Cases for the 2010-2011 US Supreme Court Term

Also 'Merit Briefs for Unscheduled Cases 2010-2011 at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/unscheduled.html

Any case in which Ahhhhnold is the plaintiff can’t be a good thing. Have to check out some of the other cases. Some of them look potentially interesting based on the participants.

I am looking for a short synopsis of each but have not found it yet.

Explain each of these cases. Made an ironclad prediction about how they will turn out. From the decision, elaborate on all possible ramifications.

Please be verbose.

I am looking for a short synopsis of each but have not found it yet.

That would be plagiarism. Please use your own words.

You neglected to include this Docket entry regarding Kerchner v. Obama (10-446)

Not if I cite the source.

Not on the ABA page. Ask the American Bar Association or give us a better more concise list with appropriate links.

Some here:http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010

No, it is a total cop out unless you personally type the exact nature of all the cases, including all supporting documents; your thoughts and predictions on the case; and how it will impact every area of society.

Type for me. Type for me NOW.....

See http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2010/09/2010-2011-supreme-court-term-the-individual-rights-cases/

2010-2011 Supreme Court Term: The Individual Rights Cases

by Professor Will Huhn on September 21, 2010

in Constitutional Law,Equal Protection,Establishment Clause,Freedom of Religion,Freedom of Speech,Right to Privacy,SCOTUS,Wilson Huhn

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide five individual rights cases in the coming term: two freedom of speech cases, an informational privacy case, an Establishment Clause case, and an Equal Protection case.

Here are brief summaries of each of the individual rights cases that the Court has placed on its docket. In later posts I will examine these cases in more detail.

A. Freedom of Speech

1. Snyder v. Phelps, Docket No. 09-751. In this case the Court will decide whether a private figure may sue religious and political demonstrators for invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress because of the defendant’s protest at the military funeral of a family member and an internet posting broadly criticizing the family for allowing their son to join the military. I previously posted essays about this case on April 1, Snyder v. Phelps – The Military Funeral Protestor Case, and on June 4, A Response to Your Comments on Snyder v. Phelps. Now that briefs have been filed and oral argument has been scheduled, I will return to this difficult case.

2. Schwarzenegger, Gov. of California v. Entertainment Merchants, Assn., Docket No. 08-1448. A California statute prohibits the sale of certain violent video games to persons under the age of 18. The law applies where a reasonable person would find that the violent content appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors, that it is patently offensive to prevailing community standards as to what is suitable for minors, and that it causes the game as a whole to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. The challengers contend that this law is unconstitutional on its face under the First Amendment, and the lower courts ruled in their favor, enjoining enforcement of the law. In two previous cases the Supreme Court struck down statutes attempting to restrict depictions of violence: American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985) (a decision of the Seventh Circuit striking down an anti-pornography law on the ground that the law was viewpoint-based, summarily affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1986) and United States v. Stevens (2010) (invalidating a law prohibiting depictions of animal cruelty on the ground that the law was facially overbroad). I wrote about the Hudnut case on May 12 in the posting Elena Kagan on Pornography and Hate Speech. On January 19 I previewed Stevens in this post and described oral argument in this one, and on September 18 I briefly summarized the significance of the Court’s decision in Three Giant Steps Backward for the First Amendment. The California law is different from the laws that were considered in Hudnut and Stevens because the law is designed to shield minors, not adults, from depictions of violence. In a future post I will report on the arguments being raised by the challengers and the State of California.

B. Informational Privacy

3. NASA v. Nelson, Docket No. 09-530. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration instituted a comprehensive background investigation into the employees of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. The Ninth Circuit issued an injunction prohibiting the government from asking two specific questions: (1) Although employees could be required to state whether they had engaged in any illegal drug use, the Court enjoined the government from asking whether they had received counseling or treatment for drug use; and (2) the Court enjoined the government from being permitted to ask references for “any adverse information” about the employee. The Ninth Circuit based its decision on a constitutional right to informational privacy. The respondents rely on language in the Court’s opinions in Whalen v. Roe (1977) and Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977) for the proposition that there is a constitutional right to informational privacy. But in Whalen the Supreme Court upheld a New York law requiring the creation of a database about the prescription of narcotic drugs, and in Nixon it upheld the federal law that required review of Nixon’s documents before they would be returned to him.

C. Establishment Clause

4. Arizona Christian School Tutition Org., v. Winn, Docket No. 09-987, and Garriott, Director, Arizona Dept of Revenue v. Winn, Docket No. 09-991. The Arizona Tuition Tax Credit permits parents to earn a full tax credit by donating money to school tuition organizations (STOs) that award scholarships to students who attend private schools. Most of the STOs require that, to qualify for scholarships, students must attend religious schools. The tuition tax credit program was challenged by Arizona taxpayers under the Establishment Clause. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the taxpayers had standing and that the program had both the purpose and effect of promoting religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. There are two issues before the Court. First, do the taxpayers have standing to challenge the program in light of the fact that donations are made by private individuals to private organizations? Second, is the Tuition Tax Credit program constitutional under the Establishment Clause in light of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) (upholding state voucher program for children attending private and parochial schools, where parents were given the choice of sending their children to either secular or religious schools)?

D. Equal Protection

5. Flores-Villar v. United States, Docket No. 09-5801. In this case the petitioner contends that he was denied the status of United States citizenship as a result of a discriminatory federal law. Although he was born in Tijuana, Mexico, his father was a 16-year-old American citizen. Under federal law, his father could not lawfully legitimate him because his father had not been a resident of the United States for five years after the age of 14 – a physical impossibility, since his father was 16 at the time of his birth. Under the law the mother’s age at time of birth does not prevent transmission of citizenship to her non-marital child. The question that the petitioner presents to the Court is “Whether the court’s decision in Nguyen v. INS, 533 U.S. 53 (2001), permits gender discrimination that has no biological basis?”

It looks like we will have a lot to think about and argue about in the coming months.

Wilson Huhn teaches Constitutional Law at The University of Akron School of Law. Visit his website for background and information about the Constitution, as well as links to other sites devoted to Constitutional Law.

Get this: In Costco v. Omega, the Ninth Circus (mottos: “D’oh”, “Equal injustice for all”) held that the doctrine of first sale doesn’t apply to goods manufactured outside the US! Apparently “you get what you pay for” only if it was made here.

Huber vs. Wal-Mart is also hilarious. Huber contends that “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA requires the employer to award the disabled individual a vacant position for which he is qualified even if others are better qualified. Sounds like discrimination against the non-disabled to me.