Welcome back to LIIBULLETIN, the Legal Information Institute’s Supreme Court Bulletin. We look forward to exploring the important issues that the Supreme Court will address in the 2011–2012 term.
The Supreme Court’s 2011–2012 term begins in October. Included below is an overview of certain significant cases the Court will decide in the upcoming year.
Important Cases on the 2011–2012 Docket
Fourth Amendment Rights
In United States v. Jones, No. 08-3034, the Court will rule on the police use of Global Positioning System (“GPS”) tracking devices. The lower court held that the police violated Antoine Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights by secretly installing a GPS tracking device on his car, and operating the device for 28 days, without obtaining a warrant. In addition to deciding whether the prolonged use of a tracking device violates the Fourth Amendment, the Court will address a second question: did the installation of the GPS device on Jones’ car, with neither Jones’ consent nor a warrant, violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court will determine whether this “dragnet” type of monitoring violates the Fourth Amendment, and will resolve inconsistencies in the lower courts regarding GPS tracking.
Environmental Protection Act
The Court will consider in Sackett v. EPA, No. 10-1062, whether an Administrative Compliance Order from the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), which alleges a violation of the Clean Water Act, can be challenged before it is enforced, and, if it cannot, whether this amounts to a violation of due process rights. The Sacketts purchased land in a residential subdivision and graded it in order to construct a home. Shortly afterward, the EPA determined that this land constituted a protected federal wetland; the Saketts were served with an Administrative Compliance Order charging a violation of the Clean Water Act. The Order required the Sacketts to reverse the changes they had made to the land, threatening civil and criminal penalties, without permitting the Sacketts to challenge the Order.
Consumer Rights
In CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, No. 10-948, the Court will determine whether the Credit Repair Organization Act (“CROA”) prohibits arbitration between a credit repair organization and a consumer, even where all parties sign a valid arbitration agreement. Congress enacted CROA to protect consumers from credit repair organizations’ unfair practices, and prohibited the waiver of any CROA right. This suit concerns the “right to sue” clause of CROA, highlighting a circuit split between the Ninth Circuit and the Third and Eleventh Circuits. The Ninth Circuit ruled that, because the plain language of CROA provides consumers with the unwaiveable right to “sue,” that right cannot be taken away by means of a binding arbitration clause. The Third and Eleventh Circuits have held, on the other hand, that Congress intended the term “sue” to include arbitration, noting that the federal government has long favored arbitration as a means to settle disputes. The Court will determine if CROA precludes the arbitration of disputes arising between consumers and credit repair organizations.
Indecency
In FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., No. 10-1293, the Court will revisit a case from 2009, which held that Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) fines issued for “fleeting expletives” were not arbitrary, but did not decide on the constitutionality of the FCC’s policy. This case centers on offensive words used during two Fox TV award shows, and a television scene involving partial nudity on the show NYPD Blue. On remand, the Second Circuit ruled that the FCC policy did not clearly delineate what type of language or behavior would be considered “patently offensive,” or in violation of the policy. Therefore, the Second Circuit held that the FCC policy was inhibiting broadcasters’ speech rights under the First Amendment. Faced with the case for the second time, the Court will now determine if the FCC policy violates the First or Fifth Amendments.
Post-Conviction Procedure
The Court has granted certiorari on a number of cases addressing the post-conviction procedure to which a convicted prisoner is entitled. In Maples v. Thomas, No. 10-63, a prisoner alleging constitutional violations was denied federal post-conviction review in his capital case because, through no fault of his own, he missed a filing deadline. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in order to determine whether the Eleventh Circuit was correct in holding that, even though the passing of the deadline was not the prisoner’s fault – and, in fact, was partially attributable to the State’s conduct – there was insufficient cause to excuse the prisoner’s failure to comply with filing requirements.
In Howes v. Fields, No. 10-680, the Court will determine whether separating an inmate from the general population, and questioning him about incidents that occurred outside of the prison, constitutes custody under all circumstances.
In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, No. 10-945, the Court will address the procedure required prior to strip searching a prison inmate; in particular, the Court will decide whether an official can conduct a strip search without a specific basis for suspicion.
Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209, concerns a plea bargain that Mr. Cooper rejected on the basis of erroneous advice from his lawyer. (There is reason to believe, given the facts involved, that Mr. Cooper would have accepted the plea if he had been given better advice.) After a full trial, Mr. Cooper was convicted. During post-conviction review, the Sixth Circuit found a violation of Mr. Cooper’s Sixth Amendment rights. The Court will determine whether these circumstances merit relief, and, if any relief is merited, what form it should take in light of the fact that conviction resulted from constitutional procedures.
We hope you will join us for the 2011-2012 term!
Best regards,
Kelly Halford, Editor-in-Chief
Jacqueline Bendert, Executive Editor