Supreme Court Grants: As Kent noted earlier today the U.S. Supreme Court released orders today and took four civil cases for review. One of those civil cases, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District v. Mukasey (08-322), addresses "a weighty constitutional dispute over Congress's 25-year extension of the federal
voting rights law's provision" according to this post by Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSblog. The federal voting rights provision requires some states and local
governments to get clearance in Washington before making any changes in
election laws or methods. Denniston reports that some conservative advocacy groups are passionately opposed to the Voting
Rights Act extension and claim it is an intrusion on state
sovereignty. A Texas government unit is challenging the extension and also arguing it falls within a special exception and should be allowed to "bail out" of the federal law. A three judge panel in Texas District Court upheld the extension, and the utility district exercised its right to appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Denniston's post reports on constitutional issues presented in the case and then provides details on the three other cases granted certiorari today. Former Supreme Court correspondent Linda Greenhouse returns to the NYT's pages with her opinion piece candidly labelled as such. Present NYT Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak has this report.
Another Batson Challenge - With A Twist: At Wall Street Journal Blog Dan Slater has posted his thoughts on the Second Circuit's decision in Dolphy v. Mantello, a case which asks "What inquiry must a trial court undertake when a prosecutor cites 'obesity' as the reason for using a peremptory challenge to strike the only African-American from the jury pool?" According to Slater's post, when the prosecutor tried to exercise a peremptory strike against the only African-American in the jury pool he cited his personal belief "that heavy-set people tend to be very sympathetic toward any defendant[,]" as his reason for the strike. The trial judge accepted the reason as race-neutral, but today the Second Circuit reversed, finding the inquiry unsatisfactory. The Second Circuit found fault in the fact that the trial court had failed to "assess the credibility of the prosecutor's explanation" and there had been "no adjudication of Dolphy's claim on the merits." Therefore, said the Second Circuit, there is no need to defer to the state court, and the federal district court should decide the Batson question de novo on habeas corpus. This sounds like the same kind of overly severe reading of the state court's ruling that prompted a unanimous reversal in Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006).
Another Batson Challenge - With A Twist: At Wall Street Journal Blog Dan Slater has posted his thoughts on the Second Circuit's decision in Dolphy v. Mantello, a case which asks "What inquiry must a trial court undertake when a prosecutor cites 'obesity' as the reason for using a peremptory challenge to strike the only African-American from the jury pool?" According to Slater's post, when the prosecutor tried to exercise a peremptory strike against the only African-American in the jury pool he cited his personal belief "that heavy-set people tend to be very sympathetic toward any defendant[,]" as his reason for the strike. The trial judge accepted the reason as race-neutral, but today the Second Circuit reversed, finding the inquiry unsatisfactory. The Second Circuit found fault in the fact that the trial court had failed to "assess the credibility of the prosecutor's explanation" and there had been "no adjudication of Dolphy's claim on the merits." Therefore, said the Second Circuit, there is no need to defer to the state court, and the federal district court should decide the Batson question de novo on habeas corpus. This sounds like the same kind of overly severe reading of the state court's ruling that prompted a unanimous reversal in Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006).
Leave a comment