The Supreme Court is Getting Ready to Rock-N-Roll

In case you hadn’t noticed, the U.S. Supreme Court is back in session. For a quick preview of the many blockbuster cases on the calendar this session, you might want to take in this Law 360 Pro Say Podcast: https://www.law360.com/in-depth/articles/967263?nl_pk=12824ff8-eeda-4c14-bbd7-cadc7f92d867&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=in-depth (If you do not know how to activate your Law 360 access, contact Brian Huffman!)

The Court is already underway with the Notorious RGB leveraging a constitutional smack down on new Justice Neil Gorsuch in Gill v. Whitford (a/k/a the partisan gerrymandering case). Attorney Smith was answering Justice Ginsburg question on how redistricting laws created one party rule in some states. Justice Gorsuch interrupted and diverted attention away from an equal protection argument to a Republican form of government clause theory supported by constitutional textualism. Justice Gorsuch said:

“… where exactly do we get authority to revise state legislative lines? When the Constitution authorizes the federal government to step in on state – state legislative matters, it’s pretty clear.  If you look at the Fifteenth Amendment, you look at the Nineteenth Amendment, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, and even the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 2, says Congress has the power, when state legislators don’t provide the right to vote equally, to dilute congressional representation. Aren’t those all textual indications in the Constitution itself that maybe we ought to be cautious about stepping in here?” – Gill v. Whitford transcript, page 59, courtesy of Scotus.

Justice Ginsburg intervened in the Gorsuch/Smith back and forth asking the Court:  Where did one person/one vote come from? She was referring to the 1963 Reynolds v. Sims Supreme Court decision. One person/one vote was read into the Constitution by Chief Justice Earl Warren and it is not in the Constitutional document itself, upending Justice Gorsuch’s textualism argument.  You can actually listen to the oral arguments on the Oyez website!

Wowza!  The Supreme Court is getting ready to rock-n-roll!

I know you want to keep track of all the exciting Supreme Court happenings. Here is a short list of some of my favorite Supreme Court resources. NB: If is it marked with $$$, it indicates that this is a subscription database so you will either need a username and password, or perhaps proxy access if you are trying to open the page from off campus.

BTW, the NYT has a good article on the “new math” of gerrymandering and how you might measure the effect of redistricting using one method called the “efficiency gap.”

Daily News

Lyle Dennison Law News, http://lyldenlawnews.com/

New York Times Supreme Court News Page: https://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/us-supreme-court $$$

iScotus Now, http://blogs.kentlaw.iit.edu/iscotus/

Scotus Blog, http://www.scotusblog.com/

Supreme Court Brief, http://www.nationallawjournal.com/supremecourtbrief $$$

Supreme Court Dispatches, Slate News, http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches.html

 

More General Coverage

Appellate, http://www.law.com/practice-areas/appellate $$$

BloombergLaw, United States Law Week, $$$

Reuters Supreme Court News, http://www.reuters.com/subjects/supreme-court

NPR Stories About the Supreme Court: http://www.npr.org/tags/125938785/supreme-court

Oyez, https://www.oyez.org, Providing the facts of the case, question presented and conclusion for all cases beginning in 1789.  Oyez also has select audio coverage of oral arguments.

Washington Post’s Courts and the Law: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts-law/?utm_term=.c9df6c046334,

Supreme Court web site, https://www.supremecourt.gov/

 

Deeper Analysis

Merits, from Scotus Blog, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2017 – you might also be interested in their stats pack page: http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/

Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases (via Hein),  Eight issues a year analyzing the court’s decisions.

1)  http://heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=previewa&collection=preview $$$

2)  Via the ABA web site: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/preview_home.html

3) Westlaw, http://lawschool.westlaw.com $$$

Ginsburg Overturns 4th Circuit: Kimbrough v. United States

If you think only published opinions can be scrutinized by the U.S. Supreme Court, you will find this opinion by Justice Ginsburg of interest. The underlying Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion is unpublished but can be found in the Federal Appendix, 174 F. App’x 798. Here, Justice Ginsburg overturns the court below and clears up confusion over sentencing guidelines for crack cocaine and other drugs. Tom Michener, graduating in May, wrote the summary of this case.

You can listen to Justice Ginsburg announce the majority opinion (check out the majority opinion jabot she wears in the law library lobby display) here: https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts2/opinion_announcement_audio/22651.

Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (2007)

Summary:

In 1986, during the Reagan administration’s anti-drug initiative, Congress enacted a federal sentencing policy of punishing crimes involving crack cocaine at a 100-to-1 ratio compared to crimes involving powder cocaine.[1] Using that ratio, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines prescribed the same sentence for a defendant convicted of dealing 500 grams of powder cocaine as they did for a defendant convicted of dealing only five grams of crack cocaine.[2]

In 2004, Defendant Derrick Kimbrough pleaded guilty to various crack and powder cocaine possession offenses. Under the relevant statutes, Kimbrough was subject to 15 years to life in prison. To determine the appropriate sentence within that range, the district court judge used the Guidelines, a formulaic system to determine a sentence in all federal crimes. The Guidelines dictated a range of 19 to 22.5 years in prison due, in part, to the 100-1 ratio.

The judge, however, determined that a sentence in that range would have been “greater than necessary” to accomplish the purposes of sentencing as set out in the sentencing guidelines. The judge also noted that the case exemplified the “disproportionate and unjust effect that crack cocaine guidelines have in sentencing” and sentenced Kimbrough to 15 years, the minimum. In 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, citing circuit precedent which stated that “a sentence that is outside the guidelines range is per se unreasonable when it is based on a disagreement with the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine offenses.” United States v. Kimbrough, 174 F. App’x 798, 799 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. Eura, 440 F.3d 625 (4th Cir.2006)).

As enacted, the Guidelines were mandatory. In 2005, about three years before Kimbrough and a year before the Court of Appeals’ decision in the case, however, the Court decided United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Booker excised the provision of the Guidelines requiring sentencing courts to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range and rendered the Guidelines “effectively advisory.” There remained some ambiguity as to whether the crack/powder disparity adopted in the Guidelines had been rendered advisory by Booker, ambiguity that created disagreement between various courts of appeals. The ambiguity was cleared up by Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg’s majority opinion in Kimbrough.

After reviewing the Government’s various arguments, Justice Ginsburg wrote that none of the arguments “persuades us to hold the crack/powder ratio untouchable by sentencing courts.” She observed that the sentencing judge properly calculated the sentence under the Guidelines and that the judge took note of the criticism by the U.S. Sentencing Commission of the 100-to-1 ratio. She also observed that the judge did not purport to establish a ratio of his own. Rather, the district court “appropriately framed its final determination in line with [a Guideline provision’s] overarching instruction to ‘impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary,’ to accomplish the sentencing goals . . . .”

Thus, the sentence was reasonable, the sentencing judge did not abuse his discretion, and the opinion of the Court of Appeals was reversed.

[1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/06-6330

[2] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/06-6330