Supreme Court Update (2.13.15)

This month, the Supreme Court will not be hearing arguments or meeting for conference until February 20^th.  The last arguments that they heard took place on Tuesday, January 20^th, and Wednesday, January 21^st, and are listed below.

•       Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar
•       Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc.
•       Rodriguez v. United States
•       Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v.Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.

On Monday, February 9^th, the Supreme Court made a controversial decision in its denial of Alabama’s request to stay a federal judge’s ruling striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The Court order cleared the way for same-sex marriage in Alabama, and couples there are already getting married in the now 37^th same-sex marriage state. While this decision is a step in the right direction, away from discrimination, and towards equality, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas made a good point in their dissenting opinion.

They argued that “when courts declare state laws unconstitutional, the ordinary practice is to suspend those injunctions from taking effect pending appellate review,” as opposed to simply ignoring this process and striking down laws seemingly on a whim. While the use of such a strategy to remove a discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage may not seem incredibly concerning, it sets a precedent of improper use of power on the Court’s part. Even bad laws should be disposed of correctly, so that in the future good laws are not disposed of incorrectly.

Recent Decisions - M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett

      The beginnings of this case go all the way back to 2000, when M&G, a chemical company, bought the Point Pleasant Polyester Plant of West Virginia. In doing so, M&G agreed to provide retirees and other dependents with health care benefits. After three years, when the time for re-negotiation came, M&G stopped, and retirees sued, claiming that the agreement required a lifetime of health care benefits. Thus, the following question was posed: how do the courts decide whether benefits last until employee death?
     To which the Supreme Court replied vaguely. In a unanimous vote on Monday, January 26th, the Court said that the court of appeals should simply read the contract the same way it would read a normal contract, and make the decision directly from what it says in the text. This decision is not in line with the Sixth Circuit Court's original decision, which gave the retirees the benefits, and is problematic because benefits for life were usually just assumed by the court of appeals. For now, both parties must await the direct interpretation of the contract by the court of appeals, in order to see who will emerge victorious.

Stay of Execution (Wednesday, January 28th 2015)

     Today, the Supreme Court handed down a stay of execution for three Oklahoma prisoners due to the fact that their challenge to the state's lethal injection formula will be heard in the spring. This hearing will be the first time since 2008 that the Court has agreed to hear a challenge regarding the legality of lethal injection. The specifics of the case center around the use of the sedative midazolam on the condemned, which has so far been the cause of three botched executions in the state, most specifically Clayton Lockett's execution in April of last year. 
     The Supreme Court already ruled on and upheld the combination of drugs being used for lethal injection throughout the United States in 2008. However, because of the fact that the U.S. manufacturer of one of those drugs stopped producing it, many states have been adopting substitutes, leading to the use of midazolam in Oklahoma. Opponents of Midazolam claim that the drug, not being a surgical-grade anesthetic, can cause more than a bit of discomfort to victims, seeing as it could leave them aware of the effects of the drugs that follow it. This results in the condemned feeling suffocation and excruciating pain before death ensues.
     The three prisoners in question are Richard Glossip, Benjamin Cole, and John Grant, all of whom were scheduled for execution over the course of the next few months. 

Recent Decisions - Heien v. North Carolina (12/15/14)

            The case of Heien vs. North Carolina began when a North Carolina policeman stopped Heien’s car because it had a brake light that did not work. During the stop, it was discovered that Heien had cocaine in a duffle bag, and he was ultimately convicted for drug trafficking.  However, the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision under the reasoning that the traffic stop was not justified, seeing as North Carolina laws only require that one brake light be working.  The North Carolina Supreme Court then reversed that decision, stating that the officer’s mistake of the law was reasonable, and therefore did not invalidate his stopping the car or searching it to stumble upon the drugs inside.

            This ruling did not last long, as a dissenting judge pointed out that the decision was unfair, seeing as it insinuates that the courts hold citizens to the rule that ignorance of the laws is no excuse, but not the police. When the North Carolina Supreme Court rejected this appeal, Heien petitioned the Supreme Court.

            On December 15^th, the Supreme Court (in an 8-1 vote) held that search and seizure is reasonable under the fourth amendment even if the officer has made a minor factual or legal mistake (only, of course, if the officer’s mistake was reasonable, which the Court held was so in Heien’s case). 

New Same-Sex Marriage Case (December 12th)

New Same-Sex Marriage Case (December 12^th)

            Today, North Carolina legislatures notified federal courts that they would soon be asking the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.  This is the second case filed from the Fourth Circuit area for the Supreme Court, the first being a South Carolina petition as yet not filed.

            The Justices have not yet reacted to the new round of cases, but they will be prepared to do so come January 2015.

UPDATE: January 9^th

            The Ohio petition has since been added to the number of cases, as well as several of the cases that the Supreme Court refused to review on October 6^th, one of them being the ban in Virginia.  Ohio’s petition grew out of two cases within the state that surround the “recognition” issue; when states do not officially recognize married same-sex couples.

            The Court has been considering some of the cases since the beginning of the month, and will possibly be addressing them in today’s January 9^th Conference.