Greetings, Court Fans!
The Court formally returns from the holiday recess today with oral argument in Hudson v. Michigan (04-1360), in which it will consider whether evidence seized under a valid warrant, but after a Fourth Amendment knock-and-announce violation, must be excluded at trial. The biggest Court-related news, however, will be happening across the street, where the Senate has begun Judge Alito’s confirmation hearings.
On Friday, the Court issued an order list in which it granted cert in six new cases. Presuming these cases will all be argued in April, this just about fills the Court’s argument calendar for this Term. The new cases are:
Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy (05-18): Does [the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s] attorneys’ fees shifting provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B), authorize a court to award “expert” fees to parents of a child with a disability who is a prevailing party under IDEA?
Empire Healthchoice Assurance Inc. v. McVeigh (05-200): Does federal question jurisdiction exist over a suit by a federal government contractor to enforce, on behalf the United States, a provision in a health benefits plan for federal employees that is part of a government contract established pursuant to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act?
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez (05-352), striking a welcome blow for concise questions presented, asks: Does a district court’s denial of a criminal defendant’s qualified right to be represented by counsel of choice require the automatic reversal of his conviction?
Kirchner v. Putnam Funds Trust (05-409): Did the court of appeals have jurisdiction, contrary to the holdings of three other circuits, to review a district court order remanding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a suit removed under [the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act], notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)’s bar on appellate review of remand orders based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the district court’s conclusion that the petitioners’ claims are not preempted by and thus not removable under SLUSA?
Brigham City, Utah v. Stuart (05-502) asks what police officers can do when, from outside a house, they witness one occupant strike another in the face: (1) Does the “emergency aid exception” to the warrant requirement recognized in Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978), turn on an officer’s subjective motivation for entering a home? (2) Was the gravity of the “emergency” or “exigency” sufficient to justify, under the Fourth Amendment, the officers’ entry into the home to stop a fight?
Zedner v. United States (05-5992): This is an in forma pauperis case for which we have not yet located the precise questions presented, but it concerns whether the Speedy Trial Act’s seventy-day time limit for bringing an accused to trial is subject to harmless-error analysis, and under what circumstances the accused can waive the right to a speedy trial. The case involves a man who was tried and convicted seven years after he was indicted for trying to open a bank account with a counterfeit $10 million bond. The delay in the proceedings was due, in no small part, to the accused’s own requests for continuance (in which he agreed to waive his speedy trial rights), his subsequent decision to fire his lawyer and represent himself, and a series of competency hearings. The Second Circuit found no violation of his speedy trial rights, although it did remand for a new sentence. The Court will resolve a dispute among the Circuits on the harmless-error and waiver issues.
Today, the Court issued another order list, in which it denied cert in about 600 cases. The Court did, however, ask the SG for his views on two pending petitions in intellectual property matters. The first petition, in Empress Cubana del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co. (05-417), asks a series of questions concerning judicial deference to the President’s determination that the U.S. embargo on Cuba does not bar Cuban enterprises from pursuing trademark litigation, and whether U.S. obligations to Cuba under various trademark treaties remain in effect. The second, in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp. (05-489), asks: Did the Federal Circuit err in holding, in conflict with Tilghman v. Proctor, 102 U.S. 707 (1881), and its progeny, that the “unwitting” and “unappreciated” prior creation of a product renders a subsequent patent of that product invalid as “inherently anticipated,” and thus not novel under Section 102 of the Patent Act?
That’s all for today, but the Court’s opinion line indicates that it will be releasing opinions tomorrow, so look for us to clutter your inboxes later this week. Until then, thanks for reading!
Ken & Kim
From the Appellate Practice Group at Wiggin and Dana. For more information, contact Kim Rinehart, Ken Heath, Aaron Bayer, or Jeff Babbin at 203-498-4400