Arizona v. Gant

Issues

May a law enforcement officer conduct an automobile search as an incident to all lawful arrests, or must the officer reasonably fear for his own safety or for the integrity of the evidence before searching the automobile?

Court below

 

Police arrested Rodney Gant for driving with a suspended license. During a warrantless search of Gant’s car incident to his arrest, officers found a weapon and cocaine. Gant moved to suppress this evidence; the court denied his motion, and he was convicted of possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Gant claims the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because he was arrested for an unrelated charge and because neither officer safety nor the integrity of the evidence was imperiled. The State of Arizona argues that the Court should adopt a clear, bright-line rule that automatically permits officers to conduct a vehicle search contemporaneous to an arrest. The outcome of this case will affect law enforcement officers’ conduct during motor vehicle stops and accompanying arrests and vehicle searches.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle’s recent occupants have been arrested and secured?

On August 25, 1999, two uniformed police officers responded to a report of narcotics activity at a house in Tucson, Arizona. See State v. Gant, 162 P.3d 640, 641 (Ariz. 2007). Respondent Rodney Gant told the officers that the owner was not home but would return later. See id.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Arizona Free Enterprise v. Bennett; McComish v. Bennett (consolidated)

Issues

1. Under Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Davis v. Federal Election Commission, does the matching public funding provision of Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act violate the First Amendment protection of political speech?

2. Does the Citizens Clean Elections Act advance a compelling state interest in preventing corruption, or does it unconstitutionally burden protected political speech?

 

At issue in these consolidated cases is the constitutionality of Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Act. Petitioners—several past and present candidates for elected office, and two political action committees—claim that the matching public funding provision of the Act burdens the free speech of candidates who do not utilize public funding. Respondent, Ken Bennett, in his official capacity as Arizona Secretary of State, contends that the Act is designed to prevent corruption and does not impose any actual burden on protected political speech. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Act did not violate the First Amendment, because it furthered a compelling government interest in preventing corruption. In resolving this question, the Supreme Court must strike a balance between the First Amendment right to protected political speech and clean election measures implemented by a state. This decision will affect state and national elections that utilize matching public funding schemes.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Arizona Free Enterprise

In Davis v. FEC, 128 S. Ct. 2759 (2008), this Court held that the First Amendment forbids the government from attempting to level the playing field in elections by raising contribution limits for candidates who are outspent by self-financed opponents. Arizona's Citizens Clean Elections Act achieves a similar result by providing extra subsidies in the form of "matching funds" to publicly financed candidates who are outspent by independent expenditure groups and privately financed candidates. The questions presented are:

1. Whether the First Amendment forbids Arizona from providing additional government subsidies to publicly financed candidates that are triggered by independent expenditure groups' speech against such candidates?

2. Whether the First Amendment forbids Arizona from providing additional government subsidies to publicly financed candidates that are triggered by the fundraising or expenditures by these candidates' privately financed opponents?

McComish

1. Whether Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), and Davis v. Federal Election Comm'n, 128 S. Ct. 2759 (2008), require this Court to strike down Arizona's matching funds trigger under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it penalizes and deters free speech by forcing privately-financed candidates and their supporters to finance the dissemination of hostile political speech whenever they raise or spend private money, or when independent expenditures are made, above a "spending limit."

2. Whether Citizens United and Davis require this Court to strike down Arizona's matching funds trigger under the First and Fourteenth Amendments because it regulates campaign financing in order to equalize "influence" and financial resources among competing candidates and interest groups, rather than to advance directly a compelling state interest in the least restrictive manner.

In 1998, the State of Arizona passed the Citizens Clean Election Act (“the Act”), which created a framework through which the state provides public financing to candidates for statewide political offices. See McComish v. Bennett , 611 F.3d 510, 513 (9th Cir. 2010) .

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

The New York Times, Adam Liptak: Justices to Assess Arizona Campaign Financing (Nov. 29, 2010)

CNN, Bill Mears: High Court to Review Arizona Election Finance Law (Nov. 29, 2010)

Huffington Post, Paul Davenport: Supreme Court Blocks Public Financing in Arizona Elections (June 8, 2010)

Submit for publication
0

Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn; Garriott v. Winn

Issues

1. Do Arizona taxpayers have a sufficiently personal injury to file a lawsuit against Section 1098, which authorizes a tax credit for voluntary donations to student tuition organizations?

2. Although Section 1089 is neutral on its face, is it nonetheless unconstitutional as applied if taxpayers have used it as a means of providing funding primarily to religious schools?

 

Arizona taxpayers brought claims alleging that Arizona’s Tuition Tax Credit violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Tax Credit gives taxpayers a reduction in their tax liabilities for their donations to school tuition organizations. These organizations may give scholarships to students of particular faiths to attend certain religious schools. The taxpayers contend that they have the right to sue the government and these organizations for two reasons: the state loses over $50 million in tax revenue each year because the money that the organizations receive would otherwise be state tax revenue and the Tuition Tax Credit promotes religion. The petitioners claim that the taxpayers do not assert a sufficiently personal injury to initiate a lawsuit, and they claim that program does not violate the Establishment Clause because individual taxpayers, not the government, choose where to donate their money. The Supreme Court will decide whether the taxpayers have the right to sue and if so, whether Arizona’s Tax Credit violates the Establishment Clause.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Questions Presented in Arizona Christian School Tuition Org. v. Winn

1. Do Respondents lack taxpayer standing because they do not allege, nor can they, that the Arizona Tuition Tax Credit involves the expenditure or appropriation of state funds?

2. Is the Respondents' alleged injury-which is solely based on the theory that Arizona's tax credit reduces the state's revenue-too speculative to confer taxpayer standing, especially when considering that the credit reduces the state's financial burden for providing public education and is likely the catalyst for new sources of state income?

3. Given that the Arizona Supreme Court has authoritatively determined, under state law, that the money donated to tuition granting organizations under Arizona's tax credit is private, not state, money, can the Respondents establish taxpayer standing to challenge the decisions of private taxpayers as to where they donate their private money?

Question Presented in Garriott, Director, Arizona Dept. of Revenue v. Winn

Under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Section 43-1089, individuals who contribute money to school tuition organizations (STOs) that provide scholarships to students wishing to attend private schools are entitled to an income tax credit. Respondents alleged that Section 1089's neutral language and the Legislature's stated secular purpose for enacting it were a pretense and that the tuition tax credit program had the primary effect of advancing religion because a majority of taxpayers who contributed to STOs chose to contribute to STOs that awarded scholarships to students attending religious schools.

The question presented is the following:
Did the court of appeals err in holding that if most taxpayers who contribute to STOs contribute to STOs that award scholarships to students attending religious schools, Section 1089 has the purpose and effect of advancing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause even though Section 1089 is a neutral program of private choice on its face and the State does nothing to influence the taxpayers or the STOs' choice?

In 1997, the Arizona Legislature approved the Arizona Tuition Tax Credit, Section 1089 of which permits individuals to claim income tax credit in return for contributions to school tuition organizations ("STOs"). See Brief for Petitioner Gale Garriott at 3–4. Tax cr

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

· Wex: Establishment Clause

· Annotated U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

Submit for publication
0

Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp.

Issues

Whether a defect in a claim as to the nature of “employment” under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by employers with fifteen or more employees, limits the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Federal courts in hearing Title VII claims, as held by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, or if it only raises an issue going to the merits of the claim, as held by the Second, Seventh, and Federal Circuits?

 

In November of 2001, Jenifer Arbaugh brought suit against her former employer, Y & H Corporation under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, alleging that she was discriminated against because of her sex, and was forced to resign her position as a bartender and waitress. Y & H admitted to the questions of jurisdiction and its status as an employer under Title VII. In a district court trial, a jury found for Arbaugh. Y & H then advanced the claim that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Arbaugh’s claim because Y & H did not have fifteen full-time employees at the time of the incident, and thus did not actually qualify as an “employer” under § 2000e(b) of Title VII. If an employer’s status is a question of subject-matter jurisdiction, as Y & H proposes, then Arbaugh’s suit would have to be dismissed even though a verdict had already been passed because jurisdiction cannot be admitted to or waived by a defendant, and a challenge to jurisdiction may be brought up at any point in the litigation, even after a verdict has been given. Arbaugh responded that the definition of “employer” is a question of merit and not of subject-matter jurisdiction. As such Y & H could have and did indeed waive the matter in its admission. The district court, after a lengthy determination of whether Y & H did qualify as an employer, ruled in favor of Y & H, and dismissed Arbaugh’s case. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that the so-called “employee-numerosity” issue is a jurisdictional question. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to definitively determine whether the employment status of a Title VII defendant is a jurisdictional matter or one going to the merits of the case to be decided by the trier of fact. The Supreme Court will also resolve existing conflicts between and within the various circuits as to this question, and will hopefully establish a uniform standard for all plaintiffs and defendants in Title VII employment claims.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Section 701(b) of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies the Title VII prohibition against employment discrimination to employers with fifteen or more employees. Does this provision limit the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Federal courts, or does it only raise an issue going to the merits of a Title VII claim?

Submit for publication
0

Anza v. Idea Steel Supply Corp.

 

Ideal Steel Supply Corporation and National Steel Supply Inc. were competitors for many years in the New York area, with facilities in Queens and later the Bronx. They each sold steel mill products and other hardware, and the owners were even related by marriage. As Ideal Steel’s sales in the Bronx dropped and National Steel’s increased, despite both companies charging the same price for their product, Ideal Steel became suspicious. In particular, Ideal Steel was concerned about National Steel’s “cash, no tax” policy, in which customers of National Steel that paid with cash did not have to pay the sales tax required by New York State. Ideal Steel filed a civil suit in federal district court alleging that the “cash, no tax” policy constituted racketeering under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, in that the failure to charge state sales tax and the filing of false sales tax returns was a pattern of mail and wire fraud intended to give National Steel an unfair competitive advantage over Ideal Steel. The district court dismissed Ideal Steel’s claim, ruling that Ideal Steel failed to allege that there was a sufficient connection between National Steel’s alleged illegal conduct and the harm to its business or lost profits. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed and ordered that the suit should proceed, ruling that it was sufficient for Ideal Steel to prove that New York State relied on National Steel’s fraudulent conduct, which allowed the scheme to continue, and ultimately led to the harms alleged. The United States Supreme Court must now examine the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and determine whether a company such as Ideal Steel is injured by such violations where the company is not directly defrauded and did not rely on the illegal acts.  

The Alleged Scheme

Respondent Ideal Steel Supply Corporation (“Ideal Steel”) and Petitioner Anza’s company, National Steel Supply Inc., are direct competitors in the business of selling steel mill products and other hardware in the Bronx and Queens, New York. Brief for Respondent at 3.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans

Issues

1. To establish a class of investors in a lawsuit alleging securities fraud, must a plaintiff show that the defendant’s allegedly untrue statements materially affected the security’s price?

2. Additionally, to prevent a class from being established, may a defendant present evidence to refute that the alleged fraud materially affected the security’s price?

 

In 2004, biotechnology company Amgen Inc. was selling securities of two drugs that stimulate the production of red blood cells. After the Food and Drug Administration held an advisory committee meeting in May 2004 about the safety of those drugs, the market prices of their corresponding securities dropped. On behalf of the shareowners who suffered, Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds sought to certify the class of investors who held stock in Amgen at that time to sue Amgen for fraud regarding any misrepresentations of the drugs. Amgen argues that this kind of class action requires a plaintiff to show material reliance of the class of investors as part of the question as to whether a class exists. In contrast, Connecticut Retirement argues that during this class certification stage a plaintiff need not go beyond demonstrating that investors share a common question of reliance as a class rather than as individuals. If Amgen wins, then plaintiffs of securities fraud may face an unwieldy burden of proof at an early stage in litigation. If Connecticut Retirement wins, then defendants of securities fraud may face unfair pressures to settle cases.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Whether, in a misrepresentation case under SEC Rule 10b-5, the district court must require proof of materiality before certifying a plaintiff class based on the fraud-on-the-market theory.

2. Whether, in such a case, the district court must allow the defendant to present evidence rebutting the applicability of the fraud-on-the-market theory before certifying a plaintiff class based on that theory.

Respondent Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds’ (“Connecticut Retirement”) purchased securities offered by petitioner Amgen, Inc. (“Amgen”), a biotechnology company that manufactures pharmaceutical drugs. See Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds v. Amgen, Inc., 660 F.3d 1170, 1172–73 (9th Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, et al.

Issues

Is a professional sports league a single entity under Section 1 of the Sherman Act?

 

In 2001, the National Football League ("NFL") granted Reebok International Ltd. ("Reebok") an exclusive license to manufacture headwear featuring the logos and trademarks of every professional football team in the NFL. Because of this new arrangement, American Needle, Inc. (“ANI”) lost its 20-year license to manufacture such apparel. ANI argues that the NFL's contract with Reebok violates the Sherman Act, because the NFL and its member teams should not be considered a single economic entity. The NFL and Reebok contend that the member teams are united to produce a common product, namely professional football games, and thus are a single entity that is not subject to the regulations of the Sherman Act. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether or not the NFL is a single entity under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Are the NFL and its member teams a single entity that is exempt from rule of reason claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act simply because they cooperate in the joint production of NFL football games?

2. Is the agreement of the NFL teams among themselves and with Reebok International, in which the teams agreed not to compete with each other in the licensing and sale of consumer headwear and clothing decorated with the teams' respective logos and trademarks, and not to permit any licenses to be granted to Reebok's competitors for a period of ten years, subject to a rule of reason claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act?

Respondent, National Football League (“NFL”), is an unincorporated association of 32 professional football teams that produces an annual season of football games and the Super Bowl championship game. See American Needle, Inc. v.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

·      Wex: Antitrust

·      Washington Post: Trust-busting the NFL

Submit for publication
0

American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut

Issues

Whether a party can assert a federal common claim challenging a company’s carbon dioxide emissions as a public nuisance, or whether such efforts to curb emissions should be brought solely through the legislative process.

 

Several states brought suit against various power companies, arguing that the companies’ carbon emissions create a public nuisance – i.e. harm the public welfare – by contributing to global warming and damaging the environment. The district court dismissed the claim before trial, holding that disputes concerning global warming are “political questions” that should be resolved by the legislature, not the courts. However, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that courts are allowed to hear such cases, and that such disputes are not restricted to resolution in the political arena. Furthermore, the Second Circuit held that allowing such cases does not alleviate a plaintiff’s heavy burden of proving its side of the dispute in court. The decision will depend on whether the Supreme Court feels that the judiciary can properly handle such claims, or whether the complexity, controversy, and volume of such cases counsel in favor of dismissing this initial suit.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Whether States and private parties have standing to seek judicially-fashioned emissions caps on five utilities for their alleged contribution to harms claimed to arise from global climate change caused by more than a century of emissions by billions of independent sources.

2. Whether a cause of action to cap carbon dioxide emissions can be implied under federal common law where no statute creates such a cause of action, and the Clean Air Act speaks directly to the same subject matter and assigns federal responsibility for regulating such emissions to the Environmental Protection Agency.

3. Whether claims seeking to cap defendants' carbon dioxide emissions at "reasonable" levels, based on a court's weighing of the potential risks of climate change against the socioeconomic utility of defendants' conduct, would be governed by "judicially discoverable and manageable standards" or could be resolved without "initial policy determination[s] of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion." Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).

In July 2004, the States of Connecticut, New York, California, Iowa, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, and the City of New York (collectively “Connecticut”) filed a complaint against American Electric Power Company, Southern Company, the Tennessee Valley Authority, Xcel Energy, and Cinergy (c

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Alvarez v. Smith

Issues

When law enforcement officers seize personal property in the course of a drug investigation, how quickly should they be required to provide property owners with an opportunity to contest the validity of the seizure?

 

Civil forfeiture statutes allow law enforcement agencies to seize personal property without a warrant if the property is connected to illegal drug activity. A group of Chicago residents whose vehicles were seized organized a class action challenging the Illinois civil forfeiture statute on constitutional grounds. Specifically, they alleged that civil forfeiture improperly deprived them of due process because of the extensive delay the statute allowed before requiring actual civil forfeiture proceedings. After the trial court dismissed their complaint, the Seventh Circuit held the statute unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and now has an opportunity to clarify exactly what process is due to property owners facing statutory civil forfeiture proceedings.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a State or local government to provide a post-seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)?

Forfeiture Laws

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that no citizen can be deprived of property without due process of law. See U.S. Const. amend.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

·      Wex: Law about Due Process

·      Wex: Law about Forfeiture

·      Rules governing Krimstock hearings in New York City

·      Though civil forfeiture proceedings are necessarily civil in nature, readers may find the LII Wex Overview of Criminal Procedure helpful to understand the basic investigative process, including probable cause and exceptions to the warrant requirement.

Submit for publication
0

Altria Group, Inc. v. Good

Issues

Can smokers sue for misrepresentations in cigarette advertising under state law, or does the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act prohibit such state-law claims?

 

Stephanie Good and other smokers (“Good”) brought a class action suit against Altria Group (“Altria”) and its subsidiary, Philip Morris, for fraudulent misrepresentation under Maine state law. Good and the other plaintiffs claim that the use of descriptors such as “light” and “lower in tar and nicotine” in cigarette advertisements are misrepresentations because Federal Trade Commission mandated testing does not reflect the actual tar and nicotine delivery of “light” cigarettes. Altria argues that state law claims of fraudulent misrepresentation against cigarette companies are preempted by federal law. The First Circuit rejected Altria’s argument, and the Supreme Court will review that decision. Given the diversity of state laws and the widespread use of “light” descriptors, the outcome of this case could expose tobacco companies to different levels of liability based on the content of their advertising. This case may affect other federally regulated industries, potentially subjecting them to state law claims for fraudulent misrepresentation on the ground that federally permissible advertising and testing is misleading under various state laws.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

To ensure that interstate commerce is "not impeded by diverse, nonuniform, and confusing cigarette labeling and advertising regulations," Congress has precluded the States from imposing any "requirement or prohibition based on smoking and health . . . with respect to the advertising or promotion of any cigarettes," and has authorized the Federal Trade Commission to regulate "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the advertising of cigarettes." 15 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1334, 1336. Based on studies suggesting that cigarettes with comparatively lower tar and nicotine yields may present fewer health risks, the FTC requires tobacco companies to disclose those yields as measured using an FTC-mandated test, and has authorized tobacco companies to advertise cigarettes using "descriptors," such as "light," as shorthand references to the numerical test results. Respondents in this case contend that such descriptors are misleading, in violation of a state deceptive trade practices statute.

The question presented is whether state-law challenges to FTC-authorized statements regarding tar and nicotine yields in cigarette advertising are expressly or impliedly preempted by federal law.

Defendants Altria Group and Philip Morris (Altria’s subsidiary) manufactured and sold two brands of cigarettes, “Marlboro Lights” and “Cambridge Lights.” See Good v. Altria Group, Inc., 501 F.3d 29, 30 (1st Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to