Greenhouse goes to Yale

It’s been a good week for Yale Law School.

First, it landed at the top (again) of what purports to be the rankings of the nation’s top law schools by U.S. News & World Report.

Now, the school has announced that the New York Times’ loss will be their gain: starting in January, the retiring Times Supreme Court uber-reporter Linda Greenhouse will be a Knight Distinguished Journalist-in-Residence and Joseph M. Goldstein Senior Fellow at the school.

Said Dean Harold Hongju Koh of Greenhouse, who holds a Master of Studies in Law degree from the school: “We are thrilled to welcome Linda Greenhouse back home to Yale Law School. . . . She has the rarest gift for distilling even the most complex Court decisions and doctrines into language that all readers can understand. And her knowledge of the Court is matched only by her passion for accurate reporting and her fervent commitment to promoting justice through law.” (See the full announcement here on Poyner.org)

Greenhouse recently accepted a buyout package from the Times, where she has covered the Court for 30 years. (HT: Romenesko)

(Photo by Charles Haynes, c/o the Wikimedia Project)

Cover blown off Chief Justice’s school visit

Perhaps the Chief Justice of the United States is more popular than we thought, at least in the greater Washington, DC area.

That’s what officials at one local high school found out when they tried to plan a hush-hush visit by Chief Justice John G. Roberts. But somehow word got out - throughout the school community and beyond - and when Roberts arrived to speak to students yesterday, a Washington Post reporter was among the audience members.

According to the WaPo report, Roberts was humble during his chat at Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, downplaying his Chief Justice role and saying “just one vote” among nine, part of a “passive” Court that simply decides the cases it’s handed.

There were questions he declined to answer, like when a student asked what he thought the most important case of his tenure was so far, and when a teacher asked if the justices talk about the presidential campaign. He did say that the judiciary wasn’t political. “We’re removed from politics. People don’t vote for us. It’s our job sometimes to do things that are unpopular.”

He also said he tries to get justices who disagree on some issues to come together on others. “I try to keep an eye on the interpersonal relationships.”

Breaking: Another JD out of prez race

The Republican presidential nominee will not be a lawyer.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will reportedly end his presidential bid, bringing the number of JDs left in the race to two: Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The legally-educated candidates that have bowed out previously include former Sen. John Edwards, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Sen. Fred Thompson, and Sens. Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. The non-JDs still fighting on are Sen. John McCain and former Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Supreme tidbits

This morning the U.S. Supreme Court issued 21 GVRs (grant, vacate and remand orders) on certiorari petitions concerning the use of federal sentencing guidelines in light of the decisions this term in Gall v. U.S. and Kimbrough v. U.S., and the decision last term in Rita v. U.S., all of which examined - and expanded - courts’ discretion in handing down criminal sentences outside the guidelines established by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. That brings the GVR tally in sentencing cases this term to over 100. the order list is here [PDF file].

TV’s “Judge Alex” Ferrer was indeed in Court today, listening to the justices and attorneys engage in a surprisingly lively debate over the reach of arbitration agreements in a case arising out of Ferrer’s contract dispute with his former manager.

More on oral arguments in the case of Preston v. Ferrer and also on today’s arguments in Virginia v. Moore - which asks whether evidence obtained during a probable cause stop and search should be excluded where an arrest was illegal under state law - later today on this blog, and tomorrow on Lawyers USA’s website.

Friday morning docket: Judge Alex goes to the Supreme Court

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will be busy with Fourth Amendment, criminal sentencing, arbitration, patent and tax questions. (As always, click case numbers for the Oyez.com case summary. Lawyers USA subscribers can also get case info by searching the archives on our website, here.)

On Monday, the Supreme Court takes up a search and seizure issue in Virginia v. Moore, 06-1082, where the justices will hear arguments on whether the Fourth Amendment requires the suppression of evidence obtained incident to an arrest when the arrest violates a provision of state law. Argument is at 10 a.m.

Also on Monday, the Court will go all Hollywood, hearing the case of Preston v. Ferrer, 06-1463, which asks whether a contract dispute must go arbitration pursuant to the contract’s arbitration clause when a state administrative agency has exclusive jurisdiction over the disputed issue.

The Ferrer in the case is TV adjudicator “Judge Alex,” whose dispute with his former manager has reached the nation’s highest court. The parties had a management contract that included an arbitration clause. The manager sued Ferrer claiming unpaid commissions. Ferrer countered, arguing that the contract itself was void because the manager was not licensed as required by California law, and also claiming that California’s labor commission has exclusive jurisdiction over the issue, which trumps the arbitration agreement. Although the Supremes don’t allow cameras in the courtroom - which means Alex can’t feature this dispute on his nationally syndicated show - there is no word on whether the TV justices will be present at the argument, which starts at 11 a.m.

Tuesday will be Mandatory sentencing day at the Court, with a 10 a.m. oral arguments in the case of U.S. v. Rodriquez, 06-1646, which asks whether a crime qualifies as “serious” - warranting a higher sentence under the federal career criminal law - when the underlying offense is not grave in itself, but carries a high prison sentence because it was not the first offense. Then at 11 a.m., the justices will hear arguments in Begay v. U.S., 06-11543, which asks whether driving while intoxicated qualifies as a violent felony for purposes of the federal career criminal law, triggering the federal career criminal law’s 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.

On Wednesday, the Court takes up patent law is Quanta Computer, Inc., et al. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 06-937, pondering whether a patent holder may seek royalties from companies other than its direct purchaser as the patented product is integrated into larger components during the manufacturing process. Then tax law takes center stage in MeadWestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Department of Revenue, 06-1413, which asks whether a parent company can use a division as a non-taxable investment when the division is involved in a substantially different business segment but the parent provides cash infusions, investment advice and oversight.

Meanwhile,

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said the fact that there are two Jewish Supreme Court justices on the bench - and the fact that their faith played no role in their selection - shows how far America has come. (AP).

Meanwhile, embattled Republican Rep. John T. Doolittle, whose chances of reelection have become clouded as the result of an ethics probe, announced that this term will be his last. (CQ Politics).

The National Taxpayer Advocate said in a report that this year’s biggest tax filing problems were Congress’s fault. (AP).

Democratic lawmakers will have a new message when they return from winter recess: “It’s the economy, stupid.” (AP via Yahoo! News)

Justices ponder O.J. and the race card

During yesterday’s oral argument in the case of Snyder v. Lousiana - a fact-oriented reexamination of a Louisiana prosecutor’s use of peremptory strikes to dismiss black jurors in a black defendant’s capital murder trial - the Supreme Court justices examined what role comments by the prosecutor comparing the case to the O.J. Simpson trial played in evidencing that the juror strikes were racially-motivated.

The attorney for defendant/petitioner Allen Snyder, who was convicted and sentenced to death for fatally stabbing his wife’s male companion, argued that the prosecutor’s comments in the press that the case was “his O.J. trial” and that he would not let Snyder “get away with it” as O.J. did, as well as comments about the Simpson case in his closing argument, showed that the prosecutor wanted to prejudice the defendant in the eyes of the all-white jury.

But Louisiana Assistant Attorney General Terry M. Boudreaux argued that the Simpson reference did not refer to race. The prosecutor, Boudreaux argued, was simply pointing out that both cases involved men who had attacked their estranged wives and their companions.

Justice David Souter was not easily sold on Boudreaux’s argument.

First, focusing on the role the trial judge played, Souter pressed Boudreaux on the matter. “There isn’t much reason, is there, to think that the trial court was being very critical of the prosecutor’s answers?” Souter began. “My recollection is that, after the O.J. Simpson remark had been made in final argument, that the ultimate resolution of that involved the trial judge saying that one reason that was not a racially significant remark was that the prosecutor had mentioned neither the race of the defendant nor the race of O.J. Simpson.

“Now that is not a critical mind at work, is it?” Souter queried, drawing laughter from the audience.

“I would suppose not, Your Honor,” Boudreaux acquiesced. More laughter.

“And because you suppose not and I certainly suppose not,” Souter continued, “the fact is that we have to consider the O.J. Simpson remark in trying to evaluate what went on, in trying to evaluate [the prosecutor's conduct]. And that, in fact, is a fair and potent argument that the other side has, isn’t it?”

“Yes, Your Honor” Boudreaux said, but added: “The reference to the O.J. Simpson case was based on the factual similarities involving the O.J. Simpson case and this case.”

Souter was still skeptical.

[More after the jump]

Stevens reaches milestone of the ages

Today, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens reached a milestone only one other person has ever reached before: He is a sitting Supreme Court justice at the ripe age of 87 years and 210 days.

That makes the bowtied jurist the second-oldest person to ever grace the high court’s bench. To take the top spot, Stevens will have to stay on the bench for nearly three more years and surpass Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who served until the age of 90.

Justice Roger B. Taney, who served until the age of 87 years, 209 days, is now in third place.

As far as the justices who have spent the longest amount of time on the bench, Stevens - despite being the only remaining Supreme Court appointee of President Gerald Ford - is still only in 10th place. Those who had served longer than Stevens’ 31+ years are Justices William O. Douglas (36 years), John Marshall, Stephen Field, Hugo Black (all served 34 years), John Harlan, William Brennan, William Rehnquist, Joseph Story (all served 33 years) and James Wayne (32 years).

[Source: The Washington Post, citing a forthcoming entry in the Encyclopedia of the Supreme Court and "The Third Branch"]

Arnold to EPA: I said ‘I’d be baahck’ - with a lawsuit

Saying that he’s tired of waiting for the Environmental Protection Agency to rule on a waiver request for California’s greenhouse gas emissions regulations for cars and automobiles - the toughest state standards to date - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger filed a lawsuit on behalf of the state against the agency in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

In the suit, joined by 14 other states seeking to impose the same standards as the Golden State, California alleges that the EPA has dragged its feet in granting the state a waiver so it can impose stricter greenhouse gas rules on cars and light trucks.

“Our air quality, our health and our environment are too important to delay any longer, and it is not just the people of California who are waiting,” Schwarzenegger said. “Those states that want to follow our lead cannot do so until federal permission is granted.” (For a video of Schwarzenegger’s comments - because the quotes are so much better with the accent - see California’s multimedia press release).

Schwarzenegger had put EPA on notice six months ago - after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA [PDF file] - that a lawsuit would be filed if the agency failed to act in a timely fashion.

More on the lawsuit, including links to the complaint, the Federal Clean Air Act standards and more, can be found on Jurist.

O’Connor: Judges shouldn’t be partisan politicians

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor isn’t letting a little hip ailment keep her from extolling the virtues of judicial independence.

At an event yesterday hosted by the non-partisan Constitution Project examining the legacy of the effective assistance of counsel standard established by the Court in Strickland v. Washington, O’Connor, who was on crutches, said judges should not be elected.

The election process, with its partisanship and growing fundraising burdens, puts a political spin on the judicial selection process that goes against the goal of putting the best judges on the bench, O’Connor told the crowd at the Law Library of Congress.

“If I could wave a magic wand … I would wave it to secure some kind of merit selection of judges across the country,” O’Connor said.

She also praised the British system under which prosecutors also serve as defense attorneys. “We see a level of courtesy we don’t see in our country,” O’Connor explained. “They realize there are problems in both areas.” She said lawyers appointed to defend poor defendants should also be paid comparably to prosecutors.

O’Connor arrived at the event in a wheelchair, and used crutches to take the podium to speak. A court official said O’Connor was recovering from a temporary hip condition, according to the Associated Press.

Loss of a legend

Dc Dicta has just learned that a legal giant - the esteemed Harvard, Columbia and Boston University law professor Dr. Clark Byse - passed away earlier this month.

The news has a personal element for me because, like Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter, I had the pleasure of being a law school student of Prof. Byse. Byse’s spry mind, witty sense of humor (he was 83 when I was a 1L in 1995), and genuine caring about his students made Contracts class at Boston University School of Law a highlight of my time there.

The Boston Globe has a nice write up about Byse’s extraordinary life here, although curiously it leaves out the fact that Byse is widely believed to be the inspiration for the character Prof. Charles Kingsfield in the novel and film “The Paper Chase.”

The story does include one of my favorite Clark Byse facts: how getting a mention in the film “Quiz Show” led him to reconnect with an old sweetheart from 50 years before - and then marry her.