The Supreme Court was back this week hearing oral arguments, the biggest (and most controversial) one involving long term litigation involving health rights of California prisons. Probably the win for good audio. A more mundane case involved an "argument regarding whether the Eleventh Amendment prohibits an independent state agency from suing state officials in federal court for an injunction to remedy a violation of federal law." Another involved the breadth of freedom of information requests, where both sides won in part below.
The Supreme Court provides audio (in different formats) at the end of the week of the oral argument on its website along with the transcript of the case (which is released separately usually the same day as the argument) as shown in that last link. It is a major development though few know about it and for all the delay, seems to have came off without a hitch. [Any problems weren't reported at Scotusblog, for instance.] It would be helpful that the audio page had a summary of the case instead as simply a case label. I don't know why such a logical thing isn't there now.
The state immunity case seemed remarkably civil, the justice (even Scalia) more than once complimenting the "good" arguments made though the state lawyer and the assistant solicitor general (who supported the independent state agency) had a bit of trouble at times from the justices. The latter is Ginger Anders ("Ginger" isn't exactly a serious sounding name), who "performed as a soloist at the Park Avenue Chamber Symphony in New York." She also was involved in a failed attempt to limit lethal injection protocols. One can see why the Obama Administration is on board:
The prison case was striking (as is that Dahlia Lithwick didn't cover it) but I found this one sort of interesting. There were others not covered here that appear to be fairly technical. As to the FOIA case, it is pretty narrow, and listening it to it as I type, doesn't appear overly interesting. The matter could be important in any given case though.
---
* "What we're saying here is that if a suit could go forward between two State agencies, between State agency and State officials in State court, and if that case involved a Federal issue, it can be heard in Federal court if the other requirements of Article III and Ex parte Young are being met."
The Supreme Court provides audio (in different formats) at the end of the week of the oral argument on its website along with the transcript of the case (which is released separately usually the same day as the argument) as shown in that last link. It is a major development though few know about it and for all the delay, seems to have came off without a hitch. [Any problems weren't reported at Scotusblog, for instance.] It would be helpful that the audio page had a summary of the case instead as simply a case label. I don't know why such a logical thing isn't there now.
The state immunity case seemed remarkably civil, the justice (even Scalia) more than once complimenting the "good" arguments made though the state lawyer and the assistant solicitor general (who supported the independent state agency) had a bit of trouble at times from the justices. The latter is Ginger Anders ("Ginger" isn't exactly a serious sounding name), who "performed as a soloist at the Park Avenue Chamber Symphony in New York." She also was involved in a failed attempt to limit lethal injection protocols. One can see why the Obama Administration is on board:
This case arises from VOPA’s attempts to investigate two deaths and one injury in facilities operated by the Virginia Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse Services. As part of its investigations, VOPA repeatedly requested certain records related to the deaths and injury, but state officials refused to provide them.The law at issue ties federal funds with a need for independence in the agency involved in controlling the use of the funds, including the power to sue. This basically seems to be the issue. And, the state's problem is in part that even though they consented (which Scalia flagged) that this is a Eleventh Amendment problem, since here a state agency was suing its own state in federal court. The oral argument didn't really address another issue, that is, the federal law can be upheld by a means other than used here. Breyer tossed one of his usual law professor questions, getting a laugh:
Suppose you have a State which loves litigation. 48 percent of the population are retired lawyers. Nothing pleases them more than to have everybody suing everybody else. So they pass a statute which says, for purposes of lawsuits in this State, every department can sue every other department.Or, didn't mind independent agencies could sue the state in federal court for the purposes addressed here. Ultimately, the case seemed to be somewhat trivial, since the agency's lawyer agreed* with Breyer that the state could not simply reject the federal funds, but also not allow a state official to bring such a claim anyways. But, if a intrastate suit could occur in state court, if a federal question arose, it could occur in federal court. I guess states would not want to have such a blanket rule. Still, I wonder if there is a way to cabin such power to address some of the concerns. Finally, and this is partially a dislike of current so-called Eleventh Amendment immunity law, I don't see why state "dignity" is harmed in federal suits but not state suits of this nature.
The prison case was striking (as is that Dahlia Lithwick didn't cover it) but I found this one sort of interesting. There were others not covered here that appear to be fairly technical. As to the FOIA case, it is pretty narrow, and listening it to it as I type, doesn't appear overly interesting. The matter could be important in any given case though.
---
* "What we're saying here is that if a suit could go forward between two State agencies, between State agency and State officials in State court, and if that case involved a Federal issue, it can be heard in Federal court if the other requirements of Article III and Ex parte Young are being met."