Court : US Supreme Court
Kennedy v. Louisiana - 07-343 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2007 KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES KENNEDY v . LOUISIANA certiorari to the supreme court of louisiana No. 07343.Argued April 16, 2008Decided June 25, 2008 Louisiana charged petitioner with the aggravated rape of his then-8-year-old stepdaughter. He was convicted and sentenced to death under a state statute authorizing capital punishment for the rape of a child under 12. The State Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting petitioners reliance on Coker v. Georgia , 433 U. S. 584 , which barred the use of the death penalty as punishment for the rape of an adult woman but left open the question which, if any, other nonhomicide crimes can be punished by death consistent with the Eighth Amendment. Reasoning that children are a class in need of special protection, the state court held child rape to be unique in terms of the harm it inflicts upon the victim and society and concluded that, short of fi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Altria Group, Inc. v. Good - 07-562 (2008) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 ALTRIA GROUP, INC. V. GOOD SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ALTRIA GROUP, INC., etal. v . GOOD etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the first circuit No. 07562.Argued October 6, 2008Decided December 15, 2008 Respondents, smokers of petitioners light cigarettes, filed suit, alleging that petitioners violated the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA) by fraudulently advertising that their light cigarettes delivered less tar and nicotine than regular brands. The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners, finding the state-law claim pre-empted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (Labeling Act). The First Circuit reversed, holding that the Labeling Act neither expressly nor impliedly pre-empts respondents fraud claim. Held: Neither the Labeling Acts pre-emption provision nor the Federal Trade Commissions actions in this field pre-empt respondents sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ysursa v. Pocatello Ed. Assn. - 07-869 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 YSURSA V. POCATELLO ED. ASSN. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES YSURSA, SECRETARY OF STATE OF IDAHO, etal. v . POCATELLO EDUCATION ASSOCIATION etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 07869.Argued November 3, 2008Decided February 24, 2009 Idahos Right to Work Act permits public employees to authorize payroll deductions for general union dues, but prohibits such deductions for union political activities. Respondentsa group of Idaho public employee unionssued, alleging that the ban on payroll deductions for political activities violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court upheld the ban at the state level, but struck it down as it applies to local governments. In affirming, the Ninth Circuit stated that, while Idaho has the ultimate control over local governmental units, it did not actually operate or control their payroll deduction systems. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Wyeth v. Levine - 06-1249 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 WYETH V. LEVINE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WYETH v . LEVINE certiorari to the supreme court of vermont No. 061249.Argued November 3, 2008Decided March 4, 2009 Petitioner Wyeth manufactures the antinausea drug Phenergan. After a clinician injected respondent Levine with Phenergan by the IV-push method, whereby a drug is injected directly into a patients vein, the drug entered Levines artery, she developed gangrene, and doctors amputated her forearm. Levine brought a state-law damages action, alleging, inter alia, that Wyeth had failed to provide an adequate warning about the significant risks of administering Phenergan by the IV-push method. The Vermont jury determined that Levines injury would not have occurred if Phenergans label included an adequate warning, and it awarded damages for her pain and suffering, substantial medical expenses, and loss of her livelihood as a professional musician. Declining t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Horne v. Flores - 08-289 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 HORNE V. FLORES SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HORNE, SUPERINTENDENT, ARIZONA PUBLICINSTRUCTION v . FLORES etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 08289.Argued April 20, 2009Decided June 25, 2009 A group of English Language-Learner (ELL) students and their parents (plaintiffs) filed a class action, alleging that Arizona, its State Board of Education, and the Superintendent of Public Instruction (defendants) were providing inadequate ELL instruction in the Nogales Unified School District (Nogales), in violation of the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA), which requires States to take appropriate action to overcome language barriers in schools, 20 U. S.C. 1703(f). In 2000, the Federal District Court entered a declaratory judgment, finding an EEOA violation in Nogales because the amount of funding the State allocated for the special needs of ELL students (ELL ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ricci v. DeStefano - 07-1428 (2009) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2008 RICCI V. DESTEFANO SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES RICCI etal. v . DeSTEFANO etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the second circuit No. 071428.Argued April 22, 2009Decided June 29, 2009 New Haven, Conn. (City), uses objective examinations to identify those firefighters best qualified for promotion. When the results of such an exam to fill vacant lieutenant and captain positions showed that white candidates had outperformed minority candidates, a rancorous public debate ensued. Confronted with arguments both for and against certifying the test resultsand threats of a lawsuit either waythe City threw out the results based on the statistical racial disparity. Petitioners, white and Hispanic firefighters who passed the exams but were denied a chance at promotions by the Citys refusal to certify the test results, sued the City and respondent officials, alleging that discarding the test resul...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n - 08-205 (2010) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2009 CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM'N SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CITIZENS UNITED v . FEDERAL ELECTIONCOMMISSION appeal from the united states district court for the district of columbia No. 08205.Argued March 24, 2009Reargued September 9, 2009Decided January 21, 2010 As amended by 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech that is an electioneering communication or for speech that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a candidate. 2 U. S.C. 441b. An electioneering communication is any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office and is made within 30 days of a primary election, 434(f)(3)(A), and that is publicly distributed, 11 CFR 100.29(a)(2), which in the case...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
NASA v. Nelson - 09-530 (2011) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 NASA V. NELSON SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION etal. v . NELSON etal. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 09530.Argued October 5, 2010Decided January 19, 2011 The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a workforce of both federal civil servants and Government contract employees. Respondents are contract employees at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which is operated by the California Institute of Technology (Cal Tech). Respondents were not subject to Government background checks at the time they were hired, but that changed when the President ordered the adoption of uniform identification standards for both federal civil servants and contractor employees. The Department of Commerce mandated that contract employees with long-term access to federal facilities complete a standard background check, typically th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Milner v. Department of Navy - 09-1163 (2011) SYLLABUS OCTOBER TERM, 2010 MILNER V. DEPARTMENT OF NAVY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MILNER v . DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 091163.Argued December 1, 2010Decided March 7, 2011 The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires federal agencies to make Government records available to the public, subject to nine exemptions. This case concerns Exemption 2, which protects from disclosure material related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency. 5 U. S.C.552(b)(2). This provision replaced an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exemption for any matter relating solely to the internal management of an agency, 5 U. S.C. 1002 (1964 ed.). Congress believed that the sweep of the phrase internal management had led to excessive withholding, and drafted Exemption 2 to have a narrower reach. Department of Air Force v. Rose , 425 U. S. 352 , 3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
LORD DYSON Introduction These two cases raise a number of important issues in relation to the detention pending deportation of foreign national prisoners ("FNPs") following the completion of their sentences of imprisonment. Section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 ("the 1971 Act") provides that a person who is not a British citizen is liable to deportation from the United Kingdom if the Secretary of State "deems his deportation to be conducive to the public good". Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act provides in certain specified circumstances for the detention of such a person pending his deportation. Walumba Lumba is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo ("DRC") who entered the UK on 10 April 1994. He was convicted of a number of offences culminating in an offence of wounding with intent for which he was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment on 12 January 2004. On 3 April 2006, the Secretary of State informed Mr Lumba of his intention to deport him under section 3(5)(a) of the 1971 A...
Tag this Judgment!