Supreme Court – Page 109

SG Recommends Denial of Cert Petition in Corboy v. Louie

June 4, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

From SCOTUSBlog (brief here and embedded in the post):

Corboy v. Louie is a challenge to a Hawaii tax exemption that is available only to those who meet the state’s definition of “native Hawaiians.” The Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed the case on the ground that the petitioners (who are not native Hawaiians) lacked standing. The federal government agreed with the respondents that certiorari is not warranted, for several reasons. First, it regarded the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision as resting on an adequate and independent state ground. Second, and in any event, it alleged that the petitioners would not have standing under Article III. Third, and finally, the Court does not need to review the petitioners’ equal protection claim, which is not properly presented and could be affected by recent legal and political developments in Hawaii.

Petition stage briefs are here.

United States v. Samish Cert Petition

June 4, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

US v Samish Cert Petition

Samish–Pet App (final)

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1491(a)(1), or Indian Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. 1505, grants the Court of Federal Claims subject-matter jurisdiction over an Indian Tribe’s claim for money damages against the United States, based on the United States’ purported violation of sources of law that do not themselves mandate a damages remedy for their violation.

2. Whether the United States may be required to pay damages for failing to provide an Indian Tribe with a statutorily defined portion of a statutory fund, where Congress enacted limited appropriations for that fund and those appropriations were exhausted over a decade before the tribe filed its action for money damages.

Lower court materials are here.

Question and Answer with Patricia Millett at SCOTUSblog

May 25, 2012Kate Fort

Here.

If you could argue any case in history, what would it be and why?

Marbury v. Madison, of course. Just because if women had broken into the Supreme Court bar back then, we’d dominate it by now!

ICT Coverage of Senate Report on Carcieri

May 25, 2012May 25, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

An excerpt:

The report says that the decision sent “shockwaves” through Indian country “in great part because the record on which the Supreme Court based its interpretation of section 19 of the IRA was noticeably incomplete.” It adds that the decision undermines the intent of the IRA, threatens public safety and law enforcement, and impedes economic development, while increasing costly tribal and federal litigation.

Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, said in an accompanying view issued within the report that he concurs with most of Akaka’s views regarding the effects of the decision of and the purposes of the IRA, although he said he recognizes there to be other “good faith” understandings of the Supreme Court’s rationale.

“For my part, I do not claim to know enough about the government’s internal deliberations and legal strategies in the Carcieri case to say that there were deliberate or even careless omissions from the record presented to the Supreme Court,” Barrasso says. “But whether that happened or not is ‘water under the bridge’ and therefore much less important than the consequences of the decision itself.”

Continue reading →

Circuit Splits Blog on the Supreme Court’s “One Percenter” Docket

May 24, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Old news for faithful TT readers. 🙂

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Nielson v. Ketchum (Cherokee ICWA Case)

May 21, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

Our prior post on the case is here.

CourtArtist: “Low Jinks at the Court”

May 18, 2012May 18, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

In a playful break of decorum a lawyer at respondent’s table stuck the quill pen that is traditionally given to counsel behind his ear. It should be noted that this occured a half-hour before the Justices would take the bench, and spectators had just begun to be seated.

The case being argued was Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter.

Justice Scalia Under Fire for Being Too Partisan on the Bench; What’s the Big Deal?

May 16, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, via How Appealing.

Some of the criticism comes from Charles Fried, former SG under Reagan:

Scalia’s tone this year, particularly in cases involving the Obama administration, is raising new criticism over the temperament of a justice who has always relished the give-and- take of the Supreme Court’s public sessions. Some lawyers say Scalia, a 1986 appointee of Republican PresidentRonald Reagan, is crossing the line that separates tough scrutiny from advocacy.

“His questions have been increasingly confrontational,” saidCharles Fried, a Harvard Law School professor who served as Reagan’s top Supreme Court advocate. While the justice has always asked “pointed” questions, in the health-care case “he came across much more like an advocate.”

I know I’ve mentioned Justice Scalia’s use of advocates to state his position (sometimes in a less than successful way), but it seems to me there’s nothing that says he can’t do whatever he wants on the bench (short of outright abuse or something). I bet many (most?) advocates think Justice Scalia’s open and direct questioning is helpful in that it may draw out some of the other Justices’ views and allow for greater engagement with the Justices in the middle on a particular issue. It’s certainly a lot more helpful to the advocates than Justice Thomas’ remarkable swell of silence.