ETA: I should include a picture of my bandaged finger in honor of the latest Mets injury woes -- two starters have sore fingers now.
It is almost time for yet another sweeps month, the result of a flawed system where important cases (justices are loathe to differentiate there but this is true and is shown by their selective use of same day audio) are stacked up at the end of the term.
We are in that sense in the calm before the storm though a few notable cases have been decided this month. Likewise, a somewhat notable (how much is unclear) non-grant on Monday in an abortion case. An election case was declared moot in that Order List, but Rick Hasen over at Election Law Blog did not seem to think that generally notable. And, here is an essay regarding the tribal case that was punted. As noted there, I think this concern for the reach of immunity is somewhat limited.
SCOTUS had opinions on three cases. One case was disposed of as improvidently granted [DIG]. The Roberts Court has picked its spots and repeatedly finds a way to narrowly decide things and avoid issues. Another case dealt with a criminal restitution statute (though not your usual benefactor -- a major corporation was involved) via a brief (about seven pages minus head notes) unanimous Breyer opinion. The reach is unclear but that commentary suggests it might be of some note in that area.
The final case was pretty easy (8-1) but basically is application of a principle to a sort of outer limit. Police looked under a tarp at a motorcycle in someone's driveway. The driveway is the "curtilage" -- a border around the home (specifically protected by the Fourth Amendment and given special respect in other areas too -- obscenity and handguns come to mind) protected as well. The matter earlier came up when dealing with drug sniffing dogs taken to a person's front door. Other than Alito's "this seems stupid" dissenting approach (comparing a 18th Century law dealing with ships and wharves is also an example of misuse of two things not quite the same), the result here applying current law is simple.
At some point, yes, you can draw lines. But, this is not like a case cited in the opinion about a vehicle that has just driven into the driveway or something (and "exigent circumstances" remains, even if a suspect flees into a house -- unlike in a movie where crossing a district line stops the pursuit, there isn't quite a magic line). Formalism can at some point miss the forests for the tree, but a basic line was drawn here that made sense. As noted, the well off can afford garages and the like. Alito talks about distance. But, one's home is a short distance from the street too.
The value of such "easy cases" (in a fashion) is that it allows a supermajority of the Court to basically reaffirm basic principles. The privacy of the home in this case. Justice Thomas had a separate opinion to question the exclusionary rule (see former prosecutor Justice Clark in Mapp v. Ohio on why we have it) though went along with the majority because the matter was not at issue here. Not to worry: he will go along with the conservatives to water it down without removing it. I guess we need another fairly easy case to reaffirm the point of the rule.
Meanwhile, in the lower courts, "In God We Trust" is safe for now. The analysis very well might be right that given Hobby Lobby, the argument is close. This might underline the problem with an excessive application of RFRA or (if that is a given) the law itself. I personally think the motto violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise argument is fairly weak. But, under current law, my argument is itself weak. Judge Reinhardt was on stronger ground there regarding the much more narrow argument as to minors and public school led Pledge of Allegiance usage.
It is almost time for yet another sweeps month, the result of a flawed system where important cases (justices are loathe to differentiate there but this is true and is shown by their selective use of same day audio) are stacked up at the end of the term.
We are in that sense in the calm before the storm though a few notable cases have been decided this month. Likewise, a somewhat notable (how much is unclear) non-grant on Monday in an abortion case. An election case was declared moot in that Order List, but Rick Hasen over at Election Law Blog did not seem to think that generally notable. And, here is an essay regarding the tribal case that was punted. As noted there, I think this concern for the reach of immunity is somewhat limited.
SCOTUS had opinions on three cases. One case was disposed of as improvidently granted [DIG]. The Roberts Court has picked its spots and repeatedly finds a way to narrowly decide things and avoid issues. Another case dealt with a criminal restitution statute (though not your usual benefactor -- a major corporation was involved) via a brief (about seven pages minus head notes) unanimous Breyer opinion. The reach is unclear but that commentary suggests it might be of some note in that area.
The final case was pretty easy (8-1) but basically is application of a principle to a sort of outer limit. Police looked under a tarp at a motorcycle in someone's driveway. The driveway is the "curtilage" -- a border around the home (specifically protected by the Fourth Amendment and given special respect in other areas too -- obscenity and handguns come to mind) protected as well. The matter earlier came up when dealing with drug sniffing dogs taken to a person's front door. Other than Alito's "this seems stupid" dissenting approach (comparing a 18th Century law dealing with ships and wharves is also an example of misuse of two things not quite the same), the result here applying current law is simple.
At some point, yes, you can draw lines. But, this is not like a case cited in the opinion about a vehicle that has just driven into the driveway or something (and "exigent circumstances" remains, even if a suspect flees into a house -- unlike in a movie where crossing a district line stops the pursuit, there isn't quite a magic line). Formalism can at some point miss the forests for the tree, but a basic line was drawn here that made sense. As noted, the well off can afford garages and the like. Alito talks about distance. But, one's home is a short distance from the street too.
The value of such "easy cases" (in a fashion) is that it allows a supermajority of the Court to basically reaffirm basic principles. The privacy of the home in this case. Justice Thomas had a separate opinion to question the exclusionary rule (see former prosecutor Justice Clark in Mapp v. Ohio on why we have it) though went along with the majority because the matter was not at issue here. Not to worry: he will go along with the conservatives to water it down without removing it. I guess we need another fairly easy case to reaffirm the point of the rule.
Meanwhile, in the lower courts, "In God We Trust" is safe for now. The analysis very well might be right that given Hobby Lobby, the argument is close. This might underline the problem with an excessive application of RFRA or (if that is a given) the law itself. I personally think the motto violates the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise argument is fairly weak. But, under current law, my argument is itself weak. Judge Reinhardt was on stronger ground there regarding the much more narrow argument as to minors and public school led Pledge of Allegiance usage.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!