Legal Experts Look Back At Conservative Court Term

By Learned Foote - Talk Radio News Service

The American Constitution Society, a liberal group designed to counter what they describe as an “activist conservative legal movement,” hosted a panel of legal experts today to review the actions of the Supreme Court this term. According to many observers, the court has leaned to the right under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts.

The panel consisted of former New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse, and six lawyers who have argued before the Supreme Court. The panelists discussed a broad range of cases and offered perspectives on the court that were often at variance.

John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, criticized the oral arguments in two cases regarding civil rights, the Voting Rights Act and Ricci v. DeStefano. “There was a level of hostility directed at the government lawyers in those cases to me was unprecedented,” he said. He argued that the decisions reflected the court’s erroneous belief that legal protection against racial discrimination is no longer required in some cases.

Greenhouse, who won the Pulitzer Prize for her coverage of the Supreme Court, harshly criticized the court’s decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, in which plaintiff alleged that unjust discrimination led to his detention after 9/11. Greenhouse said the ruling revealed a “certain level of intellectual dishonesty of this court, a certain cynicism,” because it misrepresented previous legal precedents.

Greenhouse noted that some court observers believe Iqbal will likely be the most cited case of the term. "It’s going to be cited by defendants in every civil case," she said.

Andrew J. Pincus, partner at Mayer Brown LLP, discussed the five environmental cases to come before the Supreme Court this term, all of which resulted in a defeat for environmentalists. He said that one critical factor governing these decisions was judicial deference to the executive branch of the government. He noted that “we have a different administration now, and deference to the executive branch may well cut the other way.”

Some lawyers also suggested that broad generalizations of the Roberts Court were inaccurate. “Calling the Roberts Court a great court for business defendants or at least employers has been a little over-simplistic for awhile,” said Paul D. Clement, former Solicitor General and a current partner at King & Spalding LLP. He emphasized that the context of each individual case matters greatly, and that it is difficult to pinpoint broad trends across the term.

Several members of the panel lamented the retirement of liberal justice David Souter, and suggested that nominee Sonia Sotomayor will make a notable and perhaps unpredictable difference in the ideological make-up of the court next year.

Obama Names Sotomayor As Supreme Court Justice

By Annie Berman, Talk Radio News Service

Today at the White House, President Obama announced federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor as the widely-anticipated replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. If confirmed, Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic woman to serve on the bench, and the third woman in history.

A native of New York, Sotomayor, 54, was born to Puerto Rican parents. After her father died she was raised in a single family household.

Sotomayor attended Princeton University where she graduated summa cum laude in 1976. Later, she attended Yale Law School where she was the editor of The Yale Law Journal.

After graduation from law school in 1979, Sotomayor served as an Assistant District Attorney to New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. In 1997, Sotomayer was nominated by President Bill Clinton to her current position.

Sotomayer’s most famous case was the 1994 baseball strike. Sotomayer issued the preliminary injunction against Major League Baseball which prevented the MLB from implementing a new Collective Bargaining Agreement and using replacement players. Her ruling in this case ended the strike one day before the 1995 season.

Obama had only praise for Sotomayor. “Judge Sotomayor has worked at almost every level of our judicial system, providing her with a depth of experience and a breadth of perspective that will be invaluable as a Supreme Court justice,” he said. Obama added that he hopes Sotomayor may begin her tenure with the court when it begins its term in October.  

After Obama spoke, Sotomayor thanked her mother and brother for their support, and the President for the nomination. “I chose to be a lawyer and ultimately a judge because I find endless challenge in the complexities of the law.”  

Sotomayor now faces a daunting confirmation process with the U.S. Senate. 

Enron Executive to Supreme Court: I’m being unjustly prosecuted

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Today one of Enron’s former executives found himself back in the lime light as the Supreme Court heard his case of being unjustly prosecuted. F. Scott Yeager, an executive at Enron Broadband Services, was caught up in the hunt for white-collar wrongdoing after the Enron scandal. He was charged with wire fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, money laundering, and conspiracy to engage in securities fraud and wire fraud. The original trial saw Yeager acquitted of three of the charges, but the jury couldn’t agree on the charges of insider trading and money laundering.

The United States government then tried to re-try the insider trading and money laundering charges, since the jury was undecided on the matter, something that Yeager says violates his rights against being prosecuted twice for the same matter. Yeager moved to have the case thrown out. He argued that he is protected by collateral estoppel, which prohibits the same issue from being tried twice, and is similar to double jeopardy. Yeager’s legal team relied on a good-faith defense in his initial trial, saying he was not guilty because he had a reasonable belief in his company’s financial stability. The argument for collateral estoppel was that since he was acquitted based on the good-faith defense, it would not be possible to prosecute him on insider trading, since the jury established he could not have illegality at the heart of his actions.

Both the District and Circuit Courts denied Yeager’s motion to have the case thrown out. Yeager then took the matter before the Supreme Court, in Yeager v. United States.

The Justices were undecided in the courtroom about whether or not the acquittal on the similar charges was enough to remove Yeager from any shadow of wrongdoing. Justices Samuel Alito and David Souter felt that he might have been acquitted for other reasons than simply the good-faith defense, although it was self evident that they could not know with certainty why the jury did what it did. The counsel for the United States said that the jury should have said Yeager was not guilty on the two undecided charges if they really meant it. Chief Justice John Roberts showed concern at the effect this decision could have on the Seventh Amendment in the Constitution, which protects the right to jury trials. Roberts questioned whether or not retrial of the undecided charges would undermine the jury’s decisions in the acquitted charges. Although Justice Stephen Breyer did not display a firm position on the case at large, he did say that he can’t think of why this wouldn’t be a second trial, and why collateral estoppel should not apply.

The Court is expected to return a decision on this case in May or June of this year.