In a capital habeas matter, circuit court of appeals' order reversing a district court's order granting habeas relief on a Sixth Amendment claim is vacated and remanded where the circuit court erred in disposing of petitioner's remaining, unaddressed challenges to his death sentence without explanation of any sort.
Read Corcoran v. Levenhagen, No. 08-10495
Appellate Information
Filed October 20, 2009
Judges
Per Curiam
In an action claiming that certain state fair-lending laws were preempted by the National Bank Act (NBA) and accompanying regulations, an injunction in favor of Plaintiffs is affirmed in part, where the state's threatened issuance of executive subpoenas was an improper exercise of "supervisory power". However, the judgment is reversed in part where a federal regulation purporting to pre-empt state law enforcement is not a reasonable interpretation of the NBA.
Read Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass'n., L.L.C., No. 08-453
Appellate Information
Argued April 28, 2009
Decided June 29, 2009
Judges
Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Thomas, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Counsel
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Barbara D. Underwood, Counsel of Record, Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY
Attorneys for Respondents:
Seth P. Waxman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC
Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Robinson B. Lacy, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY
In a Title VII action claiming that a city discriminated against white firefighter candidates for a promotion by discarding their test results based on a statistical racial disparity, summary judgment for Defendants is reversed where the city's action in discarding the tests violated Title VII, because a threshold showing of a significant statistical disparity is far from a strong basis in evidence that the city would have been liable under Title VII had it certified the test results.
Read Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07-1428
Appellate Information
Argued April 22, 2009
Decided June 29, 2009
Judges
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Scalia, concurring.
Justice Alito, concurring.
Justice Ginsburg, dissenting.
Counsel
For Petitioners:
Karen Lee Torre, Law Offices of Norman A. Pattis LLC, New Haven, CT
For Respondents:
Christopher J. Meade, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC
Richard A. Roberts, Nuzzo & Roberts, L.L.C., One Town Center, Cheshire, CT
Defendant's drug conviction is reversed, where the trial court's admission of the prosecution's certificates by laboratory analysts, stating that material seized by police and connected to Defendant was cocaine of a certain quantity, violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.
Read Melendez-Diaz v. Mass., No. 07-591
Appellate Information
Argued November 10, 2008
Decided June 25, 2009
Judges
Scalia, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.
Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Counsel
For Petitioner:
Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA
For Respondent:
James J. Arguin, Assistant Attorney General, Boston, MA
Martha Coakley, Attorney General, Boston, MA
Susanne G. Reardon, Office of the Attorney General, Boston, MA
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging an unlawful search of a student, the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the search of Plaintiff's underwear violated the Fourth Amendment because the facts did not give school officials reasonable suspicion to search her underwear.
Read Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1. v. Redding
Appellate Information
Argued April 21, 2009
Decided June 25, 2009
Judges
Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part
Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Counsel
For Petitioner:
Matthew W. Wright, Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC, Phoenix, AZ
For Respondent:
Adam B. Wolf, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA
In an action based on Defendant's alleged refusal to pay maintenance and cure to Plaintiff for injuries he suffered while working on Defendant's tugboat, the District Court's order holding that punitive damages were available is affirmed where punitive damages for the willful and wanton disregard of the maintenance and cure obligation remain available as a matter of general maritime law.
Read Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend, No. 08-214
Appellate Information
Argued March 2, 2009
Decided June 25, 2009
Justices
Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Counsel
David W. McCreadie, Lau Lane Pieper Conley & McCreadie, P.A., Tampa, FL
In a motion by state legislators to purge the District Court's contempt order holding that the state was providing inadequate English Language-Learner instruction in the school district at issue, the denial of the motion is reversed, where the lower courts did not engage in the proper analysis under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5), because they did not analyze whether changed circumstances warranted reexamination of the original judgment.
Read Horne v. Flores, No. 08-289
Appellate Information
Argued April 20, 2009
Decided June 25, 2009
Justices
Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
Breyer, J., delivered a dissenting opinion.
Counsel
For Petitioner:
Eric J. Bistrow, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A., Phoenix, AZ
Kenneth W. Starr, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Los Angeles, CA
Respondents:
Kimberly Anne Demarchi, Lewis & Roca LLP, Phoenix, AZ
Sri Srinivasan, O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, Washington, DC
Timothy M. Hogan, Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, Phoenix, AZ
In an action seeking relief under the "bailout" provision in Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act, which allows a "political subdivision" to be released from the preclearance requirements if certain conditions are met, the dismissal of the complaint is reversed where the Act must be interpreted to permit all political subdivisions, including Plaintiff district, to seek to bail out from the preclearance requirements.
Read Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. 1. v. Holder, No. 08-322
Appellate Information
Certiorari to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Argued April 29, 2009
Decided June 22, 2009
Judges
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
Counsel
Attorneys for Appellant:
Gregory S. Coleman, Yetter, Warden & Coleman L.L.P., Austin, TX
Attorneys for Appellees:
Debo P. Adegbile, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, New York, NY
Renea Hicks, Law Office of Max Renea Hicks, Austin, TX
Elena Kagan, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, Washington, DC
Paul R.Q. Wolfson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC
Nina Perales, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, San Antonio, TX
Summary
In an action challenging a hearing officer's order reimbursing fees paid by Plaintiff's parents for his special education program under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), the award is affirmed, where IDEA authorizes reimbursement for private special-education services when a public school fails to provide a free appropriate public education and the private-school placement is appropriate, regardless of whether the child previously received special-education services through the public school.
Read Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., No. 08-305
Appellate Information
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Argued April 28, 2009
Decided June 22, 2009
Judges
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Souter, dissenting.
Counsel
For Petitioner:
Gary Feinerman, Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL
For Respondent:
David B. Salmons, Bingham McCutchen LLP, Washington, DC
Mary E. Broadhurst, Eugene, OR
Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, Public Citizen Litigation Group, Washington, DC
In an action against the Army Corps of Engineers challenging the Corps' grant of a permit to a mining company to discharge waste materials, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed where the Corps, not the EPA, had the authority to permit the discharge, and the Corps' interpretation of Clean Water Act regulations was entitled to deference.
Read Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, No. 07-984.
Appellate Information
Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Argued January 12, 2009'
Decided June 22, 2009
Judges
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.
Justice Breyer, concurring.
Justice Scalia, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Souter join, dissenting.
Counsel
For Petitioner: Jonathan S. Franklin, Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.., Washington, DC. Theodore B. Olson, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC
For Respondent: Elena Kagan, United States Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC. David C. Crosby, David C. Crosby, P.C., Juneau, AK. Thomas S. Waldo, Earthjustice, Juneau, AK
See All FindLaw Blogs >>
Go To U.S. Supreme Court Main Page >>
