote that the Democrats' inability to find even a single plaintiff who would testify that the law would prevent him from voting demonstrated the slight burden Indiana was imposing. Posner went on to question whether individuals get much personal reward from voting "since elections for political office at the state or federal level are never decided by just one vote." On the other side of the scale, he reasoned, was the state's legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud.
Judge Terrence Evans, an Indiana resident himself, bluntly countered that the law was a "not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic." He took the state to task for setting up barriers to the polling place at the same time that voter participation has been declining, in the name of fraud prevention, which he called a "fig leaf."” See Oyez http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004622.php
Related article: David Savage,
“Supreme Court will hear Voter ID case” Jan 7, 2008 LA Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-voterid7jan07,1,146371.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
For more case information see: http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Bd.
7)Kennedy v. Louisiana Docket 07-343
“For three decades, the
Supreme Court has permitted the death penalty only for the crime of murder.
Kennedy, a Louisiana man under death sentence filed a new appeal asking the
Court to maintain that limit, barring his execution for the crime of rape of a
child. The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, ruled on May 22 that the Supreme
Court’s 1977 decision barring capital punishment for rape (Coker v. Georgia)
does not apply when the victim is a child under age 12.” http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Kennedy_v._Louisiana
8: Crawford v. Nashville, Discrimination and Retaliation 06-1595
http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004676.php
The Supreme Court has agreed to determine whether employees are protected from being fired or demoted if they cooperate with an internal investigation of a supervisor who is accused of discrimination.
In response to an internal investigation of Hughes, Crawford, who had worked for local government for 30 years, told them that she had seen Hughes grab his crotch in her presence, that he had asked to see her breasts and that, on one occasion, he grabbed her head and tried to force it into his groin. At the time, Hughes was responsible for investigating all claims of sexual harassment in the school district.
Crawford's lawsuit alleges that, while the internal probe concluded with no disciplinary action against Hughes, she and two other female employees who agreed to take part in the investigation were fired. Crawford was accused of drug use and other misconduct, but she said the case against her was never pursued.
Crawford filed suit, alleging she had been dismissed in retaliation for what she told investigators about Hughes. That retaliation, she asserted, violated section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that participation in an employer's internal investigation is not protected by section 704(a). To be protected by section 704(a), the court held, a sexual harassment victim must file a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Once an employer has initiated an investigation, witnesses -- even witnesses who object to having been sexually harassed -- fall outside the protection of the act.
In November 2006, a three-judge panel on the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that complaining about sexual harassment in response to an internal investigation is not protected. http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004676.php
Scotus Article: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncategorized/conference-call-employer-retaliation-again-in-the-spotlight/
6th Circuit Opinion
here: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0828n-06.pdf
LA Times Article here: http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-na-scotusharass19jan19,1,3938295.story?coll=la-headlines-business-careers&ctrack=5&cset=true
“The case, Davis v Federal Election Commission, No. 07-552, was brought by Jack Davis, the wealthy Democratic candidate for Congress from New York's 26th District. The campaign reform law calls for a three-judge panel of the federal district court in the District of Columbia to preside at the trial level, with a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
Davis had argued in the district court that the law, which essentially raises the contribution cap for those running against self-financed candidates, on its face violated both the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
The district court rejected Davis's argument. The court explained that the
statute did not violate the First Amendment because it did not impede Davis's
right to spend money in support of his political message. The fact that it
relaxed the financial strictures on Davis's opponent, the court reasoned, did
not impair Davis and led to a higher level of speech in the race overall. The
district court compared the relaxation of contribution limits for those facing
wealthy opponents to constitutionally valid statutes permitting higher
contribution limits for candidates who undertake publicly financed campaigns.” From Oyez at http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004666.php
“The Court has agreed to decide whether a musician who lost her arm after receiving an anti-nausea drug via an off-label injection method may recover under Vermont tort law despite FDA approval of the drug's label.
The case, Wyeth v. Levine, No. 06-1249, arose when Diana Levine went to the hospital suffering from nausea associated with a migraine headache. Physicians initially gave her Phenergan, a drug manufactured by Wyeth, by injecting it into her muscles. When her nausea persisted, they gave her the drug using the so-called "IV push" method, involving injection of the drug into her vein. They bypassed administration via an IV drip. The drug made contact with her arteries, leading to gangrene and forcing doctors to amputate her arm.
The Phenergan label had been approved by the FDA in 1955, and re-evaluated
and approved in the late 1980s. Wyeth knew that if the drug reached the
arteries it could cause gangrene. Its approved label cautioned that if the drug
were administered by and IV drip, care should be taken to avoid arterial
exposure and noted the risk. The label did not mention the IV push method of
injection, and evidence suggested that the FDA did not evaluate whether the
label should address the risk associated with the IV push method.”From Oyez
site http://docket.medill.northwestern.edu/archives/004674.php
11 Cert Denied: Abigail
Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs, et al. v. Eschenbach,
Docket: 07-444
Issue: Whether, under the Due
Process Clause, the government may prevent terminally ill patients from
accessing medication that has passed the first phase of the FDA approval
process.
See also LA Times, Jan 18, 2008
“Justices Uphold Ban on Test Drugs for the Dying” http://www.latimes.com/business/careers/work/la-na-scotus15jan15,1,7282895.story?coll=la-headlines-business-careers
[1] In addition the SCOTUS blog posts reliable commentary and links to cases pending before the Supreme court -- see http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/ or Scotus WIKI – with links to all cases at http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Case_Index