Supreme Court rules lethal injection not "cruel and unusual"

Chief Justice Roberts (who got Justices Kennedy and Alito to agree, while no other opinion was joined by more than one other Justice) says that a method of execution is only unconsitutional if there is a "substantial risk of serious harm". Here there is a risk, but it is not substantial. The challengers did show that there are ways the injection procedure could be administered improperly, causing severe pain, but they did not establish that the risk was common. Existence of safe alternative execution methods doesn't help, either, especially since the proposed alternatives are untested; no one could say for certain that the alternatives would be significantly better.

Justice Stevens has a long opinion discussing the death penalty and how it's changed over time. He concludes, however, that the Supreme Court's prior holdings establish that the death penalty is constitutional, and he therefore holds that lethal injection is constitutional.

Justice Scalia criticizes Justice Stevens's opinion, saying none of what he says has anything to do with the text of the Constitution.

Justice Thomas, joined by Scalia, says Roberts's opinion looking for "substantial risk of severe harm" has no basis in the text of the Constitution.

Justice Breyer doubts studies showing lethal injection causes pain and doubts availability of better alternatives.

Justice Samuel Alito addresses American Bankruptcy Institute

Today Justice Alito spoke at the annual Spring meeting of the American Bankruptcy Institute. A non-partisan organization that is geared toward research and education on issues about insolvency, the ABI hosts this annual meeting that includes a prominent figure as the keynote speaker.

Today Justice Alito spoke about his experiences prior and during his terms on the Supreme Court bench. Offering interesting stories and experiences with humor at times, Alito also spoke about goals of the supreme court and his feelings on the rights of citizens.

"It is important for the public to understand what the courts do," he says. Alito continually stressed what is open to the public, including hearings, recordings, and records. Alito also had some interesting words on education stating, "there's somethings to be said for self-education."

Today at Talk Radio News Service

Our Washington Bureau will be covering the state of the presidential race as well as a covering oral arguments about the American Iraqi detainees at the Supreme Court. We will also attend the NATO briefing on the President's upcoming trip to the NATO summit.

Supreme Court Justices express concern about education, cameras in the Court, and judicial pay

Justices Kennedy and Thomas appeared. Justice Thomas, as he does in oral arguments at the Court, spoke only when directly addressed.

Chairman Serrano (D-NY) opened the hearing by talking about the awkwardness of calling a co-equal branch of government before a committee to ask it to justify its budget request. He also several times joking asked if the Supreme Court could rule whether people born in Puerto Rico were eligible to the presidency (to which Justice Kennedy joking responded that they were certainly eligible to be Supreme Court Justices).

Much of the hearing focused on the Supreme Court building modernization project, which is currently expected to be completed 16 months after the original projected completion date of May 2008. Justice Kennedy, appearing a bit uncomfortable and at one point jokingly saying, "please do I have to talk about this?" discussed the reasons for the overrun and pointed out that the project was still on budget.

Other topics included judicial pay increases (the Justices agreed that it didn't make sense to pay judges less than a first-year associate), education of young people on American history (Justice Kennedy expressed concern that youth are not taught enough about American history and principles, and "you cannot defend what you cannot know"), and cameras in the courtroom (the Justices agreed they would not help anything and presented risks of personality overtaking issues in coverage).

Supreme Court today: Exxon v. Baker

There was one ruling, announced by Justice Kennedy. The question was whether plaintiffs could file an age discrimination suit against Federal Express even though they did not go through the normal EEOC complaint process first. The Court deferred to the EEOC's interpretation of its rules and found that the filings to the EEOC, though not the complete normal process, were a "complaint," so the suit can go forward. Justices Thomas and Scalia dissented.

The case today was Exxon v. Baker. Justice Alito has recused himself, likely because he is an Exxon-Mobil stockholder. The question is whether maritime law allows punitive damages against Exxon for the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and if so whether there's a limit to how large they can be. There is no clear, recent precedent on the issue, so the Court is looking at rulings from 200 years ago in cases that aren't directly comparable. Exxon is arguing that the captain of a ship cannot make company policy and is therefore independent enough that the company should not be held liable for his actions violating their policy; these concerns are the grounding for the precedents. Additionally, Exxon argued that punitive damages are unneeded in a case where the action was not intentional and did not benefit the company in any way. Baker argues that nothing has changed since the spill, indicating Exxon does need incentive to make sure it doesn't happen again. Baker also argues that the captain is in charge of a "business unit" of Exxon and therefore is high enough in the company that the company should be liable for his actions. Most states follow a "managerial agent" standard for determining when a company should be held liable in cases like this, and Exxon does not contest that the captain is a managerial agent; instead they argue that the rules are different in the maritime context. Justice Souter suggested the distinction may have been relevant when ship captains were out of touch with land for long periods and captains had to act independently, but the distinction may no longer make sense. On the size of the award, Exxon argues the Clean Water Act's limit of double the compensatory damages should be considered, but Baker points out the CWA considers economic harms to people rather than environmental harms.

All of the Justices seemed unsure of the strength of precedent in this case, so I do not feel comfortable predicting how any of the Justices will vote.

[Disclosure: the author is an Exxon-Mobil stockholder.]