Articles Posted in U.S. Supreme Court

During this past week (week ending June 30, 2023) we have received listings of 23 Government and Administrative Law Summaries,  77 Constitutional Law summaries, 73 Criminal Law, and 3 U.A. Supreme Court Summaries . Also included under a separate link are three additional U.S. Supreme Court Opinions released on July 1, 2023.  We plan is to continue posting opinion summaries, under corresponding areas of law, weekly whenever possible in order to keep blog readers updated.  To gain access to these case summaries, click on the corresponding links below:

Opinion Summaries Posted for Week Ending June 30, 2023:

Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

During this past week (week ending June 16, 2023) we have received listings of 37 Government and Administrative Law Summaries,  84 Constitutional Law summaries,  89 Criminal Law Summaries and 3 U.S. Supreme Court Summaries.  We plan is to continue posting opinion summaries, under corresponding areas of law, weekly whenever possible in order to keep blog readers updated.  To gain access to these case summaries, click on the corresponding links below:

Opinion Summaries Posted for Week Ending June 16, 2023:

Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Upon his retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2022. Justice Breyer will be receiving a number of awards including the following for his distinguished service while on the Court:

The American Bar Association (ABA) has announced that it will be  honoring  the Honorable Stephen G. Breyer its 2022 Medal, the Association’s highest honor at the ABA’s Annual Meeting in August 2022. The ABA announcement highlights Justice Breyer’s extraordinary career, his efforts to defend the rule of law, his commitment to judicial independence, and his long involvement with the Association. It also mentions that “[Breyer] has written more than 525 Opinions  as a Supreme Court Justice…”.

Justice Breyer will also be receiving the 2022  Thomas Jefferson Medal in Law. This Award is sponsored jointly by the University of Virginia and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. “Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medals are awarded each year to recognize the achievements of those who embrace endeavors in which Jefferson — author of the Declaration of Independence, third U.S. president and founder of the University of Virginia-excelled and held in high regard”.

No. 21–429. Argued April 27, 2022—Decided June 29, 2022

Castro-Huerta was convicted of child neglect in Oklahoma state court. The Supreme Court subsequently held that the Creek Nation’s eastern Oklahoma reservation was never properly disestablished and remained “Indian country.” Castro-Huerta then argued that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute him (a non-Indian) for a crime committed against his stepdaughter (Cherokee Indian) in Tulsa (Indian country). The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals vacated his conviction.

The Supreme Court reversed. The federal government and the state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. States have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed in Indian country unless preempted either under ordinary preemption principles, or when the exercise of state jurisdiction would unlawfully infringe on tribal self-government. Neither preempts state jurisdiction in this case.

A significant note from the Duke Law Journal by Joanna Huang with the above title has been posted today September 29 on the Sentencing Law and Policy blog According to Ms. Huang, “…in 1987 the United States political and social systems lost trust in the judiciary and severely limited its authority by enacting the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.” She goes on to observe that in 2005 trust was restored in the judiciary when United States v. Booker made the Sentencing Guidelines advisory; and that, although Booker provides for increase in judicial discretion, judges are still unable to correct sentences imposed during the intervening eighteen years because Booker does not apply retroactively.

For more, we recommend that you go to the Sentencing Law and Policy blog

NOTE:

Supreme Court Case Summaries: Professor Rory Little’s Perspective
A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

These summaries are written by Professor Rory K. Little (littler@uchastings.edu), U.C. Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, who has long presented “Annual Review of the Supreme Court’s Term” program at the ABA’s Annual Meetings. They represent his personal, unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

The CJS hopes these summaries will be helpful to members, because they are different from the average news or blog account, in at least three ways: first, a detailed account of the rationale of ALL the opinions issued in a case, including nuances found in separate concurring and dissenting opinions; second, an account of the decision that is essentially “neutral” — that is, not really a “perspective” in the sense of the author’s personal opinions, but rather a straightforward account that can be relied upon by lawyers of all stripes; and then third, a bit of “inside baseball” analysis of some of the twists or nuances that are not apparent in the opinion.

U.S.. Supreme Court Summaries – Criminal Cases June 24, 2010
Mail/Wire Fraud and “Honest Services” – Three cases:

Skilling v. United States, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1394.pdf

Black v. United States, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-876.pdf

Weyhrauch v. United Sates, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-876.pdf

On June 24, the Court issued its long-awaited opinions in the trio of “honest services” mail and wire fraud cases. The Court (6-3) upheld the “honest services” statute, but limited it to schemes of “bribery and kickbacks.” Interestingly, in the lead case of former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling, the Court’s major effort was spent not on mail fraud, but on the pretrial-publicity juror bias claims that Skilling presented, and the Skilling opinion will stand more as a major decision in that constitutional area than on the statutory definition (which is changeable by Congress) of mail fraud. Each holding (due process and mail fraud) was a 6-3 vote, but different Justices were the dissenters on each. And, perhaps significantly or perhaps not, this is the first decision in which the two women on the Court disagreed in written opinions, Justice Ginsburg writing the majority and Justice Sotomayor dissenting on the due process-fair trial ruling.

The various Skilling opinions consume 114 pages. The Court also eclipses what probably was not a record of three days ago (the six-page syllabus in Humanitarian Law Prroject) with a nine-page syllabus here. Yes, there are a lot of pages here, but nine pages for an allegedly accessible “summary” of the opinion is, for the Court, pretty silly.

In Black, the Court applied its Skilling mail fraud ruling to hold that Conrad Black’s jury instructions were erroneous, and remanded for a harmless-error analysis (as it did in Skilling). The Court also reversed the Seventh Circuit’s ruling that Black had forfeited his jury instruction challenge by opposing the government’s more-precise special verdict form, and provides an important discourse on courts of appeal imposing sanctions that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure don’t specify, without notice.

Finally, in one sentence the Court simply vacated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Weyhrauch and remanded for further proceedings in light of Skilling.

Summaries of the various Justices’ opinions follow.
Continue reading

NOTE: This posting includes Professor Little’s perspective on City of Ontario v. Quon, the cfase whch includes interesting discussion about whether public employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding text messages went on government owned equipment during working hours.

A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust

This summary has been created by Professor Rory K. Little (littler@uchastings.edu), U.C. Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, who has long presented “Annual Review of the Supreme Court’s Term” program at the ABA’s Annual Meetings. It represents his personal, unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.

Contact Information