Decided

For Ariz., Scalia Offers Alternate Path Toward Proof of Citizenship

2013-06-18T23:32:01Z

While Justice Antonin Scalia is known as an outspoken conservative, he did not approve of Arizona's law requiring proof of citizenship for voters. The opinion he penned for the U.S. Supreme Court, however, suggests a potential avenue for Arizona to get its way.

In a 7-2 ruling, the Court struck down an Arizona voter-registration provision enacted by voters in 2004, because it is pre-empted by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), a federal law passed in 1993.

The NVRA requires voters to simply check a box on a form, swearing by penalty of perjury that they're citizens of the United States. But Arizona's law went far beyond this.

Why Arizona's Law Failed

Arizona's Proposition 200 required proof of documentation -- such as a driver's license, birth certificate, or passport -- that would be very difficult for illegal immigrants especially to obtain. Critics saw this as another attempt by Arizona to suppress minority votes and make life tougher for immigrants.

Writing for the Court's majority, Scalia was also critical of the law, as it ran into issues with the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. That clause states that federal law trumps state law if the laws' provisions conflict.

As Scalia explained in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the NVRA requires that states "accept and use" the federal form. In spite of this, Arizona had been rejecting forms when its additional state-mandated proof-of-citizenship documentation was not met.

Scalia, a fan of plain language, wrote that "accept and use" did not simultaneously mean "reject and return."

Arizona's Options

But Scalia also wrote that Arizona has "alternative means of enforcing its constitutional power to determine voting qualifications."

Namely, the state could petition the federal Election Assistance Commission to change the form's requirements, Scalia suggested. If the EAC fails to act, the state could then "seek judicial review of the EAC's decision under the Administrative Procedure Act."

That's exactly what Arizona will probably do, the state's attorney general told the Associated Press after the ruling's release on Monday.

So while Justice Scalia "appeared to sympathize with Arizona's goal of requiring better proof of citizenship" for voters, as USA Today reported, it seems the conservative jurist ultimately voted based on the federal law's supremacy. Four other states -- Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, and Tennessee -- also have proof-of-citizenship laws similar to Arizona's.

Related Resources:

Justices invalidate Arizona voter registration law (Reuters)
Supreme Court Justices: Antonin Scalia (FindLaw)
Ariz. Voter 'Citizenship' Law Struck Down (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
The Great Dissenter: Top 5 Scalia Quotes from the Other Side (FindLaw's U.S. Supreme Court Blog)

Human Genes Can't Be Patented, Supreme Court Rules

2013-06-13T18:06:01Z

In a first of its kind ruling on human gene patents, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that synthetically produced genetic material can be patented, but naturally occurring DNA extracted from the human body cannot, Reuters reports.

The Court's decision is a partial victory to biotechnology company Myriad Genetics Inc., which holds the patents in question.

But since the Court ruled that isolated human genes may not be patented, the rights group that challenged the patents came away with a win too.

A Myriad of Legal Issues

The case concerned Myriad's patents on the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, which correlate with increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors who argued Myriad's patents had a chilling effect on breast and ovarian cancer research, and that their ability to help patients was stifled.

The patented genes at issue were in the spotlight after Angelina Jolie underwent a preventive double mastectomy. In her op-ed for The New York Times, Jolie pointed out the dire need for women to obtain affordable access to genetic testing.

As previously discussed in FindLaw's Celebrity Justice blog, the price of the test -- often more than $3,000 -- was partly a product of Myriad's patent, putting it out of reach for some women. This is because Myriad filed patent infringement suits against others who conducted testing based on the gene.

As a result of the Court's decision, the price of the test is expected to fall, reports The New York Times.

No Patents for 'Products of Nature'

The core issue of the case, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, No. 12-398, was whether isolated human genes are "products of nature" that may not be patented or "human-made inventions" eligible for patent protection.

Myriad's discovery of the precise location and sequence of the genes at issue, BRCA1 and BRCA2, did not qualify, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the Court.

"A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated," Thomas explained. "It is undisputed that Myriad did not create or alter any of the genetic information encoded in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes."

The Court rejected the Federal Circuit's ruling that protected a "finder's keepers" approach to isolated gene patents. Justice Thomas pointed out that discovery of an isolated gene, no matter how "groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant," is not eligible for patent protection.

There are still ways for companies to make a profit from their research, Thomas added. For example, companies can still get patent protection for manipulating a gene to create something not found in nature.

Companies can also patent the methods of isolating human genes, just not the isolated genes themselves.

Unfortunately for Myriad, "the processes used by Myriad to isolate DNA were well understood by geneticists," Thomas wrote.

From the perspective of Sandra Park of the ACLU Women's Rights Project, the decision is a milestone lauding scientific discovery and patient care.

"Today, the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation," she said. "Myriad did not invent the BRCA genes and should not control them. Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued."

Related Resources:

Court Says Human Genes Cannot Be Patented (The Associated Press)
Breakdown of Oral Arguments in Myriad Gene Patent Case (FindLaw's Federal Circuit Blog)
A Patent on Mother Nature? Court Invalidates Gene Patents (FindLaw's Decided)
Will the SCOTUS Actually Resolve Genetic Patents This Time? (FindLaw's U.S. Supreme Court Blog)

NSA Warrantless Wiretapping Lawsuit's Dismissal Affirmed

2013-06-12T18:56:01Z

A 2007 lawsuit challenging the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program will not be revived, as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the suit's dismissal on Monday.

This legal action began years before the recent NSA leaks concerning Verizon phone records and the PRISM project. But it shows just how difficult it may be to stop NSA surveillance via lawsuits.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) has been fighting for nearly seven years to try to have the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), which ended in 2007, labeled as unconstitutional.

CCR's Constitutional Claims

The CCR claimed in its federal suit against the government, CCR v. Bush (later renamed CCR v. Obama), that in using the NSA's TSP to intercept communications, the NSA knowingly listened in on conversations within our borders.

The government typically cannot legally listen to the content of domestic calls without a warrant, even if the call is made using a public pay phone (as if those still exist).

The CCR claimed that the government violated the Fourth Amendment rights of several of its members, intruding upon their reasonable expectations of privacy, when it made use of Patriot Act provisions allowing communications surveillance without a warrant.

9th Circuit Denial

The CCR's original case was dismissed by a federal judge in 2011. The group then appealed to the 9th Circuit.

The 9th Circuit noted that this case was similar to another suit before the U.S. Supreme Court, Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l, where government surveillance programs under the 2008 incarnation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) were challenged for Fourth Amendment reasons.

Like the plaintiffs in Clapper, the 9th Circuit demanded proof that the government had surveilled them. Since CCR did not provide that proof, the 9th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the case.

Can You Ever Successfully Sue Over Surveillance?

Although CCR v. Obama and Clapper were failed attempts to sue the government for violating the Fourth Amendment with their covert surveillance programs, it doesn't mean that all lawsuits are a no-go.

As you may recall from the Watergate scandal, even the president cannot warrantlessly wiretap on U.S. soil, and not even his executive privilege can save him from prosecution.

The current allegations of NSA surveillance of phones and electronic data focus on the same set of laws as those in the Clapper case. The only missing ingredient for a successful lawsuit is a smoking gun, an NSA "Deep Throat," or simply solid evidence that a plaintiff was actually listened in on.

Related Resources:

Why you can't sue the government for spying on you (Salon)
NSA, FBI Surveillance: Legally Justified? (FindLaw's Blotter)
Three Things to Know About the NSA Verizon Surveillance Scandal (FindLaw's Technologist)
ACLU Sues Obama Administration Over Domestic Phone Records Collection (FindLaw's Courtside)

Girl, 10, Can Go on Adult Organ-Transplant List for Now, Judge Rules

2013-06-07T18:01:01Z

A 10-year-old girl is now eligible for an adult organ transplant, thanks to a federal judge's ruling this week. The ruling may spur changes in deciding who gets on the organ-transplant list.

Sarah Murnaghan of Pennsylvania, who has end-stage cystic fibrosis, was denied eligibility to be placed on a list of those waiting for adult organs. Because she was not 12 years old -- the cutoff age for the adult list -- she had to be placed on a list for pediatric donors, which are far more rare than adults.

But that changed after the judge's ruling on Wednesday.

Organ-Transplant Protocol

A representative from the Department of Health and Human Services said the organ-transplant protocol is out of their hands, the Los Angeles Times reports.

Fortunately, for Murnaghan and her family, U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson is ordering a 10-day temporary restraining order in the case. After he suspended the age limit for the time being, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN) promptly added her to the adult organ-transplant list on Wednesday.

This doesn't mean that Sarah will instantly receive an adult transplant. Instead, it means that she has a chance at one, for now.

Temporary Restraining Order

A temporary restraining order puts a temporary freeze on the age rule from being enforced, meaning that for the next 10 days or so, Sarah will remain on the list. With any luck, a donor will be available, and things will pan out.

The judge also scheduled a hearing for June 14, to consider the possibility of a broader injunction if no transplant comes through.

There are, of course, other concerns facing those waiting a transplant, such as the right size of the organ, the blood type, and other medical factors. Still, this is a very bright glimmer of hope for Sarah and her family.

Sarah Murnaghan is not the only child facing this problem, and her case has now inspired others to demand placement on the list, with at least one lawsuit being filed, NBC News reports. As many of these children are too sick to wait, many are hoping this will draw enough attention to the OPTN that a permanent change can be made.

Related Resources:

Pennsylvania girl eligible for adult organ transplant after ruling (Reuters)
Can I Sell an Organ? (FindLaw)
So You Want to Be an Organ Donor (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
Boy Banned from School Over Cystic Fibrosis Gene (FindLaw's Injured)

SCOTUS: No Warrant Needed for DNA Swab of Arrestee

2013-06-04T16:19:44Z

The Supreme Court came down on the side of warrantless DNA swabs on Monday, stating in a 5-4 majority that they did not violate a defendant’s 4th Amendment rights.

In a somewhat surprising split, the Maryland v. King majority stated the Maryland law DNA sampling law did not violate convicted rapist Alonzo Jay King’s rights by authorizing police to take a DNA sample from King after arrest, reports Reuters.

How does this ruling on DNA swabs sit with the Court’s prior rulings on collecting physical evidence from defendants?

DNA Sample Just Like A Fingerprint

Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the majority, in which he ultimately believes that the 4th amendment balance between the state's interests and personal privacy rights tips toward the government's interest in using DNA as a powerfully accurate identifier.

The Court majority believes that DNA is a modern and far superior analogue to fingerprinting, which the court had included as part of the "administrative steps incident to arrest" not requiring probable cause.

DNA sampling is also minimally intrusive, proponents argue, as it only requires a few seconds of a sterile cotton swab in a defendant's mouth.

You can read the entire majority opinion here.

Scalia Strikes Back

Penning an unsurprising dissent with some even more surprising followers, Justice Antonin Scalia couldn't believe that any "noninvestigative motive" exists for taking DNA swabs from a defendant.

He declares that the Court has not approved of any warrantless searches where the primary purpose was to detect "evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing," and that DNA can only serve to identify by identifying suspects for additional crimes.

It wouldn't be the first time Scalia has taken almost a Luddite stance to technology in criminal justice, even when it was used to bust illegal pot farmers.

Less Intrusive, Yet More Information

Maybe there is some truth to the idea that a DNA swab is minimally invasive when viewed against DUI blood tests which the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 were unconstitutional without a warrant.

Even though DNA swabs contain the same principled bodily intrusion, perhaps much of the King dissent's worry comes from the idea that DNA contains fantastically more information than a fingerprint.

In over two dozen states that have implemented some form of DNA swab, only a handful of markers (out of billions) are stored as a DNA profile, reports CNN.

So while a danger of DNA overreach exists, even with this ruling, we aren't quite in "Gattaca" yet.

Related Resources:

Maryland v. King: DNA ID of Arrestee is Constitutional (FindLaw's U.S. Supreme Court Blog)
Police DNA Swabs OK Upon Arrest: Supreme Court (FindLaw's Blotter)
Fingerprints: The First ID (FindLaw)
The Fourth Amendment "Reasonableness" Requirement (FindLaw)

Walmart to Pay $110M for Environmental-Protection Violations

2013-05-30T18:36:01Z

Walmart has pleaded guilty to violating environmental protection laws, including the Clean Water Act, in three separate cases this week. The world's largest retailer is now set to pay more than $110 million in fines.

Walmart admitted to six misdemeanor counts of violating the Clean Water Act in two cases filed by federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco. The company admitted to illegally disposing of hazardous waste materials at its retail stores.

In a third case out of Missouri, Walmart also pleaded guilty to violating the Federal Insecticide, fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by improperly handling pesticides that had been returned to its stores by customers.

Walmart's Improper Handling of Waste

Walmart's fines now total more than $110 million. This includes $40 million in community service payments and fines in California, $14 million in community service payments and fines in Missouri, and a $7.6 million U.S. Environmental Protection Agency fine, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).

Court documents filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco show that the improper dumping happened in 16 California counties between 2003 and 2005, the Associated Press reports. The waste was illegally dumped into municipal trash bins, and liquids were improperly poured into local sewer systems. Federal law considers the discarded material to be hazardous waste.

Those same documents show that from an unknown date up until the beginning of 2006, Walmart did not have any program to train its employees on how to properly dispose of hazardous waste materials and to teach them disposal practices at the store level, according to the DOJ.

Sending a 'Message'

The plea agreement filed in Kansas City states that between the summer of 2006 to early 2008, Walmart employees did not properly oversee the pesticides sent to return centers. Those pesticides were mixed together with regulated pesticides and sold without the required information on the labels. This is a violation of FIFRA.

"Truckloads of hazardous products, including more than 2 million pounds of pesticides, were improperly handled under [Walmart]'s contract," the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri said in a statement.

Walmart's criminal fine "should send a message to companies of all sizes that they will be held accountable to follow federal environmental laws," the federal prosecutor continued. Walmart's community service payment will be used to fund environmental projects in Missouri "to help prevent such abuses in the future."

Related Resources:

Wal-Mart pleads guilty in California, Missouri to environmental crimes committed at its stores (The Sacramento Bee)
Clean Water Act (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)
Wal-Mart Settles EEOC Sex Discrimination Lawsuit for $11.7M (FindLaw's Decided)
Wal-Mart Bleach Fight Sends 19 to Hospital (FindLaw's Blotter)

Joe Arpaio's Sheriff Department Racially Profiled Latinos, Court Finds

2013-05-28T19:29:33Z

A federal court ruled that Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his deputies racially profiled Latinos while on immigration patrols in the Arizona county, reports The New York Times.

The ruling is a major blow to the self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America,” who has become the poster child of Arizona’s strict approach to immigration enforcement. The lawsuit was brought by a group of Latinos who alleged they were racially profiled by Arpaio’s deputies as targets for raids and traffic stops.

Arpaio’s attorneys plan to appeal the federal judge’s ruling in the next 30 days.

Race discrimination and racial profiling by law enforcement violates the Constitution. It's against federal law in a variety of situations.

In this case, Judge G. Murray Snow of United States District Court found Maricopa County Sheriff's Office deputies were pulling over and singling out people who are dark skinned and speak Spanish to check their immigration status.

Instead of monetary damages, the group asked for the judge to declare the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office had engaged in racial profiling and to order policy changes.

According to the ruling, the sheriff's office can't use "race or Latino ancestry" as a factor at all in deciding to stop any vehicle with Latino occupants, or as a factor in deciding whether they may be in the country without authorization.

It also prohibits deputies from reporting a vehicle's Latino occupants to federal immigration authorities or detaining, holding or arresting them, unless there is more than just a "reasonable belief" that they are in the country illegally. To detain them, the deputies need to also have reasonable suspicion that the occupants are violating the state's human-trafficking and employment laws or committing other crimes.

Cecillia Wang, director of the Immigrants' Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups that spearheaded the lawsuit, said, "Let this be a warning to anyone who hides behind a badge to wage their own private campaign against Latinos or immigrants that there is no exception in the Constitution for violating people's rights in immigration enforcement."

Related Resources:

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Appeal Judge's Finding His Department Engaged in Racial Profiling (ABC News)
Joe Arpaio Violated Latinos' Civil Rights (FindLaw's Blotter)
Sheriff Joe Arpaio Loses 9th Circuit Injunction Appeal (FindLaw's Ninth Circuit Blog)
No Qualified Immunity for Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Newspaper Lawsuit (FindLaw's Ninth Circuit Blog)
Sheriff Joe Arpaio Falls Victim to Identity Theft (FindLaw's Injured)

Federal Courts Block Abortion Bans in Arizona, Arkansas

2013-05-21T19:39:01Z

Two states have had their early abortion bans blocked in federal court this month, and although Arizona and Arkansas laws are among the first early abortion laws to receive a real federal judicial treatment, they won't be the last.

Many states have been able to push through legislation that complies with Roe v. Wade but still limits abortions, like Texas' pre-abortion ultrasounds. So how did these laws not pass federal muster?

Arizona's 20-Week Abortion Ban

The Arizona law in question makes it illegal to perform an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, except in the case of a medical emergency. The law also requires all women to submit to a pre-abortion ultrasound.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down this ban Tuesday, stating that it violates Roe v. Wade and its related cases, reports the Associated Press. For example, U.S. Supreme Court precedent provides that a woman can exercise her constitutional right to an abortion before a fetus is viable without undue state interference.

In its ruling, the NInth Circuit reasoned that prior to fetal viability -- which typically begins at about 24 weeks -- the state lacks a strong enough interest to prevent a woman from exercising her right to an abortion. Therefore, the 20-week abortion ban must be struck down.

This decision affects all states within the Ninth Circuit, including Idaho which passed a similar ban, according to the AP.

Arkansas' 12-Week Abortion Ban

A separate federal court ruling dealt with Arkansas' ban on abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy. Arkansas lawmakers passed the ban in March.

But on Friday, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction after hearing arguments from abortion-rights advocates, reports Politico.

The injunction will prevent Arkansas' Human Heartbeat Protection Act from being enforced until the case has been decided, but it is uncertain whether the Arkansas federal court will follow the Ninth Circuit and strike the law down.

The U.S. Supreme Court set the line for legal abortions at viability in Roe v. Wade four decades ago. With this new spate of early abortion laws, they may soon be called on to redefine that line.

Related Resources:

Judge blocks Arkansas law banning abortions after 12 weeks (Reuters)
Roe v. Wade's 40th Anniversary: What the Court Actually Decided (FindLaw's Decided)
TX Teen Sues Parents Over Abortion 'Coercion' (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
Injunction (FindLaw)

Supreme Court Sides with Monsanto in GMO Seed Case

2013-05-14T14:51:01Z

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that Monsanto's patent rights were infringed by soybean farmer Vernon Bowman when he planted second-generation seeds that were meant for consumption.

The Court may have made its unanimous decision in the case in small part due to Bowman's somewhat ingenious way of selecting out Monsanto crops from bulk seed mixes and further developing those crops, reports The New York Times.

This ruling, issued Monday, may be the first of many in the battle over GMO foods. But this decision already has significant consequences for growers using genetically modified seeds.

Vernon Bowman Had a Farm, G-M-GMO

In the Supreme Court's Monsanto case, career farmer Vernon Bowman purchased "Roundup Ready" soybeans from Monsanto, which are genetically modified in order to resist the active ingredient in the weed killer Roundup, called glyphosate.

As part of the purchase agreement with Monsanto, Bowman signed a "Technology Agreement" with the corporation, promising that he would not use the seeds produced by the first generation of crops for planting.

Despite knowing this arrangement, Bowman decided he would find some Roundup Ready seeds by selecting out Monsanto seeds from bulk seeds he purchased from another farmer, arguing Monsanto's patent was exhausted.

Patent Exhaustion Argument Uprooted

Just like many other types of products, soybeans and many other plants can be patented, and Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans are no exception.

Bowman argued that despite Monsanto holding a lawful patent on the seeds, once they sold the seeds to a farmer, under the patent exhaustion doctrine, their patent rights on those items terminate, allowing another farmer to plant the second-generation seeds as they see fit.

But the Supreme Court disagreed, with Justice Kagan explaining that the patent on an item like Roundup Ready seeds would be worthless if the purchaser "could make and sell endless copies," and the patent exhaustion doctrine does not entitle Bowman to make new copies of Monsanto's product without infringing on their patent rights.

Open Questions for New Crop of Cases

The Court's holding does not close off the growing question of how far GMO patents like Monsanto's Roundup Ready might extend, especially in more complex cases, reports USA Today.

Some possible cases where genetic modification patent suits are upcoming include:

Farmers whose plants are pollinated by GMO pollen via wind or bees,
Patents on DNA markers for breast cancer, and
Patented self-replicating bacteria that are repurposed.

Related Resources:

Supreme Court rules for Monsanto, says farmer violated genetically modified soybeans' patent (The Washington Post)
Unanimous x3: Monsanto's Magic Beans, Defalcation, and Towing (FindLaw's U.S. Supreme Court Blog)
Monsanto Wins Genetically Modified Seeds Appeal in Fed Circuit (FindLaw's Federal Circuit Blog)
Patent Infringement and Litigation (FindLaw)

'Bible Banners' OK at School Football Games, Texas Judge Rules

2013-05-10T19:34:01Z

In a surprising ruling on Wednesday, a Texas judge determined that cheerleaders displaying "Bible banners" at high school football games did not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

The ruling means cheerleaders in Kountze, Texas, can resume making banners with messages like "If God is with us, who can be against us?" after they trounced their school district in court, reports Reuters.

How does this ruling square against the U.S. Supreme Court's long history of separating church and state in schools?

What Is the Establishment Clause?

The First Amendment states, in part, that the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This is known as the Establishment Clause.

Although this clause is interpreted in many ways, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a public law or policy does not violate the First Amendment if:

It has a secular purpose,
Its primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion, and
It creates no excessive entanglement between church and state

Any government action which lacks one of those three elements is unconstitutional.

Texas Judge Rules Bible Banners Are Constitutional

In his official two-page order for summary judgment, Judge Steve Thomas ruled that the "Bible banners" did not create an establishment of religion in the small Texas school district.

Judge Thomas' order remains unclear as to how he came to his decision, citing no Texas court cases or U.S. Supreme Court precedent, which is odd considering that the Supreme Court has tackled similar issues before.

Religion in School Cases

As early as 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for public schools to mandate an official school prayer.

Over the next 50 years, the High Court held that the following school-promoted religious expressions were unconstitutional:

Hanging prayer banners in school. In one case, an 8-by-4-foot school banner containing a prayer that included the phrase "Our Heavenly Father" was found to violate the Establishment Clause.
Holding a graduation ceremony at a church. There ceremony was accompanied by religious materials promoting a "school ministry," which made it unconstitutional.
Requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in class. A law requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments in each classroom was held to be a violation of the Establishment Clause, even if privately funded.

While the cheerleaders are rallying behind their victory, it remains to be seen whether the Kountze Independent School District will appeal the ruling based on the similarities between their case and past religion-in-school cases.

Related Resources:

Judge rules for cheerleaders in Bible banner suit (The Associated Press)
Graduation Prayer Allowed at Public School, 5th Circuit Rules (FindLaw's Decided)
Will NYC Schools Lose Their Religion? (FindLaw)
School Prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance: Background (FindLaw)

States Can Limit Public Records Access to Residents: Supreme Court

2013-05-01T17:33:01Z

In a blow to freedom of information advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state public-records access can be limited to residents of that state.

The unanimous decision upheld laws in Virginia and a handful of other states that release some public records only to in-state residents, reports the Los Angeles Times.

At the core of the decision are the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Constitution's privileges and immunities clause.

The Case: McBurney v. Young

FOIA generally gives anyone the right to access federal agency records, while the Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner.

In the case before the Supreme Court, Mark McBurney and Roger Hurlbert were challenging a Virginia law that restricts access of public records to in-state residents, reports the Times.

McBurney, a former Virginia resident, was seeking documents relating to a family dispute with his ex-wife. Hurlbert runs a California-based business that seeks real estate tax records on behalf of private clients.

They argued that Virginia's law violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Virginia citizens get access to public records via FOIA laws, while non-residents like McBurney and Hurlbert don't get that same access only because they're not Virginia residents.

But the court didn't buy the argument. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the Privileges and Immunities Clause doesn't extend a broad right to all information made available through freedom of information laws.

Potential Effects of the Ruling

For small business owners out there, watch out. The decision deals a setback to businesses and researchers who gather data across state lines.

"This is disappointing. We have a national information economy now, and all sorts of activities depend on data from all 50 states," Deepak Gupta, an attorney for the challengers, told the Times.

But there's a silver lining. Despite the ruling, Gupta said the trend has been for states to open their public records on an equal basis. Only two other states -- Arkansas and Tennessee -- decline to do so, he said. "It's not realistic for states to wall off their public information," he said.

So even though states don't have to give non-residents access to public records, states can and (most of them) are willing to do so.

Related Resources:

Justices say states can limit public records access (Reuters)
Birthright Citizenship in AZ and the 14th Amendment (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
ACLU Demands Waterboarding Docs, CIA Claims FOIA Request Exemption (FindLaw's U.S. Second Circuit Blog)
Justice Watch FOIA Request is 'No-Match' for Tax Return Exemption (FindLaw's D.C. Circuit Blog)

N.Y. v. Quarles and Miranda's Public Safety Exception

2013-04-23T19:49:01Z

In the Boston bombing case, authorities have claimed that the public safety exception to Miranda allowed them to question Dzhokhar Tsarnaev without first reading him his Miranda rights.

Tsarnaev's questioning by the High Value Interrogation Group was conducted days before the 19-year-old suspect was read his Miranda rights on Monday, The Huffington Post reports.

The public safety exception to the general rule of Miranda comes from the N.Y. v. Quarles case, and its use in the upcoming Tsanaev case may broaden its scope.

The General Rule of Miranda

Our "Miranda rights" stem from the Miranda v. Arizona decision, where the court determined that the dangers of police interrogation to your Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination required some sort of protection.

If someone in custody is not read her Miranda rights, the testimony gained from any questioning by police cannot be used at trial, with some exceptions.

The Public Safety Exception: N.Y. v. Quarles

The general procedure of Miranda can be overlooked when there is reasonable belief, based on specific evidence, that public safety is in danger.

In N.Y. v. Quarles, the U.S. Supreme Court carved out an exception: Police officers could skip giving a suspect her Miranda warnings if there was an "immediate necessity" to resolve a dangerous situation.

The case in Quarles involved officers who noticed that the suspect had an empty gun holster and worryied that an accomplice or innocent might harm someone if they did not immediately locate the weapon.

The Supreme Court stated there could be two types of questions in this situation:

Questions necessary to resolve the danger to the public, and
Questions for the purpose of extracting incriminating evidence.

The public safety exception only allows officers to ask those questions "necessary to secure their own safety or the safety of the public."

Other Bombing Cases

In addition to Tsarnaev's case, the public safety exception to Miranda has also been raised in several other bombing cases. Examples include:

U.S. v. Hodge, a 6th Circuit case that determined that questions about a potential bomb are justified under the public safety exception, even without evidence that a third party might reach the bomb soon.

U.S. v. Khalil, a 2nd Circuit case in which a suspect was questioned before Miranda rights were read. The public safety exception applied to statements about whether he had planned to kill himself with a bomb.

U.S. v. Spoerke, an 11th Circuit case where police asked a hospitalized suspect about the composition of packages they suspected to be explosives, even when police had complete control of the crime scene.

Related Resources:

Why Should I Care That No One's Reading Dzhokhar Tsarnaev His Miranda Rights? (Slate)
The "Public Safety" Exception to Miranda (Federal Bureau of Investigation)
Right Decisions Made in Boston Bombing Venue, Miranda Delay (FindLaw)
'Shake and Bake' Meth Rumors Lead Cops to Bomb, Miranda Mistake? (FindLaw)

SCOTUS: Warrant Needed for DUI Blood Test, Maybe

2013-04-18T21:58:46Z

As we all know, laws are incredibly dynamic. Just a few months ago, we went over the possibility of forced blood draws of DUI suspects and how it's probably a bad idea to refuse a test. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police usually have to get a search warrant before they can order blood tests for drunken-driving suspects.

The vote was 8-to-1, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting by his lonesome.

The Fouth Amendment protects your privacy by usually requiring police to get a search warrant before they can stop and search you without your consent. But there’s an exception for situations where there isn’t time to get a warrant because of an emergency.

So the question in Missouri v. McNeely was whether police officers can force you to take a blood test without a warrant when they suspect you of driving drunk.

Back in 1966, a U.S. Supreme Court decision said they could. It made an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for DUI-related blood tests. The court’s rationale was that officers can’t spare the time to get a warrant because of how quickly alcohol leaves the bloodstream.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, and ruled that in most drunk driving cases, there is enough time to get a warrant. So now there isn’t an automatic exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for forced blood draws.

Justice Sotomayor, who wrote the majority opinion in the decision, said that in this day-and-age, police can get a warrant quickly by using their cellphones or by email, and that in most jurisdictions a magistrate is available day and night to grant a warrant request, NPR reports.

But the decision doesn’t mean that police always need a warrant. There’s still an exception for exigent circumstances. It’s just that “blood dissipating quickly” doesn’t automatically count as an emergency anymore. Emergency situations when an officer can’t follow the warrant requirement, Sotomayor wrote, will be decided on a “case-by-case” basis and later justified in court.

Chief Justice Roberts mostly agreed with the majority opinion but said the police need more practical guidance: “A police officer reading this court’s opinion would have no idea — no idea — what the Fourth Amendment requires of him.”

Justice Kennedy stressed the need for guidance to police officers, The New York Times reports. He thinks states should be able to take out the guesswork for officers by adopting rules and procedures that satisfy the Fourth Amendment in blood draw cases.

In dissent, Justice Thomas stated the natural dissipation of blood alcohol is an emergency that justifies warrant exemption.

For your purposes, know that in many cases, police officers will now need a warrant before forcing a suspected drunk driver to submit to a blood alcohol test.

Related Resources:

Forced Blood Tests Often Need Warrant, U.S. Court Says (Bloomberg News)
Upcoming Supreme Court Case Could Ban Forced Blood Draws (FindLaw LA DUI Blog)
What to Do When Pulled Over for a DUI: Three Tips (FindLaw LA DUI Blog)

U.S. Supreme Court Turns Down Case on Gun Law in New York

2013-04-16T19:38:18Z

After the Newtown tragedy, the gun law debate is charged with emotions, and conflict. Tougher gun laws have divided lower courts across the country. And yet, despite all the buzz on the topic, the Supreme Court isn't weighing in on a restrictive gun law in New York state.

If the justices had decided to hear the case, they would've taken on a major Second Amendment question: Can states bar or strictly limit the carrying of guns in public for self defense?

The court turned down a case about a New York State law that requires people to show a special need for self-protection in order to get a permit for carrying guns in public, The New York Times reports.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York, recently upheld the law. The NRA really wanted the justices to hear the case, proclaiming the law "a de facto ban on carrying a handgun outside the home.".

Though the justices didn't take on this case, other cases asking the same question are likely to reach the court in a few months, reports The Times.

Back in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns. But that decision is mostly limited to protecting the right to keep guns at home for self-defense.

Other than forbidding the carrying of guns in "sensitive places such as schools," The Times reports, the right to carry guns in public isn't mentioned in Heller one way or another.

Since the Heller decision, only a few challenges to gun laws and gun prosecutions have succeeded in lower courts, The Times reports. One major exception is when the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, struck down an Illinois law that banned carrying guns in public. That was just days before the Newtown shootings.

The Illinois decision is in direct conflict with the recent New York ruling. And New York isn't alone in its push for tougher gun laws. California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey have similar gun restrictions.

Given the lack of uniformity in gun laws across the nation, it won't be too surprising if the justices step in the next time a case like this comes their way.

Related Resources:

New York Gun Control: Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Concealed Weapons Law (Huffington Post)
Gun Laws (FindLaw)
10 States With the Toughest Gun Laws (FindLaw Blotter)
Are Guns Allowed in Shopping Malls? (FindLaw Blotter)

New York, Occupy Wall Street Settle Books Lawsuit for $232k

2013-04-11T16:10:09Z

NYC librarians can quietly rejoice as Occupy Wall Street's "People's Library" settled a federal lawsuit with the city over the destruction of 2,800 books during a police raid on Zuccotti Park in late 2011.

The $232,000 Occupy settlement has raised a few eyebrows because of where the bulk of the money is going.

On Tuesday, the city agreed to pay $232,000 to settle the lawsuit brought by Occupy Wall Street's "People's Library" for the destruction of the thousands of books during a police raid in lower Manhattan, the New York Daily News reports.

However, only about $47,000 is going towards covering the costs of the books. The rest of the money, about $185,000, is going to the attorneys who brought the lawsuit last year.

Some might smirk at the appearance of a populist victory for Occupy Wall Street, since the bulk of the award is going to attorneys' fees. One of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Norman Siegel, retorted, "This is not just about the money. It is about holding the city accountable."

Attorneys' fees are always a hot-button issue. Lawyers can easily demand a 40% cut of any settlement you get, which seems staggering. However, many lawyers would say the workload quite literally fits the bill. Attorneys incur many overhead expenses associated with court filings, research and writing, access to legal research tools, and staffing costs, among others. This is especially true for large, high-profile cases like the Occupy Wall Street book destruction lawsuit.

As for Siegel's belief that this was about accountability, the city was technically required to take some accountability for The Great Book Massacre. A public shaming admission was part of the settlement since the city had to admit that it was "unfortunate" that the books had been destroyed, the Daily News reports. It's not the most dramatic admission, but it's pretty rare for the city to acknowledge aggressive tactics used by the police.

The more important feature of the books settlement is that it may have helped other lawsuits related to the Occupy Wall Street police raid gain momentum. Apart from the book settlement, NYC also agreed to shell out another $133,000 to settle two other lawsuits stemming from the raid, reports The Daily News. Those lawsuits deal with members of the protest movement evicted from the park after a lengthy encampment.

Alas, the real losers are the sullied books themselves. They were carted away by the Sanitation Department.

Related Resources:

NYC Settles With Occupy Wall Street (Huffington Post)
Don't Want to Hire a Lawyer? It Could Cost You (FindLaw's Insider)
Structured Settlements: Pro's and Cons (FindLaw)
Judge Rules Against Occupy Wall Street Camp (FindLaw's Law & Daily Life)