Busy Week at the Supreme Court

The Court began the week with a flurry granting two cert petitions on Monday in Los Angeles County v. Humphries, No. 09-350 and Harrington v. Richter, No. 09-587.   In Humprhies, the Court was asked to rectify a circuit split on whether a plaintiff, in a request for declaratory relief, must demonstrate that the constitutional violation was the result of a policy, custom or practice attributable to the local public entity. (note: the petition for writ of certiorari was printed at Cockle) In Harrington, the question is whether an attorney who fails to investigate and produce forensic evidence supporting the theory of defense—and instead presents it through other trial means—commits ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. (note: the brief in opposition was printed at Cockle)

The Court also called for the views of the Solicitor General in CSX Transportation v. Alabama Department of Revenue, No. 09-520 and Ortho Biotech Products v. United States ex rel. Duxbury, No. 09-654.

The Court’s full order list can be viewed here.

The Court also has announced four decisions so far this week. In Wilkins v. Gaddy, No. 08-10914, the Court summarily reversed a Fourth Circuit opinion holding that a prisoner’s claim of excessive force is based on the extent of the injury rather than the nature of the force.   The Court summarily reversed again in Thaler v. Haynes, No. 09-273, concluding that their precedent did not “clearly establish” that a judge must reject a demeanor-based explanation for peremptory challenge unless the judge personally observed and recalled the prospective juror’s demeanor.  Wilkins can be viewed here and Thaler here.

With both Wilkins and Thaler, the Court has continued the trend of issuing summary dispositions this Term.  Kevin Russell of SCOTUS Blog noticed this trend in a recent post which can be viewed here. 

On Tuesday, the Court released two more opinions in Hertz Corporation v. Friend, No. 08-1107, and Florida v. Powell, No. 08-1175.  Justice Breyer, writing for the Court in Hertz, stated that the “principal place of business” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction means the place where a corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate its activities, which Justice Breyer noted, will normally be its corporate headquarters.  In Powell, the Court held that Miranda warnings do not require any magic words and are sufficient if they reasonably convey to a defendant the rights Miranda was designed to protect.  Hertz can be viewed here and Powell here.

Today, the Court released a unanimous opinion in Maryland v. Shatzer, No. 08-680.  The Court held that a “break in custody” lasting two weeks allows police to resume questioning a suspect who had previously invoked his right to counsel.  The opinion can be found here.

New York Times Article on Shon Hopwood

On several occasions we have had attorneys question how Shon is so knowledgeable about the Supreme Court, but yet, is not an attorney.  An article in today’s New York Times answers that question.  The article can be viewed here.

Both Cockle and Shon want to say thank you to all the Cockle clients who have emailed us with kind comments and support.  Those emails have continued our belief that Shon’s skill set benefits our clients in filing briefs to the Supreme Court. 

 ***Several legal blogs have also taken note of Shon’s story.  See SCOTUS Blog,  Volokh Conspiracy, and Above the Law. 

Quon Topside Brief Filed

Today, the Petitioner’s Brief and Joint Appendix were filed in City of Ontario, et al. v. Quon, et al., No. 08-1332.  The Quon case involves the issue of whether the search of a government-issued text-messaging pager used by a SWAT member to send and receive hundreds of personal messages violates the Fourth Amendment right to unreasonable searches and seizures. The merits brief contends that the SWAT member had no “expectation of privacy” in the exchange of messages made through use of a government pager and that even if there was an expectation, the search in Quon was “reasonable.”

The Respondents’ Brief is due within 30 days unless an extension is granted.

The Court has not set a date for argument.