SCOTUScast

On March 10, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States. The question in the case concerns what happens to a railroad’s right of way granted under a particular statute—here the General Railroad Right-of-Way Act of 1875—when the railroad abandons it: does it go to the Government, or to the private party who acquired the land underlying the right of way? In short, who owns or controls the land when the railroads stop using it for rails, stations, and switching yards? -- By a vote of 8-1, the Court held, in an opinion delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, that under well-established common law property principles, an easement disappears when abandoned by its beneficiary and the owner of the underlying land--here a private party--resumes a full and unencumbered interest in said land. The contrary decision of the lower court was reversed and remanded. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have Richard Epstein who is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at the New York University School of Law, as well as the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Law and Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

On March 4, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Plumhoff v. Rickard. This case presents two questions: (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit wrongly denied qualified immunity to the police officers by analyzing whether the force used was supported by subsequent case decisions rather than prohibited by clearly established law at the time the force was used; and (2) whether the Sixth Circuit further erred in holding the officers’ use of force was not reasonable as a matter of law when the suspect led police officers on a high-speed pursuit that began in Arkansas and ended in Tennessee, weaved through traffic on an interstate at a high rate of speed and made contact with the police vehicles twice, and used his vehicle in a final attempt to escape after he was surrounded by police officers, nearly hitting at least one police officer in the process. -- To discuss the case, we have Joshua Skinner, who is a member of Fanning Harper Martinson Brandt & Kutchin.

On Janurary 22, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Abramski v. United States. This case concerns 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), a federal criminal statute that prohibits a person who buys a firearm, intending later to sell it to another person, from falsely making a statement about the identity of the ultimate purchaser that is “material to the lawfulness of the sale.” The question before the Court is twofold: (1) Is the initial purchaser’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful purchaser in the future a fact “material to the lawfulness of the sale”?; and (2) Is such an intent a piece of information “required . . . to be kept” by a federally licensed firearm dealer under the same statute? -- To discuss the case, we have Ken Klukowski, who is on faculty at Liberty University and is a Senior Legal Analyst at Breitbart News. He formerly worked for the National Rifle Association and was involved in the last two Second Amendment cases that went through the Supreme Court.

On February 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Fernandez v. California. The question at issue is whether a defendant must be physically present to successfully object when a co-tenant gives permission to police officers to conduct a warrantless search, or whether the defendant’s previously stated objection to a warrantless search, while physically present, is a continuing assertion of Fourth Amendment rights that cannot later be overriden by the co-tenant. -- By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that the consent exception enunciated in its earlier decision in Georgia v. Randolph--namely, that the consent of one occupant is insufficient to authorize police to search a premises if another occupant is present and objects to the search--did not apply when an occupant provides consent well after the objecting occupant has been removed from the premises. The decision of the California Court of Appeals was affirmed. -- Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Breyer. Justices Scalia and Thomas also filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. -- To discuss the case, we have Elina Treyger who is an Assistant Professor of Law at the George Mason University School of Law.

On March 5, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Rosemond v. United States. The question in this case was whether the federal offense of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime requires proof of intentional facilitation or encouragement of the use of the firearm, or merely proof of simple knowledge that the principal used a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime in which the defendant also participated. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, the Court held by a vote of 7-2 that: For purposes of “aiding and abetting” liability under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which prohibits “us[ing] or carr[ying] a firearm “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, the government must show that the defendant actively participated in the underlying drug trafficking or violent crime with advance knowledge that a confederate would use or carry a gun during the crime’s commission. The decision of the Tenth Circuit was vacated and remanded for further proceedings. -- Justice Kagan was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Ginsburg. Justice Scalia also joined the opinion, with the exception of footnotes 7 and 8. Justice Alito concurred in part and dissented in part, joined by Justice Thomas. -- To discuss these cases, we have John Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

On January 21, 2014 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Navarette v. California. The question in this case is whether the Fourth Amendment requires an officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding a drunken or reckless driver to corroborate dangerous driving before stopping the vehicle. -- To discuss the case, we have Erin Sheley, who is a Visiting Associate Professor at the George Washington University School of Law.

On March 4, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Law v. Siegel. The question presented in this case was whether the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in allowing a bankruptcy court to surcharge a debtor’s constitutionally protected homestead property to cover the bankruptcy trustee’s litigation expenses incurred as a result of the debtor’s misconduct. -- In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held that the Bankruptcy Court exceeded the limits of its authority when it ordered that the $75,000 protected by the debtor’s homestead exemption be made available to pay the trustee’s attorney’s fees. The decision of the Ninth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. -- To discuss the case, we have Zvi Rosen, who is an adjunct professor at the New York Law School.

On February 26, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument for two cases: Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Management Systems and Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness. Both cases involve disputes regarding the standard for awarding attorney's fees in patent cases--a statute which allows for the awarding of fees in “exceptional” cases. -- In Highmark the question is whether an appellate court should defer to a trial court’s decision to award fees based on the lower court’s determination that the patent suit was objectively baseless. In Octane the issue concerns whether the Federal Circuit's two-part test for determining whether fees may be awarded arrogates the trial court's discretion to award fees to accused infringers who prevail. -- To discuss these cases, we have Prof. Gregory Dolin, Co-director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law.

On March 24, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Clark v. Rameker. The question in this case is whether an individual retirement account that a debtor has inherited is exempt from the debtor's bankruptcy estate under Section 522 of the Bankruptcy Code, which exempts "retirement funds to the extent that those funds are in a fund or account that is exempt from taxation" under certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. -- To discuss the case, we have Jennifer Spreng, an associate professor of law at the Arizona Summit Law School.

On February 24, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument for several anticipated greenhouse gas cases, including Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency. The question in this case is whether the EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases. -- To discuss these cases, we have Robert R. Gasaway, who is a partner at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP.