|
2002
Supreme Court Docket Summary
By Thomas
Goldstein
2002
Monthly Sittings: Oct
| Nov | Dec | Jan
| Feb | Mar | Apr
| Summ Rev | Dismissed
October
2002 Case List As of June 26, 2002
Cases
decided after argument: 73
Summary reversals: 8
ll Summary affirmances: 5
ll Dismissed cases: 6
DECEMBER SITTING
-
United
States v. White Mountain Apache Tribe (01-1067)
(4/22; 12/2; 3/4) (CA FC; Aff.; 5-4)
Decision;
Docket;
Findlaw
The White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe
may sue the United States in the Court of Federal Claims for
money damages for breach of fiduciary duty to manage land
held in trust for the tribe but occupied by the Government.
General Civil, Non-Business, Statutory
Majority: [DS] & JPS, SOC, RBG, SGB
Concurrence: [RBG] & SGB
Dissent: [CT] & WHR, AS, CT [The federal statute putting
the land in trust for the Tribe cannot fairly be interpreted
as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for damages.]
-
United
States v. Navajo Nation (01-1375) (6/3; 12/2, 3/4)
(CA FC; Rev.; 6-3)
Decision;
Docket;
Findlaw
An Indian tribe cannot sue the United
States for a breach of trust under the Indian Mineral Leasing
Act.
General Civil, Non-Business, Statutory
Majority: [RBG] & WHR, AS, AMK, CT, SGB
Dissent: [DS] & JPS, SOC [The United States obligations
under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act are sufficient to allow
an Indian tribe to sue for breach of trust.]
-
Meyer
v. Holley (01-1120) (5/20; 12/3, 1/22) (CA9; Rev.;
Unan.)
Decision;
Docket;
Findlaw
The Fair Housing Act, which forbids
racial discrimination in the rental or sale of housing, imposes
liability for unlawful discrimination on a real estate corporation,
but not on its officers or directors.
General Civil; Business; Statutory
Opinion: [SGB] & Unan.
-
Washington
State Dept. of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Guardianship
of Keffeler (01-1420) (5/28, 12/3, 2/25) (Wash.; Rev.;
Unan.)
Decision;
Docket;
Findlaw
The state may use the Social Security benefits
of children in foster care to reimburse itself for some of
the costs of its foster care program consistent with the Social
Security Act.
General Civil, Non-Business, Statutory
Opinion: [DS] & Unan.
-
Scheidler
v. NOW, Inc. (01-1118) (4/22; 12/4, 2/26) (CA7;
Rev.; 8-1) with Operation Rescue v. NOW, Inc., (01-1119)
(4/22; 12/4; 2/26) (CA7; Rev.; 8-1)
Decision;
Docket
& 01-1118;
Findlaw
Abortion protestors efforts to
interfere with the operation of abortion clinics, though criminal,
did not constitute extortion under federal law, and therefore
did not violate RICO.
Criminal; Non-Business; Statutory
Majority: [WHR] & SOC, AS, AMK, DS, CT, RBG, SGB
Concurrence: [RBG] & SGB [Other legislation (the Freedom
of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act) now deals with the problem of conspiracies
to interfere
with abortion clinics.]
Dissent: [JPS] [RICO has traditionally been construed broadly
by the federal
courts to encompass this type of conduct.]
-
Chavez
v. Martinez (01-1444) (6/3; 12/4;5/27) (CA9; Rev.;
6-3)
Decision;
Docket;
Findlaw
Coercive interrogation of the defendant
did not violate his Fifth Amendment rights, because the evidence
from the interrogation was not used against him in a criminal
case. However, the defendant may be able to pursue a substantive
due process claim.
Civil Rights, Non-Business; Constitutional
Plurality: [CT], WHR, SOC, AS [as to Part I]; Majority: [DS],
SGB, AMK, RBG, JPS [as to Part II].
Concurrences: in the judgment with respect to Part I [DS]
& SGB [Defendants
Fifth Amendment rights were not violated, but defendant
may pursue
substantive due process claim on remand.]
in the judgment [AS] [Defendant has no Fifth Amendment
or substantive
due process claim, and in any event substantive due process
claim was
waived]
in part and dissenting in part [JPS] [interrogation violated
defendants due
process rights]
in part and dissenting in part [AMK] & JPS, RGB [as
to Part II and III]
[Coercive interrogation itself violates Fifth Amendment,
even if the
evidence is not later introduced in a criminal proceeding]
in part and dissenting in part [RBG].
-
Boeing
Co. v. United States, (01-1209) (5/28; 12/9; 3/4)
(CA9; Aff.; 7-2) with United States v. Boeing Sales
Corp., (01-1382) (5/28; 12/9; 3/4) (CA9; Aff.; 7-2)
Decision;
Docket
& 01-1382;
Findlaw
The Secretary of the Treasury may classify
research and development expenses as non-allocable to Foreign
Sales Corporations or Domestic International Sales Corporations.
General Civil, Business, Statutory
Majority: [JPS] & WHR; SOC, AMK, DS, RBG, SGB
Dissent: [CT] & AS
-
Brown
v. Legal Foundation of Washington (01-1325) (6/10;
12/9; 3/26) (CA9; Aff.; 5-4)
Decision;
Docket;
Findlaw
A state law requiring that client funds
that could not otherwise generate net earnings for the client
be deposited in an IOLTA account and used to pay for legal
services to the needy does not violate the Takings Clause.
General Civil, Business, Constitutional
Majority: [JPS] & SOC, DS, RBG, SGB
Dissents: [AS] & WHR, AMK, CT [The petitioners are entitled
to the fair market value of the interest generated by their
funds held in interest on lawyers trust accounts.]
[AMK] [The unconstitutional taking in this case may also lead
to an unconstitutional form of compelled speech.]
-
Branch
v. Smith (01-1437) (6/10; 12/10; 3/31) (S.D. Miss.;
Aff.; 7-2)
Decision;
Docket
& 01-1596;
Findlaw
The District Court properly enjoined
the enforcement of a state court redistricting plan and properly
fashioned its own plan.
General Civil; Non-Business; Statutory
Majority: [AS] &Unan.; & WHR, AMK, RBG.
Concurrences: [JPS] & DS; SGB;
in part & dissent in part [SOC] & CT [The District
Court should have ordered at-large elections for the entire
state congressional delegation.]
-
Borden
Ranch v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs. (01-1243) (6/10;
12/10, 12/16) (CA9; Aff.; 4-4)
Decision;
Docket;
Findlaw
Affirmed by an equally divided Court.
a. Deep ripping, an activity that disgorges
and redeposits soil in wetlands and waters of the United States
to convert those areas to dry land, may result in a discharge
of a pollutant for purposes of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.
b. Petitioners'
deep ripping of a wetland did not qualify for the conditional
exemption from regulation under § 404(f) of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344(f). 3, and each violation of the
Clean Water Act should be counted in determining the maximum
civil penalty under § 309(d) of the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. 1319(d)
General
Civil, Business, Statutory
-
Virginia
v. Black (01-1107) (5/28; 12/11; 4/7) (Va. Sup.
Ct.; Rev. in part; 6-3)
Decision;
Docket;
Findlaw
A state may prohibit cross-burning carried
out with intent to intimidate.
Criminal, Non-Business, Constitutional
Majority: [SOC] & WHR, JPS, AS, SGB (as to Parts I, II,
III)
Plurality: WHR, JPS & SGB (as to Parts IV and V) [The
statutes presumption of intent to intimidate from the
act of cross burning is unconstitutional].
Concurrences: [JPS] [Cross burning with an intent to intimidate
is unprotected by the First Amendment]
[AS] & CT [The case should be remanded to the Virginia
Supreme Court for an authoritative interpretation of the presumption
provision
in part and dissenting in part [DS] & AMK; RBG [The
statute creates an unconstitutional content-based prohibition
on speech, which cannot be saved by severing the prima facie
finding of intent.]
Dissent: [CT] [The Virginia statute prohibits only conduct
and not speech, and no First Amendment analysis is therefore
necessary. The statutory presumption of intent to intimidate
is an inference, not an irrebuttable presumption, and therefore
does not offend Due Process]
- State
Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell (01-1289)
(6/3; 12/11; 4/7) (Utah Sup. Ct.; Rev.; 6-3)
Decision;
Docket;
Findlaw
A punitive damages award of $145 million,
where full compensatory damages are $1 million, is excessive
and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
General Civil, Non-Business, Constitutional
Majority: [AMK] & WHR, JPS, SOC, DS, SGB
Dissents: [AS] [The Due Process Clause provides no substantive
protections against "excessive "or "unreasonable
"awards of punitive damages."] [CT] [same]
[RBG] [The court should not substitute its judgment for that
of state legislatures in the appropriateness of punitive damages
awards.]
2002
Monthly Sittings: Oct | Nov
| Dec | Jan | Feb
| Mar | Apr
| Summ Rev | Dismissed
|
|