Menu of today’s coverage (UPDATED: 9:40)
Posted on June 17, 2013 at 9:41 pm by Kali Borkoski
This morning the Court granted four new cases and issued five opinions. Lyle’s report on the opinion in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (including a “Plain English” summary) is here. Marty Lederman’s post examining the possible implications of the decision is here. Tejinder Singh also provided our initial analysis of that decision. Lyle has coverage of the decision in Salinas v. Texas (including a [...]
Reconciling ceilings and floors: Alleyne v. United States
Posted on June 17, 2013 at 9:39 pm by Mike Gottlieb
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. That would seem to be the lesson from the Court’s decision in Alleyne v. United States, which today resolved a decade-old controversy regarding the constitutional distinction between two kinds of sentences: mandatory minimums and statutory maximums.
Opinion recap: If you want to claim the Fifth . . .
Posted on June 17, 2013 at 5:42 pm by Lyle Denniston
Analysis Because merely keeping quiet when police ask damaging questions is not claiming a right to silence, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, prosecutors may use that silence against the suspect at the trial. If an individual is voluntarily talking to the police, he or she must claim the Fifth Amendment right of silence, or lose [...]
Opinion analysis: Turns out, turnabout is fair play
Posted on June 17, 2013 at 5:05 pm by Kevin Russell
This morning the Court issued its decision in Maracich v. Spears. In a blow to plaintiffs’ attorneys, the Court narrowly construed the so-called “litigation exception” to the federal Drivers’ Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), ruling that the exception did not cover (and that the DPPA therefore prohibits) the use of protected data from state drivers’ databases [...]
Opinion recap: “Pay to delay” in deep trouble
Posted on June 17, 2013 at 4:21 pm by Lyle Denniston
Analysis Showing a strong suspicion that big drug companies with deep pockets may be using their money to shield shaky patent rights, the Supreme Court on Monday for the first time cleared the way for antitrust lawsuits to challenge payoffs between brand-name drugmakers to keep would-be competitors who make generic substitutes temporarily out of their market. But winning such lawsuits will hardly [...]
Pyrrhic victory for federal government in Arizona voter registration case? [UPDATED with reference to Shelby County]
Posted on June 17, 2013 at 3:02 pm by Marty Lederman
The Court, by a seven-to-two vote, today held that federal law preempts — that is to say, renders invalid — an Arizona law requiring voter registration officials to reject a voter’s application for registration if it is not accompanied by evidence of U.S. citizenship above and beyond the attestation of citizenship the applicant has made [...]
Opinion recap: One hand giveth….
Posted on June 17, 2013 at 1:10 pm by Lyle Denniston
Analysis In a ruling that might easily be misunderstood if not read very closely, the Supreme Court on Monday simultaneously strengthened Congress’s hand in expanding the ranks of eligible voters, and yet assured states that they retain the ultimate power to decide who gets to vote. The apparent bottom line: states cannot now require voters to [...]
Round-up of news on today’s orders and opinions
Posted on June 17, 2013 at 12:35 pm by Max Mallory
Here is some early coverage of today’s orders and opinions. The Court issued opinions this morning in five argued cases: Salinas v. Texas, Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Alleyne v. United States, Maracich v. Spears, and Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council. In the Arizona case, the Court struck down a state law requiring would-be voters [...]
Details: Salinas v. Texas (Updated 1:30 PM)
Posted on June 17, 2013 at 12:32 pm by Tejinder Singh
As almost all Americans who have ever watched television or gone to a movie know, the Supreme Court held in a case called Miranda v. Arizona that a criminal suspect who is in police custody must be advised of his right to remain silent; if the suspect chooses to remain silent, that silence cannot be [...]
Details: Alleyne v. United States
Posted on June 17, 2013 at 11:33 am by Mike Gottlieb
Alleyne v. United States raised a longstanding controversy in criminal law regarding the method of proof that the Sixth Amendment requires to impose a mandatory minimum sentence. It has been settled since the Court’s 2000 decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey that any facts which increase a criminal defendant’s maximum possible sentence are considered “elements” [...]