SCOTUS

SCOTUS Affirms Ninth Circuit Ruling on Violence and Video Games

Stevie E. Leahy

discuss

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (available here)

In 2005, California passed a law regulating “violent” video games, requiring special packaging and forbidding their sale to minors under 18.  A group of video game and software industry representatives challenged the law, claiming it violated free speech protections.  The Northern District of California blocked its enforcement, and on appeal Judges Kozinski, Thomas and Callahan upheld the injunction (previous discussion here).  Applying strict scrutiny, the Supreme Court ruled that the law violates the First Amendment and affirmed the decision of the Ninth Circuit.

Justice Scalia writes the majority opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan.  The Justices are forced to deal with the collision of new technologies with centuries-old free speech precedent, and their opinion is largely on point to the earlier Ninth Circuit decision.

continued…

• SCOTUS Reverses Ninth Circuit in Establishment Clause Case Based on Taxpayer Standing

  April 15,2011

  Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (available here)

  Arizona taxpayers sued over a statute giving tax credits for contributions to school tuition organizations (STO), which then used the contributions to provide scholarships to students attending private schools. [1] Because the private schools also include religious schools, the taxpayers alleged the law was a violation of the Establishment Clause.  The district court initially said that taxpayers did not have standing to challenge the law, but the Ninth Circuit reversed.  Justice Kennedy and the majority held that respondents lacked Article III standing because they challenged a tax credit as opposed to a governmental expenditure.

  Petitioner Arizona Christian STO was not a part of the original suit but became involved as an intervenor.  They are a tax-exempt charitable organization formed "for the sole purpose of implementing the private school tuition tax credit law passed and signed into law in 1997...."  

  (read more)

  Stevie E. Leahy

• Did the Ninth Circuit Take an Improper Blow at AT&T’s Arbitration Provision Banning Class-Actions or Properly Invalidate the Provision as Unconscionable? The Supreme Court will Make the Call.

  November 8,2010

  Introduction Perhaps overwhelmed with the urge to “reach out and touch someone”, I recently bought a new iPhone at an AT&T store.  I wasn’t exactly overjoyed to pay taxes on the full retail value of the phone even though the store had advertised only a discounted price.  It turns out I wasn’t alone, as a series of cases regarding potentially misrepresented costs involved with mobile phone contracts – especially the arbitration and class-action provisions within those contracts – have made it through various Circuits, including the Ninth Circuit.  Now, the Supreme Court is set to examine the issue, particularly the Ninth Circuit’s holding that an arbitration provision prohibiting class-action litigation is unconscionable pursuant to California law.   Specifically, the Supreme Court will hear the matter AT&T Mobility LLC v. Vincent and Liza Concepcion (Docket No. 09-893; briefing available here) on November 9, 2010. 

  (read more)

  Christopher S. Jones

• The Fun is in the Footnotes – Ninth Circuit Affirmed in CLS v. Martinez ( . . . and maybe the Senators were right to be concerned about Alito after all?)

  July 6,2010

  A week ago, SCOTUS affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision in CLS v. Martinez (full opinion available here).  The news media mostly focused its coverage with phrases like, "Justices Rule Against Group That Excludes Gay Students" (see NY Times article here) or "Supreme Court: Law School not obliged to recognized Christian group" (see Christian Science Monitor article here).  But, these articles gloss over the real meat in both the majority, concurring,  and dissenting opinions.   Big Picture Holding:  Justice Ginsburg writing for the majority (5-4) decision held that Hastings' non-discrimination policy/the "all-comers" policy did not violate CLS's First Amendment rights to free association and religious freedom.  ("the Ninth" addressed the positions and rationales of Hastings & CLS in previous posts available here).   The Court held that Hastings' anti-discrimination policy/ the all-comers policy was a reasonable, view-point neutral, condition placed on all organizations for participation in Hastings' RSO (registered student organization) limited-public forum. Once again, we find much of the fun to be in the footnotes.

  (read more)

  Wendy McGuire Coats

• SCOTUS Overturns Ninth Circuit Ruling in Quon

  June 24,2010

  In a 9-0 opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court  overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling on the Fourth Amendment as applied to new technologies (decision available here).  Police officer and plaintiff/respondent Quon brought suit after his employer, the City of Ontario Police Dept., read personal text messages sent on his employer-issued pager (previous discussion of the facts available here).   The Ninth Circuit held that the Dept. violated Quon's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.  They presented three issues for cert, all of which SCOTUS addressed, but in a narrow holding: this decision could have been a watershed case within the emerging area of technology privacy, but the Justices did not expand existing caselaw, instead relying on the existing O'Connor precedent  as controlling.  [1]

  (read more)

  Stevie E. Leahy

• Stolen Valor Act Headed to SCOTUS???

  April 1,2011

  United States v. Alvarez (available here)

  Passed in 2005, the Stolen Valor Act imposes a criminal penalty on people who falsely represent receiving certain military honors.  Appellee Alvarez was convicted under the Act after he lied about receiving the Medal of Honor - however, the Ninth Circuit overturned his conviction, holding the Act unconstitutional (previous post here).  The Ninth Circuit recently denied the petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, re-stating once again: "[a]s presently drafted, the Act is facially invalid under the First Amendment, and was unconstitutionally applied to make a criminal out of a man who was proven to be nothing more than a liar, without more."

  With dissents by Judges O'Scannlain and Gould, is this First Amendment battle being primed for the Supreme Court? There was significant debate in the original Ninth Circuit decision, and once again here in the denial, with both sides using the same well known precedent to support their argument (Gertz, NYTimes, Playboy).  

  (read more)

  Stevie E. Leahy

• Keeping SCOTUS Busy: Supreme Court to Hear 5 Ninth Circuit Cases in October Term

  September 29,2010

   

  Calendared  for Monday October 4, 2010

  Jason M. Ransom, Petitioner  v. MBNA, America Bank, N.A., Case No. 09-907 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,  Case No. 08-15066 Decision Date: August 14, 2009 Ninth Circuit opinion available here. Questions Presented: Whether, in calculating the debtor's "projected disposable income" during the plan period, the bankruptcy court may allow an ownership cost deduction for vehicles only if the debtor is actually making payments on the vehicles.

  (read more)

  Wendy McGuire Coats

• SCOTUS Reverses 9th Circuit 7-1 in Monsanto Case

  June 27,2010

  In Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 09-475 (decision available here the Supreme Court reversed a Ninth Circuit opinion affirming an injunction that barred the federal government from de-regulating genetically-modified alfalfa without a detailed environmental study.  Justice Alito, writing for a majority of the court, concluded that this injunction was both premature and overbroad.  In reaching this result, the Court reiterated that there is no presumption in favor of injunctive relief where the federal government has failed to adequately study the environmental impacts of its decisions, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Court also refrained from deciding whether a detailed-evidentiary hearing must be held before an injunction issues.   Justice Steven dissented, taking the majority to task for mis-interpreting the injunction [the injunction did not categorically prohibit deregulation contrary to the majority's opinion] and for deciding a legal issue [whether the district court erred in categorically enjoined partial de-regulation of genetically-modified alfalfa in any sense] not adequately presented to the lower courts or SCOTUS.  Justice Stevens would have upheld the district court's injunction as an "equitable application of administrative law."

  Sharla A. Manley

• SCOTUS Grants Cert in McCoy v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA

  June 22,2010

  On Monday June 21, 2010,  Supreme Court agreed to review the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in McCoy v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, 559, F.3d 963 (2009), that found that Chase violated the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) by increasing interest rates retroactively to the beginning of the payment cycle due to a default of the lender.   The Ninth Circuit panel in a 2-1 decision available here (Opinion by Judge Hawkins, and agreed to by Judge Pregerson, dissent by Judge Cudahy), found differently than the various District Courts that had examined the same issue.  In fact, the panel even determined that a prior Ninth Circuit unpublished decision  on the issue was erroneous; a fact that Judge Cudahy hammered home in his dissent. 

  (read more)

  Matthew A. Berliner