The case is Rauf v. State. See Justice Vaughn's dissent for the correct answers.
Does Delaware Attorney General Matt Denn have the requisite vertebrae to petition for certiorari? Let's hope so.
Writing for the majority in a case about domestic assault on Indian reservations, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had said a federal law applied to some serious crimes "when both perpetrator and victim are Indians." But what the law itself actually said, quite clearly, was that it applied to all victims, Indians or not.* * *The mistake in the domestic-assault case was fairly minor. Nothing in the ruling turned on it, and the error was unlikely to mislead lower courts even had it gone uncorrected, given that the statute it described was clear.
I'm not sure about that "unlikely." The U.S. Supreme Court's position in our legal system is such that even the most ill-considered and obvious obiter dicta can cause damage.
Here at C&C, when we discuss a recent Supreme Court opinion we will generally link to the version on Court's own site, where any changes will be reflected.
Mr. Trump's hands, of course, are far from clean on the matter of judicial independence. It was just weeks ago that he was lambasting Gonzalo Curiel, the United States District Court judge overseeing a case against Trump University, saying that as a "Mexican," the Indiana-born judge could not be impartial.Disturbance number two: Your humble blogger agrees with an NYT editorial. I can't remember the last time that happened. Another previously reliable contrarian indicator goes awry.
All of which makes it only more baffling that Justice Ginsburg would choose to descend toward his level and call her own commitment to impartiality into question. Washington is more than partisan enough without the spectacle of a Supreme Court justice flinging herself into the mosh pit.
Because breath tests are significantly less intrusive than blood tests and in most cases amply serve law enforcement interests, we conclude that a breath test, but not a blood test, may be administered as a search incident to a lawful arrest for drunk driving. As in all cases involving reasonable searches incident to arrest, a warrant is not needed in this situation.CJLF filed a brief in one of the three, Beylund v. Levi, No. 14-1507, a civil case challenging the suspension of Beylund's driver's license for refusing a blood test after being informed he could be criminally prosecuted for refusing. In addition to the legality of the requirement, CJLF argued that the suspension was valid regardless, as the federal Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to civil proceedings. The U.S. Supreme Court left that question open for the North Dakota Supreme Court on remand on the theory that state law might "provide a remedy" not required by federal law.
Justice David H. Souter, who retired in 2009, would subsist on a lunch of "plain yogurt," Justice Ginsburg said, with distaste. "Just plain yogurt."Yes, definitely, Justice Sotomayor. Have whatever Sam's having. Can't hurt.* * *Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. orders a salad for lunch from the court's cafeteria, Justice Sotomayor said, while Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. bring food from home. "And sometimes I see Sam's fare and think maybe I should eat dinner with him," she said.