The lawsuit by Nebraska and Oklahoma against Colorado is an interesting development on the legalization issue. This case filed by a state against another state would fall under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which like appellate jurisdiction is discretionary. Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554, 570 (1983). They usually appoint a special master to conduct the trial and then review the record if they take the case and if it is justicible.
The lawsuit alleges that Colorado's marijuana legalization provision violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. Art. VI, Clause 2. Under federal law marijuana possession is illegal. 21 U.S.C. Section 812; 21 CFR 1308.11(d). In Section 538 (page 213) of the recently passed Continuing Resolution Omnibus Act, the federal government cannot use federal funds to enforce federal laws that make the possession of marijuana illegal against state licensed medical users of marijuana. That provision does not apply to non-medical possession and in states that have not legalized medical marijuana.
http://news.yahoo.com/2-states-challenge-colorado-marijuana-legalization-205235212.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=fb
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-asked-to-decide-whether-colorado-s-marijuana-legalization-violates-con
http://www.ouraynews.com/articles/2014/12/19/colorado-states-file-suit-declare-marijuana-law-unconstitutional
http://www.cato.org/blog/nebraska-oklahoma-sue-colorado
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/oklahoma-and-nebraska-sue-colorado-over-dangerous-marijuana-law-20141219
The Law Office of Kurt T. Koehler, 308 1/2 S. State Street Ann Arbor, Michigan (MI) 48198 (Washtenaw County); Copyright 2012 by Kurt Koehler
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Appellate Case Timelines
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article about the length of time that recent Supreme Court cases from the last five years were pending by the time they reached the apex court. This article only considers cases where the Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari which is a very small percentage of the cases that are appealed there.
Not surprisingly most the cases were pending for 4-6 years. Criminal appeals and some interlocutory appeals take priority, but after conviction criminal cases can take far longer than civil cases where collateral habeas corpus review is sought especially in death penatly cases. Some cases may also be remanded back to the lower courts and come back for further review. Other cases may first reach the appellate courts on preliminary procedural matters and once those are resolved return on appeals from the judgment.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-supreme-court-cases-are-marathons-1417394399
The Law Office of Kurt T. Koehler, 308 1/2 S. State Street Ann Arbor, Michigan (MI) 48198 (Washtenaw County); Copyright 2012 by Kurt Koehler
Not surprisingly most the cases were pending for 4-6 years. Criminal appeals and some interlocutory appeals take priority, but after conviction criminal cases can take far longer than civil cases where collateral habeas corpus review is sought especially in death penatly cases. Some cases may also be remanded back to the lower courts and come back for further review. Other cases may first reach the appellate courts on preliminary procedural matters and once those are resolved return on appeals from the judgment.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/why-supreme-court-cases-are-marathons-1417394399
The Law Office of Kurt T. Koehler, 308 1/2 S. State Street Ann Arbor, Michigan (MI) 48198 (Washtenaw County); Copyright 2012 by Kurt Koehler
Monday, June 30, 2014
Catching Up
A few months ago I wrote about software patents before the Supreme Court. Instead of issuing a broad ruling the Court merely decided that adding a computer to an abstract idea would not be enough to make it patentable. Abstract ideas are not patentable. The trouble comes in deciding what an abstract idea constitutes.
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/5841192/why-last-weeks-ruling-was-bad-news-for-software-patents
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf
The Law Office of Kurt T. Koehler, 308 1/2 S. State Street Ann Arbor, Michigan (MI) 48198 (Washtenaw County); Copyright 2012 by Kurt Koehler
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/26/5841192/why-last-weeks-ruling-was-bad-news-for-software-patents
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-298_7lh8.pdf
The Law Office of Kurt T. Koehler, 308 1/2 S. State Street Ann Arbor, Michigan (MI) 48198 (Washtenaw County); Copyright 2012 by Kurt Koehler
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Alien Tort Statute
The Supreme Court reheard arguments in Koibel v. Royal Dutch Shell this past week. I discussed this case on this blog back in February. The issue before the court now is whether the alien tort statute can be used when the parties and the case have no connection to the United States.
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/162110683/high-court-takes-up-human-rights-on-first-day-back
Previous Posts on the Alien Tort Statute:
http://koehlerlegal.blogspot.com/2012/03/alien-tort-statute-revisited.html
http://koehlerlegal.blogspot.com/2012/02/corporate-liability-under-alien-tort.html
s/ Kurt Koehler
308 1/2 S. State Street Suite 36
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48198
(Washtenaw County)
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/162110683/high-court-takes-up-human-rights-on-first-day-back
Previous Posts on the Alien Tort Statute:
http://koehlerlegal.blogspot.com/2012/03/alien-tort-statute-revisited.html
http://koehlerlegal.blogspot.com/2012/02/corporate-liability-under-alien-tort.html
s/ Kurt Koehler
308 1/2 S. State Street Suite 36
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48198
(Washtenaw County)
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Stolen Valor Case Heard by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court heard arguments today, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203960804577239330547805116.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, on United States v. Alvarez, http://www.oyez.com/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_11_210, which is an interesting first amendment case involving the Stolen Valor Act that was passed and signed into law in 2006. I might post more on it when the Court rules. However, I can't help but notice how many amici briefs these prominent cases attract. It seems a little excessive though it probably keeps the law clerks busy. Deluging any judge with paper is generally ineffective. I can't imagine that it is any different at the Supreme Court level. The docket is below:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | ~~Phone~~~ |
| Attorneys for Petitioner: | ||
| Donald B. Verrilli Jr. | Solicitor General | (202) 514-2217 |
| Counsel of Record | United States Department of Justice | |
| 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. | ||
| Washington, DC 20530-0001 | ||
| SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov | ||
| Party name: United States | ||
| Attorneys for Respondent: | ||
| Jonathan D. Libby | Deputy Federal Public Defender | (213) 894-2905 |
| Counsel of Record | Office of the Public Defender | |
| 321 East 2nd Street | ||
| Los Angeles, CA 90012 | ||
| Jonathan_Libby@fd.org | ||
| Party name: Xavier Alvarez | ||
| Other: | ||
| Kevin N. Ainsworth | Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC | (212)-692-6745 |
| 666 Third Avenue | ||
| New York, NY 10017 | ||
| kainsworth@mintz.com | ||
| Party name: Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation | ||
| Michael A. Bamberger | SNRDenton US LLP | (212) 768-6700 |
| 1221 Ave. of the Americas | ||
| New York, NY 10020 | ||
| mbamberger@snrdenton.com | ||
| Party name: American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, et al. | ||
| Robert L. Corn-Revere | Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP | (202) 973-4200 |
| 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 800 | ||
| Washington, DC 20006-3401 | ||
| bobcornrevere@dwt.com | ||
| Party name: Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, et al. | ||
| Arthur C. D'Andrea | Assistant Solicitor General | (512) 936-2868 |
| Texas Attorney General's Office | ||
| P. O. Box 12548 MC059 | ||
| Austin, TX 78711 | ||
| arthur.dandrea@oag.state.tx.us | ||
| Party name: Texas, et al. | ||
| John M. Greabe | University of New Hampshire | (603)-746-6138 |
| School of Law | ||
| 2 White Street | ||
| Concord, NH 03301 | ||
| John.Greabe@law.unh.edu | ||
| Party name: Intellectual Property Clinic of the University of New Hampshire | ||
| Jameel Jaffer | American Civil Liberties Union Foundation | (212) 549-2500 |
| 125 Broad Street | ||
| New York, NY 10004 | ||
| jjaffer@aclu.org | ||
| Party name: American Civil Liberties Union, et al. | ||
| Jean-Paul Jassy | Bostwick & Jassy LLP | (310) 979-6059 |
| 12400 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 400 | ||
| Los Angeles, CA 90025 | ||
| jpjassy@bostwickjassy.com | ||
| Party name: First Amendment Coalition | ||
| Reed Lee | J.D. Obenberger & Associates | (312) 558-6427 |
| 70 West Madison Street, Suite 3700 | ||
| Chicago, IL 60602 | ||
| reedlee@strictscrutiny.net | ||
| Party name: First Amendment Lawyers Association | ||
| Cary B. Lerman | Munger Tolles & Olson LLP | (213) 683-9163 |
| 355 South Grand Avenue 35th Floor | ||
| Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 | ||
| Party name: Professor Jonathan D. Varat | ||
| Michael T. Morley | Winston Strawn LLP1700 K Street NW | (202)-282-5791 |
| Washington, DC 20006 | ||
| mmorley@winston.com | ||
| Party name: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, et al. | ||
| Michael V. Schafler | 1000 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 600 | (213)-629-9040 |
| Los Angeles, CA 90017 | ||
| schafler@caldwell-leslie.com | ||
| Party name: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers | ||
| Kent S. Scheidegger | Criminal Justice Legal Foundation | (916) 446-0345 |
| 2131 L Street | ||
| Sacramento, CA 95816 | ||
| kent@scheidegger@CJLF.org | ||
| Party name: Legion of Valor of the United States, et al. | ||
| Aaron M. Streett | Baker Botts L.L.P. | (713) 229-1234 |
| 910 Louisiana Street | ||
| Houston, TX 77002 | ||
| aaron.streett@bakerbotts.com | ||
| Party name: The American Legion | ||
| Eugene Volokh | UCLA School of Law | (310) 206-3926 |
| 405 Hilgard Ave. | ||
| Los Angeles, CA 90095 | ||
| volokh@law.ucla.edu | ||
| Party name: Professors Eugene Volokh, and James Weinstein | ||
| J. Joshua Wheeler | Thomas Jefferson Center for Protection of Free Expression | (434) 295-4784 |
| 400 Worrell Drive | ||
| Charlottesville, VA 22911 | ||
| jjw@tjcenter.org | ||
| Party name: Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression s/ Kurt Koehler 308 1/2 S. State Street Suite 36 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48198 (Washtenaw County) | ||
Miranda Warnings In Prison Settings
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Howes v. Fields today. The case involved a collateral habeus corpus petition on a criminal sexual conduct conviction that had been affirmed on direct appeal. The defendant was incarcerated in Michigan when he was taken from his cell to a conference room where he was questioned by armed deputies for between 5-7 hours about allegations that he sexually abused a 12 year old before he was incarcerated. He was told he could go back to his cell at any time and the door was sometimes open and sometimes closed. He did not ask to leave and eventually confessed to the allegations and that confession was used to obtain a conviction. Both at trial and on direct appeal he attempted to have the confession suppressed as he was never given Miranda warnings during the questioning that he characterized as custodial. This argument was rejected.
However, the habeus petition was granted by the federal district court and 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis that the defendant was not given a Miranda warning as required during a custodial interrogation. The 6th circuit reasoned that an interrogation in a jail or prison setting is custodial if 1) It occurred during imprisonment, 2) Involved questioning in private about 3) events that occurred in the outside world.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, rejected this reasoning and held that custodial interrogation must be judged by whether the circumstances present a serious danger of coercion. Namely, would a reasonable person have felt free to terminate the interrogation and leave provided that the interrogation environment presents the same coercive pressures as the station house interrogation that was at issue in Miranda v. Arizona. The Court found that there can be a break in custody during an uninterrupted term of incarceration. Factors such as the length of the interrogation, that the interrogators were armed and used sharp language, and the fact that the defendant was not told he could decline the interview favor a finding that the interrogation was custodial. However other factors offset these as the defendant was told he could leave and go back to his cell at any time, he was not physically restrained, the conference room was well lit and not uncomfortable, the door was sometimes open, and he was offered food and water.
Justice Ginsburg dissented joined by Justices Sotomayor and Breyer stating, "I would not train, as the Court does, on the question whether there can be custody within custody. Instead, I would ask, as Miranda put it, whether Fields was subjected to 'incommunicado interro- gation . . . in a police-dominated atmosphere,' 384 U. S., at 445, whether he was placed, against his will, in an inher- ently stressful situation, see id., at 468, and whether his 'freedom of action [was] curtailed in any significant way,' id., at 467. Those should be the key questions, and to each I would answer 'Yes.'". Ginsburg focused on the fact that the defendant was not told he could decline the interview with the deputies, that he felt trapped, that he believed the deputies would not allow him to leave the room despite their statement that he could, that he told the deputies he did not wish to speak with them anymore multiple times, that although he was given water he was not given his night medications, and that the deputies were armed.
s/ Kurt Koehler
308 1/2 S. State Street Suite 36
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48198
(Washtenaw County)
However, the habeus petition was granted by the federal district court and 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on the basis that the defendant was not given a Miranda warning as required during a custodial interrogation. The 6th circuit reasoned that an interrogation in a jail or prison setting is custodial if 1) It occurred during imprisonment, 2) Involved questioning in private about 3) events that occurred in the outside world.
The Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Alito, rejected this reasoning and held that custodial interrogation must be judged by whether the circumstances present a serious danger of coercion. Namely, would a reasonable person have felt free to terminate the interrogation and leave provided that the interrogation environment presents the same coercive pressures as the station house interrogation that was at issue in Miranda v. Arizona. The Court found that there can be a break in custody during an uninterrupted term of incarceration. Factors such as the length of the interrogation, that the interrogators were armed and used sharp language, and the fact that the defendant was not told he could decline the interview favor a finding that the interrogation was custodial. However other factors offset these as the defendant was told he could leave and go back to his cell at any time, he was not physically restrained, the conference room was well lit and not uncomfortable, the door was sometimes open, and he was offered food and water.
Justice Ginsburg dissented joined by Justices Sotomayor and Breyer stating, "I would not train, as the Court does, on the question whether there can be custody within custody. Instead, I would ask, as Miranda put it, whether Fields was subjected to 'incommunicado interro- gation . . . in a police-dominated atmosphere,' 384 U. S., at 445, whether he was placed, against his will, in an inher- ently stressful situation, see id., at 468, and whether his 'freedom of action [was] curtailed in any significant way,' id., at 467. Those should be the key questions, and to each I would answer 'Yes.'". Ginsburg focused on the fact that the defendant was not told he could decline the interview with the deputies, that he felt trapped, that he believed the deputies would not allow him to leave the room despite their statement that he could, that he told the deputies he did not wish to speak with them anymore multiple times, that although he was given water he was not given his night medications, and that the deputies were armed.
s/ Kurt Koehler
308 1/2 S. State Street Suite 36
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48198
(Washtenaw County)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)