Gitmo cases before the Supremes today

Right now the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in the cases that seek to determine the parameter of constitutional rights afforded to 305 “military combatant” detainees in Guantanamo Bay. The cases drew hundreds of spectators both inside and outside One First Street, NE, and dozens of news organizations have set up cameras outside of the Court this snowing morning. More on the buzz surrounding the case here from the Associated Press.

UPDATE: More from the Associated Press here about the arguments, during which Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts grilled the detainees’ attorney. At one point, Scalia demanded the attorney “show me one case” granting the right of alien detainees to challenge their detention in civilian courts.

Some time after 11:15 a.m. the court will release the audio transcripts from the oral argument, which will be made available by a number of media outlets including C-SPAN, which will make the audio available on its website here.

SCOTUSBlog‘s Lyle Denniston will also be providing a dispatch from the court today after arguments have concluded.

At the Supremes: Laughs, opinions, and lively debate

Today was as busy day inside the Supreme Court building. 

But before we get to the news of the day, here is a quick update on The Funniest Justice tally. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now on the board! Ginsburg made the crowd in the courtroom laugh not once, but twice today. Now only the ever-silent Justice Clarence Thomas has yet to make a funny comment – or any comment – this term. On Thursday DC Dicta will give a complete update on exactly how many laughs each justice has earned so far this term. (Here’s a hint: Scalia’s still way ahead).

In other Supreme news, the Court issued its first two full opinions of the term, which were both unanimously decided:

In Logan v. United States, No. 06-6911, an opinion penned by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the “civil rights restored” exclusion of the provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s sentence-enhancement provision does not apply in cases where a defendant’s civil rights were never lost.

The Court also ruled in CSX Transportation v. State Board of Equalization, No. 06-1287, that railroad carriers may challenge formulas used by the state to valuate railroad property under a federal statute that bars states from discriminating against out-of-state carriers. That opinion was authored by Chief Justices John G. Roberts, Jr.

The opinions should be up on the Court’s website sometime today, and when they are, you’ll be able to find them here.

The court also heard lively oral arguments in the cases of Riegel v. Medtronic and and Snyder v. Lousiana. DC Dicta will have more on those later.

High-pressure blunder

Arguing before the nation’s highest court is enough to make even the most seasoned attorney nervous enough to forget his or her own name, let alone the names of the justices.

So imagine the pressure Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre felt as he took the podium before the U.S. Supreme Court today to argue on behalf of the government as amicus curiae in the case Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn: His two bosses, Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, were in the courtroom looking on as well.

Despite having been a law clerk for the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Garre must have had a case of the jitters, because he referred to Justice Samuel Alito by the wrong name.

“How do you articulate the rule that separates these situations?” Alito asked Garre, who was trying to differentiate situations where “me too” evidence should and should not be admitted in employment discrimination triels.

“Well, I would point to several criteria, Justice Scalia, in determining relevance,” Garre replied, spurring chuckles among those in the press gallery who caught the gaffe. Justice Antonin Scalia, of course, sits three seats away from Alito on the bench.

Neither Alito nor Scalia corrected Garre, but the boo-boo does appear in the official transcript of the oral arguments [PDF file, page 24].

Court welcomes Mukasey

Before oral arguments today, Attorney General Michael Mukasey made his first appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court as the nation’s attorney general.

After being formally introduced to the court by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, Mukasey was welcomed by Chief Justice John Roberts.

“Your appearance has been entered into the record, and we wish you well in your new office,” Roberts said. Mukasey replied simply: “Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.”

Monday status conference: Preemption, Gitmo and O.J. – oh my!

Welcome back! While DC Dicta was away and Congress was on vacation, the U.S. Supreme Court was hard at work, and that work will continue this week.

Last week…

Just when you thought the issue of just how much discretion judges have under the Federal Arbitration Act was complicated enough, it got a little more tangled. (SCOTUSBlog).

The justices pondered whether ERISA gives individuals the right to sue if their 401(k) accounts are not managed the way they want. (Lawyers USA, sub. req’d).  The Court also heard arguments on whether certain administrative expenses are deductible from federal taxes, whether one state can build a natural gas facility on the border of another, and whether a state can make rules banning delivery of tobacco products to minors, or if such laws are preempted under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act. (PDF file transcripts on the Court’s website here, here, and here).

This week…

Today the Court will hear oral argument in Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, where the court will consider whether “me too” evidence – non-party testimony of discrimination – must be admitted when such testimony involves persons who played no role in the discriminatory actions alleged by the plaintiff.

Tomorrow, the justices will hear arguments in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., a case that will determine whether state tort claims involving FDA-approved medical devices are preempted by federal law. The Court will also hear arguments in Snyder v. Louisiana, a case about whether race played a role in the impaneling of an all-white jury in a Louisiana murder case where a black defendant was convicted and sentenced to death. Details in this extremely fact-oriented case include comments made to the media by the prosecutor referring to the matter as “my O.J. Simpson case,” and the use of peremptory strikes by the prosecution to strike all non-white jurors, over the objection of the defense, resulting in an all-white jury. The jury ultimately found the defendant guilty and imposed the death penalty.

Wednesday the Court will hear the closely-watched case which will determine the constitutional rights afforded Guantanamo detainees. (Roundup from SCOTUSWiki).