Greetings, Court fans!
The Court opened its term today in a big way with oral arguments in four cases, including two hours of consolidated argument in United States v. Booker, 04-104, and United States v. Fanfan, 04-105. These cases concern whether the federal criminal sentencing guidelines implicate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, such that the government must charge all facts it hopes to use in sentencing in its charging documents and then prove them to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Court determines that this is so, it will also have to consider how federal courts should handle sentencing until Congress intervenes. The cases arose out of the decision last term in Blakeley v. Washington, in which the Court held that Washington State’s similar sentencing scheme triggered the right to a jury trial. Needless to say, federal criminal lawyers will be hanging on every word of the Justices’ questions today.
In other news, the Court dispensed with a huge number of cases that had accumulated since the end of the last term, denying cert in almost 1800 of them. Among the more notable denials were the following:
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell, 04-116: This case was an attempt for a second round of Supreme Court review of a punitive damages award. In State Farm I, 538 U.S. 408 (2003), the jury awarded $145 million in punitive damages on top of only $1 million in compensatory damages. The trial court reduced both awards, but the Utah Supreme Court reinstated the punitive damages award. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the $145 million punitive damages award was unreasonable, disproportionate, and a violation of due process. In its opinion, the Court noted that punitive damages should rarely be more than nine times the amount awarded in compensatory damages. On remand, the Utah Supreme Court took this suggestion to heart and awarded $9 million in punitive damages. State Farm again sought cert, arguing that the award still exceeded constitutional bounds, but the Court declined the case without comment.
American Teleservices Association v. FTC, 03-1552: The Court left standing the Tenth Circuit’s ruling that the federal “do not call” registry does not violate the First Amendment.
Moore v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, 04-153: Former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore sought to get his job back after he was removed for refusing to comply with a federal court order to take down his monument to the Ten Commandments in the Alabama courts building. The former chief argued that the Commission used an unconstitutional “religious test” in removing him. The Court declined to consider whether Moore’s removal was improper. It should be noted, however, that the Court is still considering a host of petitions on the underlying issue — whether public displays of the Ten Commandments are constitutional.
In re Saddam Hussein, 04M2: To no one’s surprise, the Court declined a request by Hussein’s wife that he be allowed to challenge his detention by U.S. forces.
Finally, the Court invited the Solictor General to submit briefs in two cases the Court is still considering for cert, indicating that the parties have piqued the Court’s curiosity:
Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I Ltd., 03-1237: This case concerns a federal “safe harbor” from patent infringement for drug research “reasonably related” to information submitted to the FDA. The Federal Circuit concluded that this safe harbor does not apply to animal research, meaning that a patent holder can bar lab tests using its drug (or structurally similar drugs) for the duration of the patent, even where the patent holder has no commercial use for the drug. Merck petitioned for cert, arguing that the court wrongly distinguished between human and animal studies, which are essential precursors to human studies (and also reported to the FDA) and that the Federal Circuit’s ruling will stifle innovation by barring it from testing its new drugs against patented competition. Integra argued in opposition that the Federal Circuit simply (and properly) distinguished between compiling information actually requested by the FDA versus basic research that might ultimately be reported.
Keup v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Health and Family Services, 03-10777: This in forma pauperis case concerns whether a private nursing home patient who later goes on state assistance has a right to reimbursement from the nursing home when her fees as a private patient exceed the state’s reimbursements.
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.