No opinions today, but an unusually meaty order list. The Court granted cert in 5 cases and asked the Solicitor General to weigh in on 3 others.
The Court granted cert in the following cases:
1. Arizona v. Gant (02-1019): This is a Fourth Amendment case about the scope of automobile searches incident to arrest. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that because Mr. Gant exited his vehicle before he became aware of a police presence, the police could not search his car incident to his arrest. The Court will consider the following question as presented by Arizona: When police arrest a recent occupant of a vehicle outside the vehicle, are they precluded from searching the vehicle unless the arrestee was actually or constructively aware of police before getting out of vehicle?
2. United States v. Patane (02-1183): The Court will revisit Miranda in this case filed by the United States with the following question presented: Does failure to give a suspect warnings prescribed by Miranda v. Arizona require suppression of physical evidence derived from the suspect’s unwarned but voluntary statement?
3. General Dynamics Land Sys. v. Cline (02-1080): In this case, the Court will decide whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits reverse discrimination, i.e., actions that treat older workers more favorably than younger workers.
4. SEC v. Edwards (02-1196): This case asks whether an investment scheme that promises a fixed (as opposed to variable) return to the investor, or that limits the investor to a particular amount or rate of return, qualifies as a security under the SEC’s jurisdiction.
5. Banks v. Cockrell (02-8286): This is a relatively high-profile death penalty case. Mr. Banks has been on Texas’ death row for 23 years (!), and the Court stayed his execution on March 12, 2003 to consider his cert petition. Today, the Court granted his petition to consider claims related to the adequacy of his defense counsel at trial.
The SG will provide his views on the following cases. (Oddly two of the three cases are about whether a cargo owner is bound by contracts entered into by others in the shipment of the cargo.)
1. Green Fire Ins. Co. v. M/V Hyundai Liberty (02-813): This case is about whether a non-vessel-operating company is an agent for the cargo’s owner/shipper and thus can bind the owner to a forum selection clause. Question presented: Did court of appeals err in holding that non-vessel-operating common carriers are not shippers but, as “commercial norm,” are agents of shipper when they contract for regulated transportation with ocean common carriers. (Presumably, the SG will explain to the Court what a “non-vessel-operating company” is.)
2. Norfolk Southern Rwy. Co. v. James N. Kirby Pty. (02-1028): Questions presented: (1) Is cargo owner that contracts with freight forwarder for transportation of goods to destination in US bound by contracts that freight forwarder makes with carriers to provide that transportation? (2) Does federal maritime law require that terms of bill of lading extending liability limitations under COGSA to “independent contractors” used to perform contract of transportation must be narrowly construed to cover only those independent contractors in privity of contract with bill’s issuer?
3. Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services (02-1192): This is a CERCLA case about whether a party may seek contribution for cleanup costs from other potentially responsible parties even if no civil suit has been filed against that party.