Supreme Court Schedules: The U. S. Supreme Court will hold a private conference tomorrow to discuss pending petitions for ceritorari. Today, SCOTUSblog's Erin Miller posted its "Petitions to Watch" for the conference, in addition to a rare "Appeals to Watch." The "Appeals to Watch" tomorrow involve the early release of thousands of California prisoners in the cases Schwarzenegger v. Plata and California State Republican Legislator Intervenors v. Plata. Kent blogged back in December that the Court was likely to hear the case, so don't be surprised if the appeals are at the top of the Court's orders list. The Court also released its oral arguments calendar for March 2010. The D. C. Circuit's detainee case, Kiyemba v. Obama, will be argued March 23rd, and a "second successive" petition question will be addressed on March 24th in Magwood v. Culliver.
Hollingsworth v. Perry - Lower Courts Can't Fudge Procedural Rules: At Volokh Conspiracy, Orrin Kerr comments on a theme he finds running throughout the Supreme Court's opinions in Hollingsworth v. Perry and Bush v. Gore. Kerr believes that yesterday's opinion in California's Prop. 8 case reflects the Court's objection "lower court or state court judges intentionally fudging procedural rules to help one side in very high-profile litigation that implicates the political process." He writes that the Court invoked this principle once before in Bush v. Gore, a case also involving lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies. In that case, the Florida Supreme Court was repeatedly fudging state election law to try to help out Al Gore in the 2000 election; and in Hollingsworth, the trial judge "was fudging the rules on broadcasting trials to try to give the plaintiffs a national forum to make the case for gay marriage." Kerr writes this must have been an "odd deja vu moment" for Olson and Boies.
Surveillance Drones in Houston: CrimProf Blog's editor, Kevin Cole, has posted a YouTube video describing the Houston Police Department's use of a small, unmanned aircraft that can be used for surveillance. The Department is testing use of the drones, but some people are already questioning whether use constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
Hollingsworth v. Perry - Lower Courts Can't Fudge Procedural Rules: At Volokh Conspiracy, Orrin Kerr comments on a theme he finds running throughout the Supreme Court's opinions in Hollingsworth v. Perry and Bush v. Gore. Kerr believes that yesterday's opinion in California's Prop. 8 case reflects the Court's objection "lower court or state court judges intentionally fudging procedural rules to help one side in very high-profile litigation that implicates the political process." He writes that the Court invoked this principle once before in Bush v. Gore, a case also involving lawyers Ted Olson and David Boies. In that case, the Florida Supreme Court was repeatedly fudging state election law to try to help out Al Gore in the 2000 election; and in Hollingsworth, the trial judge "was fudging the rules on broadcasting trials to try to give the plaintiffs a national forum to make the case for gay marriage." Kerr writes this must have been an "odd deja vu moment" for Olson and Boies.
Surveillance Drones in Houston: CrimProf Blog's editor, Kevin Cole, has posted a YouTube video describing the Houston Police Department's use of a small, unmanned aircraft that can be used for surveillance. The Department is testing use of the drones, but some people are already questioning whether use constitutes a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
Leave a comment