2002 Supreme Court Docket Summary
— By Thomas Goldstein

• Price v. Vincent (02-524) (1/13; 4/21; 5/19) (CA6; Rev.; Unan.)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  A state supreme court decision rejecting defendant’s double jeopardy claim after trial judge changed his mind and allowed first degree murder charge to be submitted to the jury was not an objectively unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent, and therefore the court of appeals should not have granted defendant’s habeas petition.
  Criminal; Non-Business; Constitutional
  Opinion: [WHR] & Unan.
  
  
• Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa (02-679) (1/13; 4/21; 6/09) (CA9; Aff.; Unan.)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  A plaintiff alleged sex discrimination under Title VII need not provide direct evidence of discrimination in order to get a "mixed motive" jury instruction, which informs the jury that it may find for the plaintiff if the defendant had some lawful reasons for its actions, so long as sex was a motivating factor as well.
  Civil Rights; Business; Statutory
  Opinion: [CT] & Unan.
  Concurrence: [SOC]
  
  
• Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Bazzle (02-634) (1/13; 4/22) (S.C.; Rev.; 5-4)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  Whether an arbitration contract governed by the Federal Arbitration Act permits class arbitration procedures is a question for the arbitrator, and not the courts, to resolve.
  General Civil; Business; Statutory
  Plurality: [SGB] & AS, DS, RBG.
  Concurrence: in the judgment and dissenting in part [JPS].
  Dissents: [WHR] & SOC, AMK [This question is for courts to decide]
  [CT] (Federal Arbitration Act does not apply to cases in state court.]
  
  
• Hillside Dairy v. Lyons (01-950) (1/13; 4/22; 6/09) (CA9) & Ponderosa Dairy v. Lyons (01-1018) (1/13; 4/22) (CA9; Rev.; 8-1)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  California’s milk pricing and pooling regulations are not exempted from Commerce Clause scrutiny by the Federal Agriculture and Reform Act of 1996. On remand, the court should consider the merits of petitioners’ claim that the regulations discriminate against out-of-state parties in violation of the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
  General Civil; Non-Business; Statutory/Constitutional
  Majority: [JPS] & Unan. [as to Parts I and III]; [JPS] & WHR, SOC, AS, AMK, DS, RBG, SGB [as to Part II]
  Dissent: concurring in parts I and III and dissenting as to Part II [CT] [The negative Commerce Clause has no basis in the text of the Constitution, makes little sense, and has proved virtually unworkable in application.]
  
  
• American Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi (02-722) (1/13; 4/23;6/23) (CA9; Rev.; 5-4)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  California’s Holocaust Victims Insurance Relief Act, which requires insurance companies doing business in California to disclose the details of any insurance contracts they issued in Europe between 1920 and 1945, interferes with the President’s conduct of foreign policy and is therefore preempted.
  General Civil; Business; Constitutional
  Majority: [DS] & WHR, SOC, AMK, SGB.
  Dissent: [RBG] & JPS, AS, CT [The federal government has not clearly stated that the nation must speak with "one voice" on this issue, so California’s law cannot be preempted.]
  
  
• Black & Decker Disability Plan v. Nord (02-469) (1/13; 4/28; 5/27) (CA9; Rev.; Unan.)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  ERISA does not require plan administrators to accord special deference to the opinions of treating physicians when making benefit determinations.
  General Civil; Business; Statutory
  Opinion: [RBG] & Unan.
  
  
• Entergy La., Inc. v. Louisiana Public Serv. Comm. (02-299) (1/17; 4/28; 6/02) (La.; Rev.; Unan.)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  A tariff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that delegates discretion to a regulated entity to determine the precise cost allocations among affiliated energy companies preempts a state utility board order judging those costs imprudent.
  General Civil, Business, Statutory
  Opinion: [CT] & Unan.
  
  
• Georgia v. Ashcroft (02-182) (1/17; 4/29;6/26)(D. D.C.; Rev.; 5-4)
  Docket; Findlaw
  Private parties may intervene in a case brought under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, provided they satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. The court below failed to consider all of the relevant factors in assessing the proposed plan.
  General Civil; Non-Business; Statutory
  [SOC] & WHR; AMK; AS; CT.
  Concurrences: [AMK] [CT]
  Dissent: [DS] & JPS; RBG; SGB.
  
  
• Fitzgerald v. Racing Assoc. of Central Iowa (02-695) (1/17; 4/29; 6/09) (Iowa; Rev.; Unan.)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  Iowa’s differential tax rate on slot machines at racetracks and slot machines on riverboats does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
  General Civil; Business; Constitutional
  Opinion: [SGB] & Unan.
  
  
• Virginia v. Hicks (02-371) (1/24; 4/30; 6/16)(Va.; Rev.; Unan.)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  A Housing Authority policy that authorized police to arrest non-residents for trespass after having been served is not facially invalid under the First Amendment’s overbreadth doctrine.
  Criminal, Non-Business, Constitutional
  Opinion: [AS] & Unan.
  Concurrence: [DS] & SGB [The opinion does not address how to go about
  identifying the scope of the relevant law for purposes of overbreadth
  analysis.]
  
  
• Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson (02-306) (1/24; 4/30; 6/02) (CA11; Rev.; 7-2)
  Decision; Docket; Findlaw
  A claim for usury against a national bank falls under the National Bank Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 85-86, and therefore can be removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
  General Civil, Business, Statutory
  Majority: [JPS] & WHR, SOC, AMK, DS, RBG, SGB
  Dissent: [AS] & CT [It is up to Congress, not the federal courts, "to decide when the risk of state-court error with respect to a matter of federal law becomes so unbearable as to justify divesting the state courts of authority to decide the federal matter." ]