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.

Voting Rights Act Under Serious Scrutiny By U.S. Supreme Court

By Michael Combier-Talk Radio News Service

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 8-1 vote that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act "is a difficult constitutional question we do not answer today" but questioned whether the section is still significant in modern times.

Section 5 requires states with a history of flagrant voter disenfranchisement to seek the approval of a three-judge Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. or the Attorney General whenever they seek to alter state election procedures. Today’s decision of the court came in the case of Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Eric Holder, Jr, Attorney General, et al., in which it was argued that since the district was not a state, they should not be required to seek Federal approval.

The issues raised in this case were the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act as well as the possibility for the Austin district to opt out of Section 5’s requirements.

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court. “The historic accomplishments of the Voting Rights Act are undeniable...In part due to the success of that legislation, we are now a very different nation,” Roberts wrote.

“Things have changed in the South,” Roberts continued. “[Section 5‘s] formula is based on data that is now more than 35 years old, and there is considerable evidence that it fails to account for current political conditions...the Act’s preclearance requirements and its coverage formula raise serious constitutional questions.”

Another question raised concerns over the repeated authorization of Section 5, which was only intended to last five years, by Congress. It was extended for another twenty-five years in 2006.

The Court reversed the judgement of the District Court and concluded that the Voting Rights Act “permits all political subdivisions, including the district in this case, to seek relief from its preclearance requirements”. Since the utility district is entitled to apply for bailout, the Court believed there was no reason to decide the constitutional issue.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote separately, saying he would have struck down Section 5 as unconstitutional.

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.