Overview of 4 Supreme Court Opinions Today
posted by Josh Blackman
Still no Brown v. EMA or United States v. Flores-Villar, though we do have 4 new opinions, including 2 interesting criminal cases.
In Sykes v. United States, Justice Kennedy writing for Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor, held that “Felony vehicle flight, as proscribed by Indiana law, is a violent felony for purposes of ACCA [Armed Career Criminal Act],” afirming the 7th Circuit. Justice Scalia wrote a solo dissent. Justice Kagan dissented, joined by Justice Ginsburg. Very interesting lineup. I started an Instant Analysis here. The lineup in this case is identical to that in Michigan v. Bryant, a confrontation clause case decided this term. I think we may see a new 5-member “law and order” bloc of Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor, in non-4th Amendment criminal procedure cases. I also wrote a post on Scalia’s views on how deference to vagueness statutes creates perverse incentives for the other branches. I also considered the interaction of statistics, common sense, and social cost in Sykes.
In Talk America, Inc. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., Justice Thomas wrote for a unanimous Court, holding that “The FCC has advanced a reasonable interpretation of its regula-tions—i.e., that to satisfy its duty under §251(c)(2), an incumbent LEC must make its existing entrance facilities available to competi-tors at cost-based rates if the facilities are to be used for interconnec-tion—and this Court defers to the FCC’s views.” Justice Kagan recused from this case. Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Scalia, in a separate opinion, expresses caution for Auer deference, and channels Montesquieu! More from Jon Adler.
In DePierre v. United States, wrote for the entire Court (Justice Scalia did not join one part discussing legislative history), holding that “’[C]ocaine base,’ as used in §841(b)(1), means not just “crack co-caine,” but cocaine in its chemically basic form.” This is the broader definition. Justice Sotomayor has a brief discussion on statutory interpretation, with respect to redundancy and inartful draftsmanship. Further, Justice Sotomayor declines to apply the Rule of Lenity. It seems the Rule of Lenity applies except when it doesn’t apply. Last Term Professor Krishnakumar had an interesting post at Concurring Opinions analyzing the use of the Rule of Lenity on the Roberts Court:
In Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, Justice Sotomayor wrote for Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, holding that “Section 282 [of the Patent Act] requires an invalidity defense to be proved by clearand convincing evidence.” Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Scalia and Alito (odd lineup). Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in judgment. Chief Justice Roberts recused.
I will have further analysis of these cases, particularly an instant analysis of Sykes, at my blog, JoshBlackman.com.
Update: I added links above to additional posts.
June 9, 2011 at 10:31 am
Posted in: Uncategorized
Print This Post
Leave a Reply