Texas Execution

This is Richard Cobb. He is a 29 year old convicted for a murder in 2002. More then eleven years ago in East Texas he shot Kenneth Vandever with a 20-gauge shotgun killing him and also shot two women who survived. Beunka Adams was his partner in the murder who was executed last year. “KWTX reported that Adams showed that he gave the orders during the holdup and carried out the abductions. Assistant Attorney General Ellen Stewart-Klein said that Adams had “total participation in a capital murder and the moral culpability required of one sentenced to death,” the station reported” “Mr. Cobb has never disputed his involvement in the crimes, but explained that he acted out of fear of Adams, who orchestrated the crimes,” a court statement reads, according to Reuters. This is the fourth execution in Texas this year. It must be seen as not out of the ordinary, considering no press was sent to report the event. Texas has performed 496 executions since 1976, making it the leader in capital punishment.

Cobb had an interesting last moment of life, his final words. Here is where things get weird. Initially his last words were, “Life is death, death is life. I hope that someday this absurdity that humanity has come to will come to an end. Life is too short. I hope anyone that has negative energy towards me will resolve that. Life is too short to harbor feelings of hatred and anger. That’s it, warden.” But moments after being injected with the lethal chemicals he turned his head looking up at the warden and said, “Wow! That is great. That is awesome. Thank you, warden!” he then slumped his head on the pillow and was officially declared dead about fifteen minutes later.

“The drug used in Texas is pentobarbital, a barbiturate that has been withdrawn by its Danish maker, which will not sell it for use in executions.  That decision has several capital punishment states scrambling for a new supply, but the Texas Department of Criminal Justice apparently stocked up before the ban.  According to Austin’s American Statesman, the agency may have spent as much as $50,000 on execution chemicals and supplies.”

http://www.murderatthesupremecourt.com/blog

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/27790-texas-execution-wow-exclaimed-by-inmate-during-lethal-injection/

Moncrieffe v Holder

     Moncrieffe is a Jamaican citizen who is legally here in the US and was arrested for having  1.3 grams of marijuana in his car. "He pleaded guilty under Georgia law to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The Federal Government sought to deport him, reasoning that his conviction was an aggravated felony because possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is a CSA offense, 21 U. S. C. §841(a), punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, §841(b)(1)(D). An Immigration Judge ordered Moncrieffe removed, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. The Fifth Circuit denied Moncrieffe’s petition for review, rejecting his reliance on §841(b)(4), which makes marijuana distribution punishable as a misdemeanor if the offense involves a small amount for no remuneration, and holding that the felony provision, §841(b)(1)(D), provides the default punishment for his offense."
     "Under the categorical approach generally employed to determine whether a state offense is comparable to an offense listed in the INA, see, e.g., Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U. S. 29–38, the noncitizen’s actual conduct is irrelevant. Instead “the state statute defining the crime of conviction” is examined to see whether it fits within the “generic” federal definition of a corresponding aggravated felony. Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U. S. 183. The state offense is a categorical match only if a conviction of that offense “ ‘necessarily’ involved . . . facts equating to [the] generic [federal offense].” Shepard v. United States, 544 U. S. 13. Because this Court examines what the state conviction necessarily involved and not the facts underlying the case, it presumes that the conviction “rested upon [nothing] more than the least of th[e] acts” criminalized, before determining whether even those acts are encompassed by the generic federal offense. Johnson v. United States, 559 U. S. 133."




http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-702

Maryland Repeals the Death Penalty

Governor Martin O’Malley signed legislation today eliminating capital punishment in Maryland. Maryland is the 18^th state to make this decision. O’Malley has been fighting for this decision for six years. The signing was witnessed by many who are opponents of the death penalty including the first person to escape the death penalty by DNA testing, Kirk Bloodworth.

Maryland’s last execution was in 2005. However, there are currently five men condemned to the death penalty. The legislation does do not go in effect until October 1^st. The five men are not affected by this decision but O’Malley says he will consider commutation for them but in individual cases. "The notice shall be considered withdrawn and it shall be considered a notice to seek a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under specified circumstances," according to a press release from the office of Governor Martin O'Malley.

"Maryland has effectively eliminated a policy that is proven not to work. Evidence shows that the death penalty is not a deterrent, it cannot be administered without racial bias, and it costs three times as much as life in prison without parole," the office said in a statement.
"Furthermore, there is no way to reverse a mistake if an innocent person is put to death. Working together with law enforcement partners, Maryland has driven down violent crime and homicides to three decade lows."

http://www.murderatthesupremecourt.com/blog

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/us/maryland-death-penalty/index.html

McBurney v Young

     In this case, Mark McBurney and Robert Hurlbert were denied VFOIA (Virginia Freedom of Information Act) because they were not citizens. The VFOIA states that “all public records shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizen of the Commonwealth.” "After being denied, Petitioners filed a complaint against the respondents, the agencies which denied their VFOIA requests, with the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Petitioners argued that the VFOIA’s citizens-only provision violated their rights under the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and Hurlbert’s rights under the dormant Commerce Clause. The District Court granted summary judgment for the agencies, which was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Petitioners now appeal, arguing that Virginia’s citizens-only restriction violates the dormant Commerce Clause because it discriminates against out-of state economic interests both facially and in effect, and also violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause because it creates an inequality in access to information. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact whether a state is required allow all United States citizens to access their public records. "
     "The decision in this case will determine whether the VFOIA’s citizens-only provision is unconstitutional. If it is, all states will be required to allow equal access of public records to citizens from other states. Both sides disagree as to whether the citizens-only provision contains sufficient loopholes and exceptions to allow everyone who needs public information to obtain it and whether prohibiting the citizens-only provision would be too costly for the state."

"In an unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held that Virginia’s FOIA does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause or the dormant Commerce Clause."



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-17

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/mcburney-v-young-post-decision-scotuscast

Boyer v Louisiana

     In the case, Boyer v Louisiana, Jonathan Edward Boyer was charged for murder back in 2002, and did not get a trial until 2009. The court convicted Boyer for murder and he is now arguing that the state of Louisiana violated his 6th amendment right to a speedy trial. "Specifically, Boyer alleges that five years of delay were caused entirely by Louisiana’s failure to fund his appointed, capitally-certified counsel and that this funding failure should be weighed against the state. Louisiana counters that Boyer has no constitutional right to capitally-certified counsel and that Boyer, not the State, is responsible for the delay. In resolving the question presented, the Supreme Court will determine whether a state’s failure to fund appointed, specially-qualified counsel for an indigent capital defendant should be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes. The decision may substantially affect indigent defendants’ constitutional rights as well as state procedures for providing indigent capital defense."
     "Boyer appealed his convictions on numerous grounds, including violations of his statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rights. In particular, Boyer alleged the seven-year delay between his original indictment and trial, during which the State held him in jail without bond, caused his mental deterioration and the loss of witnesses, including William Gallier, thereby prejudicing his defense. The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed Boyer’s convictions and sentences, and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Boyer’s petition for a writ of certiorari. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, limited to the question of whether Louisiana’s failure to fund Boyer’s capitally-certified counsel for five years should be weighed against the State for speedy trial purposes." "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted."



http://boyavlouisi.weebly.com/



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-9953

Wetzel v. Lambert

This case is discussing the issue, "Did the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals err when it overturned a state court decision denying a death row defendant’s request for a new trial?" "in Pennsylvania back in 1984, a man named James Lambert was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of two bar patrons during a robbery of a place called Prince's Lounge in Philadelphia.  At the murder trial, one of the robbers took the stand for the prosecution and pointed the finger at Mr. Lambert along with another man, Bruce Reese, as being in cahoots with him in robbing the bar. 

Lambert is convicted, the death penalty is imposed, and the appellate process begins.  Twenty years later, Lambert's attorneys advance an argument that error has occurred because the prosecution never disclosed to the defense at trial of the "police activity sheet."  It's a big deal. 

If the state attorneys had done this, then this would fly in the face of longstanding Supreme Court precedent, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963). 

What's in the "police activity sheet"?  In that sheet, a photo of a man named Lawrence Woodlock was shown to two people who were at the bar during the robbery.  Woodlock was named as a co-defendant by the state attorneys on the sheet in the Prince's Lounge robbery.  Woodlock had a record of over 13 armed robberies of bars.  Woodlock was already in custody at the time of trial on other charges.

It also had the names of two police investigators in the Lambert case and the names of those who died during the robbery with their corresponding case numbers.  Finally, it had Jackson - Lambert's buddy who took the stand against him - as stating that Woodlock had been involved in the Prince's Lounge job. 

For all these years, much less during the trial, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had not notified the defense of this document much less provided it to Lambert.  Lambert's counsel was never notified that known armed robber Larry Woodlock had ever been investigated, or had his photo shown to a Prince's Lounge witness. 

It matters because if that police activity sheet were available at trial, Lambert's attorneys could have argued that someone other than Lambert committed the armed robbery at Prince's Lounge - or that there were more people involved in the robbery that the state had been suggesting."

This case was argued on February 21st, 2012. It was also decided on February 21st, 2012. The decision was 6-3, per curiam ruling. I think this case was pretty much already decided and the facts from almost thirty years ago really could not make the initial decision of punishments any different.

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

http://www.deathpenaltyblog.com/wetzel-v-lambert-another-us-supreme-court-decision-on-the-frustrating-aedpa/

U.S. Airways v. McCutchen

     In 2007, James McCutchen was involved in a car accident that put him in the ICU. At the time, McCutchen was working for US Airways, and his health insurance from them gave him $66,866 for medical costs. In addition to that money that he received from his own insurance, he received $10,000 from the person who caused the accident and another $100,000 from the uninsured motorist coverage. After McCutchen paid his lawyers 40% contingency fees, he was left with a little under $66,000. When US Airways found out how much money McCutchen had received, they demanded to be reimbursed for the money they gave to him. So McCutchen's lawyers put $41,500 in a trust account for US Airways, but that wasn't enough so they also personally sued McCutchen for the remanding money of $25,366.
     "US Airways based their suit on Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), which allows plan fiduciaries to sue for "appropriate equitable relief." Relying on a subrogation clause in the Plan, which required reimbursement for "any monies recovered from a third party," the trial court decided that US Airways was entitled to the entire $66,866, regardless of legal expenses. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided that Section 502(a)(3) requires courts to provide relief in a manner that is equitable to both parties.Id.. at 679–80.  The Third Circuit determined that requiring McCutchen to reimburse the Plan fully would be inequitable because it would leave McCutchen with less than full coverage for his medical expenses while unjustly enriching US Airways, which did not exercise its subrogation rights or contribute to the cost of obtaining third-party recovery. Id. Therefore, the court ruled that McCutchen need not reimburse US Airways for the entire amount of his medical expenses and US Airways has appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the Third Circuit’s ruling."

"The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 this week that James McCutchen, a U.S. Airways, Inc., employee does not have to pay his health plan back all of the money he recovered following a car accident."




http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-1285

http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/supreme-court-issues-decision-us-airways-mccutchen-2732585-1.html

Parker v. Matthews

The issue in this case is whether the 6th Circuit's decision to overturn a 29-year-old double murder conviction violate federal law by second-guessing the decisions of the state courts. "Between 1 and 2 a.m. on the morning of June 29, 1981, respondent David Eugene Matthews broke into the Louisville home he had until recently shared with his estranged wife, Mary Marlene Matthews (Marlene). At the time, Matthews’ mother-in-law, Magdalene Cruse, was staying at the home with her daughter. Matthews found Cruse in bed and shot her in the head at point-blank range, using a gun he had purchased with borrowed funds hours before. Matthews left Cruse there mortally wounded and went into the next room, where he found his wife. He had sexual relations with her once or twice; stayed with her until about 6 a.m.; and then shot her twice, killing her. Cruse would die from her wound later that day.

Matthews was apprehended that morning at his mother’s house, where he had already begun to wash the clothes he wore during the crime. Later in the day, police officers found the murder weapon secreted below the floorboards of a backyard shed on the property. At the police station, Matthews made a tape-recorded statement to a police detective in which he denied responsibility for the murders. A grand jury indicted Matthews for the two murders and for burglary. At trial, he did not contest that he killed the two victims. Instead, he sought to show that he had acted under “extreme emotional disturbance,” which under Kentucky law serves to reduce a homicide that would otherwise be murder to first-degree manslaughter."

This case was argued on June 11th, 2012. It was decided June 11th, 2012 with the decision 9-0, per curiam ruling for Parker. At first I did not agree with the court's decision. With all the evidence against Parker there is no way he was innocent. However further information against his wife shows he just may of had enough with her. Parker's mother and neighbors made claims of his alleged wife doing things like screaming at him across the street when they were seperated, accusing him of sexual relations with their 6-year-old daughter, and also leaving their 6-year-old daugher crying and screaming in the middle of the nights in the street just to antagonize him. Neither one of these parents seem fit to raise this poor child.

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-845

Salazar v. Patchak (linked with Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak)

This case is discussing whether the government can be sued over Indian trust land. David Patchak lives in an area around native Indian-owned land. The federal government took the land into trust so that the owners could build a casino. Patchak is arguing against the District of Columbia district court saying that building this casino would destroy the land. "The court dismissed the case, but the D.C. appeals court overturned that decision and remanded. The Interior Department and the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band petitioned SCOTUS; the case is linked with Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak."

This debate was argued on April 24th, 2012. The decision was made June 18th, 2012 where it was voted 8-1, in favor of Patchak. In this case I would also vote in favor of Patchak. I agree that the native Indian land should be saved. Although a casino would provide more jobs and maybe boost the economy in that location, I still believe they should save historic land from something as useless as a casino.

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

Miller v. Alabama

     In Alabama, Miller went to a trailer to rob a man and beat a man with a baseball bat and then left him in a trailer and set it on fire for him to die. In the state court, Miller was convicted of capitol murdered and sentenced to life in prison with no parole as a 14-year-old minor. When the decision was made, Miller decided to appeal, saying that his 8th amendment rights were being violated. His conviction was confirmed by the Alabama Court of Appeals by saying tat he did not say that the punishment was cruel and unusual. Miller’s petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Alabama Supreme Court.
     "On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Miller argues that the mandatory sentencing scheme under which he was sentenced precludes consideration of his age or any other mitigating circumstances and is therefore in violation of both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, Miller argues that in Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court recognized that age is a critical feature in determining a defendant’s culpability, and that by ignoring his age in sentencing the trial court violated the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment."

http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/scotus/2012/03/miller-v-alabama-2.html

Maples v. Thomas

This case was debating whether a mistake in one firm's mailroom could cost an inmate his life. Cory Maples was facing the death sentence in the federal court. "Maples lost the chance to appeal his death sentence when his pro bono attorneys left Sullivan & Cromwell and the firm's mailroom returned a court order unopened with "Return to Sender-Left Firm."" The district court denied his request saying it was a late appeal. This decision was upheld by the 11th circuit. Cory Maples petitioned the supreme court saying that in missed deadline actually was not his fault.

"The state was partly to blame after a court clerk placed the returned letter in a drawer without letting anyone know." This case was argued on October 4, 2001. It was decided on January 18, 2012. The decision was 7-2, in Maples favor. I agree with this decision because had this case not been in Maples favor, a man could die because of something unjust that happened. The people who made the mistake in the courtroom should have some kind of consequence. Cory Maples will still probably have to face the death penalty for his committed crime at some point, just not at this current time.

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

Reynolds v. U.S.

Reynolds v. U.S. is handling the issue of  "Does a convicted sex offender have standing to challenge an interim rule that makes 2006’s Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) retroactive?"  In 2001 Bill Joe Reynolds admitted to sodomy and was registered as a sex offender in Missouri. Six years later when Reynolds traveled to Pennsylvania, he did not register as a sex offender in the state. Reynolds was charged with federal violation of SORNA. SORNA is Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. He pleaded guilty in the district court but claims the rule was "improperly instituted." 

The third Circuit rejected his appeal. This was argued on October 3, 2011. The case was decided on January 23, 2012. The vote was 7-2, in favor of Reynolds. I think Bill Joe Reynolds is at fault in this case. I think when he moved states he probably was trying to escape his charge because I do not think anyone could forget they are a registered sex offender. When he moved to Pennsylvania he should have take then initiative to register himself. However, the government should make it more known that no matter what state you travel to, you must register yourself if you are a sex offender. 

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons

     In the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Wiley brought a claim against Kirstsaeng for violation of  the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–810. Kirstsaeng was attending school in the US and had imported some od Wiley's textbooks from Thailand and was reselling them in the US. Wiley is claiming that he is not allowed to do that because he violated § 602(a)(1) of the Act, which prohibits the importation of foreign-made works or goods without the copyright owner's authority. "Kirtsaeng claims that, according to the first-sale doctrine codified in § 109(a), he was permitted to resell Wiley’s textbooks in the U.S. without the Respondent’s permission because the doctrine states that a copyright owner loses exclusive rights after the first sale of the work."
     "The Supreme Court ruled last week in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, a case that centered on the tension between copyright law’s first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. §109(a), and the importation restriction found in 17 U.S.C. §602(a).   The express question before the Court was whether the first sale doctrine applies to works manufactured outside the United States.  While the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit had each ruled, in some fashion, that the first sale doctrine was limited to works manufactured within the United States, the Supreme Court disagreed with them – and the Solicitor General, holding that the first sale doctrine applies regardless of where the works are manufactured."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-697
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4b45dbc0-2bb0-430e-a36c-f2ed6bbaef33


http://www.gamefront.com/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-why-we-should-care/

Florida v. Jardines

     In the Florida v. Jardines case, an anonymous call was made to the Miami-Dade crime stoppers tip-line that there might be marijuana being grown inside the house next to them. So about a month later the Miami-Dade police department and DEA arrived at the house at 7am with a drug dog. After the drug dog confirmed that marijuana was being grown inside the house, the detectives filed for a search warrant and got one about an hour later. So they went back to the house and went inside that marijuana was being grown and arrested Joelis Jardines. Jardines' motion to suppress evidence that was obtained from his home was granted by the court. Jardine was trying to claim that what the police did was an intrusion of his home since they used the dog to search the house before they had a warrant. The government's use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and Supreme Court of Florida affirmed that.

     "Justice Scalia's majority opinion, joined by Justices Kagan, Thomas, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, did not focus on the right to privacy, which is implicated by most modern-day Fourth Amendment cases. Rather, the decision hinged on the basis of a citizen's property rights. It followed the 2012 precedent from United States v. Jones, that when police physically intrude on persons, houses, papers, or effects for the purpose of obtaining information, "a 'search' within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment" has "undoubtedly occurred." At the "very core" of the Fourth Amendment, the Court said, stands "the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion." The area "immediately surrounding and associated with the home" — the curtilage — is "part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes." Scalia cited case law as far back as 1765, from Entick v. Carrington, a case before England's Court of King's Bench, quoting, "[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbor's close without his leave."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Jardines

Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California (linked with Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital)

Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California is seeking to find out if physicians, hospitals, and pharmacies have the right to sue California over its cuts to Medicaid payments. In 2008 and 2009, California cut its Medicaid reimbursements. After they did this, an alliance of medical providers challenged these cuts. District courts blocked with preliminary injunctions.

The injunctions were upheld by the 9^th Circuit. They found that the state did not do enough studies before they cut payments. California appealed to the Supreme Court. “Schwartz is arguing on behalf of Toby Douglas, the director of California's Department of Health Care Services. The case was her first before the high court, and she argued alongside Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler.” This case was argued on October 3^rd, 2011 and was decided on February 22^nd, 2012. Five vacated and four remanded.

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

Millbrook v. United States

     In the Supreme Court case Millbrook v. United States, a man by the name of Kim Millbrook said that one of the guards of the Federal Bureau of Prisons sexually assaulted and verbally threatened him while he was in their custody. "He alleged that, under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1), the BOP would be liable if he succeeded on his claims of assault and battery. The Government moved to dismiss based on the so-called "intentional tort exception" to the FTCA, § 2680(h), which immunizes the United States from suits for intentional torts, including assault and battery. In response, Millbrook relied on the "law enforcement proviso" to the FTCA, which extends the waiver of sovereign immunity to intentional torts (including assault and battery) based on the 'acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers.'"
The Supreme Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in saying that " in the plain language of the "law enforcement proviso" limits its application to acts of law enforcement officers occurring in the course of investigative or law enforcement activities. The Court explained that the FTCA by its terms focuses on the "status of persons whose conduct may be actionable, not the types of activities that may give rise to a tort claim against the United States." In other words, the FTCA's text did not limit the waiver of sovereign immunity to intentional torts committed by law enforcement officers who were executing a search, seizing evidence, or making an arrest. So long as the officer was acting within the scope of his employment and was a "law enforcement officer" as defined by the FTCA, the "law enforcement proviso" applied to waive the United States' sovereign immunity. "

http://www.faegrebd.com/19729



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/27/supreme-court-agrees-with-prisoners-handwritten-appeal-in-assault-case/

Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California (linked with Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital)

This case has to do with whether physicians, hospitals, and pharmacies have the right to sue California of it's cuts to Medicaid payments. California reduced reimbursements for Medicaid in 2008 and 2009. Medical providers challenged this decisions but they were blocked by the district courts preliminary injunctions.

"The 9th Circuit upheld the injunctions, finding that the state failed to conduct sufficient studies before cutting the rates. California appealed to the Supreme Court." The Argue date was October 3, 2011. The decision was made February 22, 2012. When the decision was made, 5 vacated and 4 remanded.

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Inc.

This case deals with the dozens that want to hold oil companies for human rights issues from the 1990's that took place in Nigeria.  It has to do with abuses that happened abroad. "The plaintiffs allege the oil giants conspired with the government to stop protests over petroleum exploration, using killings, rape, arrests, and property destruction. Shell has denied giving soldiers any money, supplies, or logistical help." In 2004 the high court endorsed ATS with limited circumstances.

The case was ordered re-heard with hopes of refocusing the limits of the laws, "whether it can be applied extraterritorially for violations occurring overseas." If the Supreme court decides against the plaintiffs, there could be an end to ATS litigation. "A Supreme Court decision against the plaintiffs could effectively end ATS litigation. Similar lawsuits involve Chevron and Exxon energy operations in Indonesia; Chiquita Brand fruit farms in Colombia; and businesses that operated years ago in the now-outlawed apartheid system in South Africa."

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/10/politics/scotus.cases/index.html#humanrights

California ballot measure: Hollingsworth v. Perry

Holilingsworth v. Perry is debating the Constitution's 14th amendment and whether equal protection in certain states means marriage is to be between only a man and a woman or if same sex marriage is allowed."The "Prop 8" case, as it has become known, has been down a complicated legal road. California's Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriages were legal in 2008. After the statewide ballot measure banning them passed with 52% of the vote later that year, gay and lesbian marriages were put on hold. Then a federal appeals court in San Francisco in February ruled the measure unconstitutional. In its split decision, the panel found Proposition 8 "works a meaningful harm to gays and lesbians" by denying their right to civil marriage."

Opponents of Prop 8 want a court-ordered expansion of what "traditional" marriage means. Currently there are six states that allow gay marriage. Nine states recognize civil unions or domestic partnership. California is the only state that accepted gay marriage and then revoked it.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/10/politics/scotus.cases/index.html

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

Abigail Fisher was senior at a high school in Sugar Land, Texas in 2008. She applied to the University of Texas at Austin and she was denied acceptance. Fisher is challenging the school's race-conscious admissions policies. She is claiming she was denied access because she is white. "The school defends its policy of considering race as one of many factors -- such as test scores, community service, leadership and work experience -- designed to ensure a diverse campus."

This case brings up unresolved questions pertaining to race and schools searching for diversity. "Justice Kagan will not hear this case because she had dealt with the issue while serving as President Barack Obama's solicitor general. That would leave the possibility of a 4-4 tie, meaning the university would prevail, but no important precedent would be established." Abigail Fisher is pretty much out of luck if she is trying to make a difference.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/10/politics/scotus.cases/index.html

Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc.

      In the Supreme Court case Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., the two shoe companies were suing each other over the design of a shoe. Originally, Nike sued Already first, claiming that they took Nike's patented design of a shoe. Then Already counter sued Nike saying that they did not use their design and that the patent on the shoe was not valid since the patent expired in 2008. Right after Already sued Nike, Nike came back and decided to drop their suit and in addition to that, they said that they would not sue Already based on any future designs based on that patent. Even though Nike had dropped the suit against Already, Already continued with their suit because they thought that Nike said that they were not going to sue them ever again on this one specific shoe design. Already did not read it the right way because what Nike really said was that they would not sue Already in the future about any shoe design made. The Supreme Court decided in Nike's favor since their terms were so board, thus, resulting in Already having to dropped their suit. In the pictures below, you can see how similar the two shoe designs are to each other.

     In my opinion, I think that it was right for Nike to sue because even though their original patent had expired, it was still their design to begin with. I also think that Already could have just come up with a different design for the shoe since it was so identical to the Nike shoe. Once Already counter sued Nike, I think that Nike dropped their suit so fast because they knew that Already had a good case against them. It was also a smart move by Nike to make their terms for dropping the case so board, so that the Supreme Court would agree with them. This decision benefits Already greatly because now they can make almost any shoe design they want that is close to Nike's, and Nike cannot sue them for it. 

Sanchez, Robert. "Are We Done Yet? Nike Thinks It Is Already Time to Move On -IPLJ." IPLJ. Fordham University School of Law, 25 Nov. 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2013.

 

Stonebrook, Ian. "U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Nike Trademark Case." Nice Kicks. N.p., 27 June 2012. Web. 22 Mar. 2013.

Gabelli et al. v. Securities and Exchange

      This cases states that Gabelliet and Alpert aided and abetted investment adviser fraud from 1999 until 2002.  Petitioners moved to dismiss the case because it was reaching it's five year statute of limitations.  They pointed out that the complaint alleged illegal activity up until August 2002 but was not filed until April 2008. The Second Circuit reversed the decision to be dismissed because they applied the "discovery rule" meaning that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the SEC dis- covered or reasonably could have discovered the fraud. The SEC’s complaint alleged that Alpert and Gabelli permitted Headstart to engage in market timing in ex- change for Headstart’s investment in a hedge fund run by Gabelli.
      The Supreme Court's final ruling was that they over ruled the Second Circuits decision to reverse the movement to dismiss the case. The Supreme Court said that the SEC is not allowed to use the "discovery rule" to toll the operative statute of limitations. The Court rejected the SEC's argument that the discovery rule should apply to toll the statute of limitations until the Government has discovered its cause of action.  The Gabelli decision will influence enforcement decisions and actions of many different federal agencies. Among other things, the SEC and other agencies will likely seek tolling agreements from parties under investigation much earlier in investigations in order to preserve their ability to investigate suspected misconduct.

Turner v. Clayton/ Breitenfeld vs. Clayton

Turner v. Clayton/ Breitenfeld vs. Clayton

In 2010, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that if the a student in a certain district is failing to be adequately educated, then they may transfer to an adjoining school district. Jane Turner brought up the issue when she realized her children should be going to an accredited school. Once her children transferred, she sued Clayton schools to get back all the money she had previously paid for tuition. "the state's highest court turned the educational establishment upside down by ruling that a state law requires an adjoining district to accept children from an unaccredited district, and that the district where the child resides must pay for the student's education." The school districts have argued that the law violates Hancock Amendment;s "unfunded mandate" provision which says the public can not be forced to take on obligations that are not paid for. "Their failure is all of our failure, both from a purely moral standpoint, and also because as long as the school district in the core of our city can't make the sort of gains that attract young families and businesses, then our entire region suffers economically." Missouri Legislature is working on reform measures.

I do not think either side is right or wrong. I agree that if children are not getting adequate education they should be able to transfer to an accredited school. However, if one student is not getting a good education that means all of his classmates at his school aren't either and if one student transfers than many more will follow. The best thing to do would be to start with the teachers and the curriculum to make sure the school gets accredited. If the school's education is adequate, then the students would have no need to transfer to other schools.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-supreme-court-needs-to-put-children-first-in-school/article_6417f97c-2c05-5e34-ac0c-0b6f895e6e5c.html