Court News for the First Week of March

It was another hectic week at the Court, starting with an order in Kiyemba v. Obama, No 08-1234, where the Court remanded “in light of new developments.”  One of those developments was the fact that all seven petitioners were offered settlements in other countries.  

On Monday, the Court granted certiorari in Michigan v. Bryant, No. 09-150, a case calling for further development on what constitutes a “testimonial” statement under the Confrontation Clause.  The Court addressed the reach of testimonial statements last Term in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, No. 07-591, and upheld that decision in a one-page order this January in Briscoe v. Virginia, No. 07-11191. 

Tuesday saw the Court hand down three decisions.  In Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick No. 08-103, the Court held that the failure of a copyright holder to possess registration does not prevent federal court subject matter jurisdiction to decide infringement claims over works that are not registered.  The Court, in Johnson v. United States, No. 08-6925, ruled that a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act means a crime requiring the use of physical force.  In Mac’s Shell Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products Company; Shell Oil Products Company v. Mac’s Shell Service, Nos. 08-240; 08-372, the Court limited the rights of franchise holders to file an action after a franchise agreement’s termination. 

This week oral arguments were conducted in two closely watched cases of the Term.  The Justices heard argument on Monday in Skilling v. United States, No. 08-1394.  Skilling presents the Court with two issues: 1) what kind of trial court measures should be taken where negative pre-trial publicity pollutes the jury pool; and 2) whether the honest services wire fraud statute is unconstitutional.   SCOTUS Blog provided excellent coverage of the Skilling argument. 

What some have labeled the biggest case of the Term was argued on Tuesday.  The Court heard argument on whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states in McDonald et al., v. Chicago, et al., No. 08-1521. (Note: both the petition and petitioner’s merits brief were printed at Cockle).   The mainstream media covered McDonald heavily, including pieces in the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, Wall Street Journal, and NPR.  Lyle Denniston of SCOTUS Blog also had an illuminating post on the McDonald argument.

The Court conferences today to decide the fate of numerous cert petitions.  The Court’s orders will most likely be released Monday of next week.

Oral Argument Schedule for January through March 2010

The Supreme Court has set the oral argument schedule for January, February and March of this year.  Among the standout cases are:

• Briscoe v. Virginia, No. 07-11191 (argument date January 11th)    In Briscoe, the Court will be confronted with the question of what procedure is required by the Confrontation Clause with regard to lab reports and whether its ruling just last Term in Melendiaz-Diaz v. Massachusetts, No. 07-591, should be reconsidered.  
• American Needle v. NFL, No. 08-661 (argument date January 13th)  The question in this case is whether the NFL has violated anti-trust legislation through its exclusive licensing agreement with Reebok. Virtually every major sports league in the country has sided with the NFL. 
• Skilling v. United States, No. 08-1394 (argument date March 1st)   The case involves two issues:  (1) whether former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling’s actions constituted federal honest services fraud; (2) whether the pre-trial publicity surrounding the case violated Skilling’s right to a fair trial.
• McDonald v. City of Chicago, No. 08-1521 (argument date March 2nd)  Perhaps the biggest case of the year will decide whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies with equal force to state law.  In McDonald, the Court could reconsider a notorious nineteenth century ruling.
• Kiyemba v. Obama, No. 08-1234 (argument date March 23rd)     The Court will decide whether habeas corpus courts can release Guantanamo Bay prisoners from custody, and specifically, release from custody inside the United States. 

Overall for the Term, 75 argument slots have been filled (this includes Citizens United, No. 08-205, which is a carryover from last Term) and all but three of the cases granted for this Term have been scheduled for argument.

Court Grants Guantanamo Bay Detainee Case

The Supreme Court granted three cases yesterday.  One of those cases (Kiyemba, et al., v. Obama, et al. No. 08-1234) will decide whether courts possess the authority  to release  Guantanamo Bay detainees to live on United States soil.    

Additionally, the Court vided two cases together for argument. The cases Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha v. Regal-Beloit, No. 08-1553 and Union Pacific Railroad v. Regal-Beloit, No. 08-1554, will be argued before the term ends next year.

The full order list is available here.