The Court took 3 new cases today. By my count, they still need around 3 or 4 cases to finish out this Term. Of course the big news at the Court is that the Solicitor General filed his briefs in the affirmative action cases yesterday. I haven’t read them yet, but thought we all might enjoy some fun weekend reading: From findlaw… http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/grutter/grutterum11603brf.pdf; http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/gratz/gratzum11603brf.pdf.
On to today’s order list. The Court took the following cases today:
Georgia v. Ashcroft (02-182): This is a voting rights case, within the Court’s appellate jurisdiction, challenging the lower court’s disapproval of Georgia’s proposed state senate redistricting plan. The Questions Presented are: (1) Does the Voting Rights Act require drawing of safe majority-minority districts with supermajority minority populations, rather than districts that afford minorities equal opportunities at success? (2) Can the Voting Rights Act be constitutionally construed to require drawing supermajority minority legislative districts in order to create safe seats, rather than seats that afford minorities equal opportunities at success? (3) Should private parties be allowed to intervene in Section 5 preclearance action and assume role and authority of attorney general?
Entergy Louisiana v. Louisiana Public Service Commission (02-299): For you regulated utility lawyers out there (the rest of us will just wait for the decision to figure out what the case is about), the question presented is as follows: Is a state public utility commission required to allow electric utility member of multistate power system to recover, in retail rates, costs allocated to it by rate schedule of FERC, or does state commission have jurisdiction to decide that it was “imprudent” for such utility to incur costs allocated to it under FERC rate schedule, thereby “trapping” such wholesale costs?
Fitzgerald v. Racing Assoc. of Central Iowa (02-695): Iowa imposes a higher tax rate on gross receipts from racetracks than it does on gross receipts from riverboat casinos. The Iowa Supreme Court held that this distinction violated the Equal Protection Clause under rational basis review. (That’s not a holding you see that often.) The Supreme Court will review that conclusion.
Also, some unfinished business from earlier this week. As I was filing Monday’s order list, I realized I had skipped over 3 cases where the Court had asked the Solicitor General to file briefs. So, better late than never, here they are:
Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (02-572): Section 1782 of Title 28 authorizes federal court discovery for proceedings in foreign tribunals. The questions are (1) whether Section 1782 authorizes discovery that the foreign jurisdiction would not itself authorize, (2) whether Section 1782 authorizes discovery when no “proceeding” before a foreign tribunal is pending, and (3) whether Section 1782 extends discovery rights in the US to private non-litigants.
South Fl. Water Mgmt. v. Miccosukee Tribe (02-626): A Clean Water Act case: (1) Does pumping water by state water management agency that adds nothing to water being pumped constitute “addition” of pollutant from point source triggering need for permit under Clean Water Act? (2) Should court below have deferred to agency interpretation that petitioner’s pumping does not constitute addition and thus does not require permit?
Dee-K Enterprises, Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bd. (02-649): Antitrust: (1) Under Sherman Act, do plaintiffs who proved mixed U.S.-foreign price fixing cartel have to show cartel had “substantial effect on U.S. Commerce” or may they show cartel made non-minimal sales in U.S. or engaged in other implementing acts in U.S.? (2) Assuming “substantial effect” is required, is substantial effect issue subject to jury determination when multimillion dollar U.S. interstate sales by defendants are undisputed?