Tuesday, November 5, is federalism day at the high court. One case on the docket is Bond
v. United States
, No. 12-158, a rare criminal case where the defendant is right. As I noted
last January, Carol Bond deserves to be severely punished for her use of poison to get revenge on her former best friend for having an affair with her husband. But that punishment should be meted out by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, not the United States.
The other case is a civil case that concerns a doctrine that often comes up in criminal cases. That is the Younger
doctrine, named for Evelle Younger
, District Attorney of Los Angeles back in the turbulent 60s. A criminal defendant filed suit in federal district court to halt an ongoing prosecution in state court. The Supreme Court quashed that in Younger v. Harris
(1971). Younger had taken office as AG by the time the case was decided, but it bears his name anyway.
The case before the Supreme Court on November 5 is Sprint Communications Co.
, No. 12-815. As you might guess from the title, it involves telecommunications regulation. (Yawn.) But wait, is the Supreme Court inclined to expand Younger
or narrow it? That might matter the next time a criminal defendant tries to go judge-shopping in federal court when the case belongs in state court.
Scott Dodson has this preview
at SCOTUSblog. Sprint's main argument seems to be that because the case involves a federal question it should be decided in federal court. But state courts have been competent to decide questions of federal law from the dawn of the republic. Congress did not even vest the lower federal courts with "federal question" jurisdiction, as we now know it, until after the Civil War, and the exigencies of Reconstruction are now a fading speck in the rear-view mirror. I will be rooting for the State of Iowa on this one.