Supreme Court Will Take Up Arizona's Immigration Law

The Supreme Court announced Monday that they will take up Arizona’s controversial immigration law.

The case stems from a lawsuit that the Justice Department filed against the state. The Obama administration argues that the law, which asks police officers to check the immigration status of those they apprehend if they have reason to believe they are in the country illegally, preempts federal jurisdiction over immigration.

Although the law was passed early last year and was set to go into effect in the summer of 2010, an injunction was approved by a lower court prohibiting the law’s full implementation.

The law has spawned a series of similar bills in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina.

The Court has indiciated that Justice Elena Kagan will recuse herself.

This is a developing story…

Supreme Court To Hear Healthcare Law Challenges

Today, the Supreme Court granted review of three separate cases challenging the constitutionality of the Obama Administration’s signature health care law, the Affordable Care Act. The Court set aside extensive time to hear oral arguments on the law, 5 ½ hours. Oral arguments will likely be heard in March, with a decision possible later in the summer.

The most contentious issue by far is the law’s individual mandate provision, which requires that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance by 2014. Opponents of the law argue that requiring individuals to obtain health insurance is an overreach by the federal government, and should be struck down. Proponents of the law argue that the federal government has broad power to require health insurance under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

There have been multiple decisions from the lower courts that have come down on both sides on the issue of the law’s constitutionality. Of the four appellate courts that have issued rulings, two courts upheld the law, one found the law unconstitutional, and one court held that the issue was not yet ripe for review given that the penalties for not obtaining health insurance would not go into effect until 2015. The split among the lower courts increased the likelihood of a swift review by the Supreme Court.

Notably, the most recent decision came last week from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which upheld the law. The appeals court, known for its conservative jurisprudence, held that the federal government does have the power under the Commerce Clause to require individuals to obtain health insurance.

The Obama Administration, which requested the Supreme Court’s review of the Affordable Care Act, said in a statement issued today that “Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, one million more young Americans have health insurance, women are getting mammograms and preventive services without paying an extra penny out of their own pocket and insurance companies have to spend more of your premiums on health care instead of advertising and bonuses. We know the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”

Supreme Court Reviews Warrantless GPS Tracking

The Supreme Court heard arguments today in United States v. Jones, a case that represents the evolution of modern technology in the face of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

In September 2005, police planted a GPS device on the undercarriage of Antoine Jones’ vehicle. Jones, the owner of a Washington, D.C. nightclub, was suspected of cocaine trafficking. An initial warrant obtained by law enforcement officials allowed for the installation of the device within a 10-day period, to be installed inside the District of Columbia. However, officials took 11 days to install the device, and installed in in Maryland, thus rendering the plant and the monitoring of the device warrantless.

Officials then used the device to track Jones’ whereabouts over a four-week period. Information gained from tracking Jones’ movements, as well as through intercepted calls and police executed search warrants for several locations, ultimately yielded a large amount of powder and crack cocaine and $850,000 in cash.

Jones argued that both the installation and resulting surveillance violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in Jones’ favor.

While the Court has for decades recognized a citizen’s home and other enclaves of privacy as having Fourth Amendment protections, the Court held in the 1983 case United States v. Knotts that a “person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements from one place to another.”

The government, relying heavily on the Knotts decision, faced opposition from the Justices. Justice Stephen Breyer noted that should the government prevail in its arguments, there would be nothing to prevent every person from being monitored 24 hours a day, and drew an analogy to the ubiquitous surveillance envisioned in George Orwell’s 1984.

Justice Antonin Scalia, noting that the act of planting the device on the vehicle was unquestionably a trespass, questioned whether a simple trespass by police amounted to a seizure under the Fourth Amendment or an invasion of property. He further noted that surreptitiously placing the device on Jones’ vehicle for weeks may have been unreasonable police conduct, but questioned whether if this conduct should not be under the purview of state legislatures to decide.

The Court is expected to rule on the case later in the term.

Ineffective Counsel In Plea Negotiations Reviewed By Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today heard arguments in two cases on whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel is violated when the defendant’s attorney provides deficient or erroneous advice during plea negotiations, resulting in a sentence at trial that is harsher than had the defendant accepted the plea offer.

In Lafler v. Cooper, the defendant (Cooper) shot an acquaintance and was charged with assault with intent to murder, as well as various related charges. The prosecutor offered to defendant’s counsel a deal that, if accepted, would have allowed Cooper to plead guilty to assault with intent to murder and face a sentence of 51-85 months imprisonment. Defendant’s counsel erroneously believed that because the victim was shot below the waist, the prosecution would be unable to prove the necessary element of intent to murder, and thus advised Cooper to reject the plea deal and go to trial. At trial, the jury found Cooper guilty on all charges, and imposed a sentence of 185-360 months in prison, a sentence approximately four times greater than the initial plea offer.

In Missouri v. Frye, the state of Missouri charged the defendant Frye with driving with a revoked license.  On November 15, 2007, the state’s attorney sent Frye’s counsel a letter offering two different plea agreements.  The prosecutor gave Frye’s attorney until December 28, 2007, to respond to the offers.  Frye’s attorney did not tell his client about the offers, and the deadline subsequently lapsed.  On December 30, 2007, Frye was again arrested for driving with a revoked license.  Frye was sentenced to three years imprisonment.  Frye first learned about the initial plea offer while serving his 3-year sentence, and moved to vacate his conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel.  Fry argued that had he known of the offer, he would have accepted the offer of serving 90-days imprisonment.

The two cases were argued separately but consecutively.  In both cases, the arguments focused on whether the plea bargaining phase, as opposed to arraignment or sentencing, is a “critical phase,” i.e. a time in which a criminal defendant is guaranteed the right of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.  The state in both cases argued that the Sixth amendment guarantees a defendant effective counsel at critical stages, but there is no constitutional right to a plea bargain.

Justice Kagan took issue with this assertion, pointing out that 98% of criminal cases are disposed of through plea negotiations and not trial, and without effective counsel at the plea negotiation stage, most defendants would be at considerable disadvantage.  Justice Kennedy too questioned this argument, asking if it would make a difference whether a plea negotiation was taking place in a capital case, where the absence of effective counsel could be the difference between life in prison and the death penalty.

The Court is expected to rule on the cases later this term.

Supreme Court Turning Its Attention to Administration’s Health Care Law

Next week, the Supreme Court will begin its review of the various challenges to President Obama’s signature legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act.  The Justices will meet on Thursday, November 10, to review the petitions filed by both opponents of the law and the Department of Justice on behalf of the Administration. 

While the review of the petitions is preliminary, it sets the stage for oral arguments and a decision during the Court’s current term, which is slated to end this summer.  A decision by the Court this summer would fall squarely within the 2012 Presidential campaign, either providing the Administration with the legal validation of the constitutionality of the law, or a stinging blow to contend with as the President campaigns for reelection.

A sign that the Court’s review of the law may be quickly approaching, today Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court requesting its review of the constitutionality of the healthcare law. Broun, himself an MD, partnered with the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) to write the brief, which was signed by 105 additional Members of Congress.