Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media

There were 5 opinions issued, and the Court heard argument in one case.

The first significant ruling was in Riegel v. Medtronic. The FDA regulated medical devices under the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, and Class 3 devices are given the most scrutiny and must be approved before being sold. During heart surgery, a Medtronic catheter ruptured in Charles Riegel's coronary artery. He (and later his widow) sued, claiming that the Medtronic catheter did not meet New York state regulations on design, labeling, and manufacturing of medical devices. The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 ruling, said that the federal law preempts the state law. The majority opinion was written by Justice Scalia. Justice Ginsburg dissented.

The second significant ruling was in LaRue v. DeWolff. LaRue had put money into his pension plan, which allowed him to direct where the money was invested. The pension plan administrator failed to follow those instructions, and LaRue lost about $150,000. LaRue sued under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, saying the plan administrator had breached a fiduciary duty. The lower court had held that that law only allowed suits when everyone on a plan lost money, but the Supreme Court reversed, saying individuals could sue. Justice Stevens wrote the opinion for a unanimous court.

The last significant ruling was in Danforth v. Minnesota. In 2004 the Supreme Court issued new rules for testimony at trials. Danforth claimed that the videotaped testimony of his 6-year-old rape victim violated those rules. The new rules had been issued after Danforth's trial, so there was a question of whether he could have any relief under the new rules. The Minnesota Supreme Court read US Supreme Court precedent as saying it did not have the power to apply the new rules to the old case, but the Supreme Court today said that state courts do have that power and can choose to apply new rules retroactively.

The case argued today was CBOCS v. Humphries. Mr. Humphries was fired after he complained about racial discrimination by his manager at Cracker Barrel. Normally a suit like this would be brought under Title VII, but Humphries missed the statute of limitations for that law. Instead, he claimed relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section 1981 says that everyone has the same rights to "make and enforce contracts," regardless of race. The Supreme Court expanded that law to include protection from things like discrimination during employment. However, Crack Barrel argued that Humphries was fired for complaining, not because of his race, and that retaliation for complaints was not covered under the law.

Cracker Barrel's argument that the law simply does not say anything about retaliation seemed to be accepted by at Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Roberts, and Justice Thomas is likely to agree. Humphries argued, however, that it is not reasonable to tell people they can complain about discrimination if they can legally be fired for making that complaint, and Justices Breyer and Ginsburg seemed to accept that argument. I expect Justices Stevens and Souter to go along with Justice Breyer, and Alito to go along with Justice Scalia, leaving a 5-4 ruling against Humphries.

Some humor was provided during Solicitor General Clement's argument. Clement, representing the government's position, supported Humphries. Justice Scalia was asking him about implied rights of action: when Congress passes a law (such as this one) that simply states that people have a right to something, there is a question about whether that law implies that someone can sue over violations of that right. The Supreme Court used to be very willing to find such implied rights of action, but they have recently stopped doing so. Justice Scalia, calling the time when the Court found implied rights of action "the bad old days," asked Solicitor General Clement when they ended. Clement responded, "The bad old days ended when you got on the Court."