Do convicted felons deserve guns too?
July 21, 2008
After reading about the disconcerting flesh-and-blood defense now being used by black defendants in Baltimore, another intriguing — and bit more credible — defense has caught my attention.
According to an AP story, several defendants in federal gun cases are now arguing that the recent Supreme Court decision overturning D.C.’s handgun ban allows convicted felons to keep loaded guns in their homes for self-defense.
Their defense lawyers argue that the decision makes federal laws prohibiting those convicted of felonies and domestic violence crimes from possessing handguns for any reason unconstitutional.
Do you think that the decision in D.C. v. Heller makes these blanket restrictions unconstitutional?
CHRISTINA DORAN, Assistant Legal Editor
Sphere: Related ContentLyrics and the Law
July 1, 2008
In one of the last dissents of the term, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. quoted an unusual authority: Bob Dylan.
According to an article published in The New York Times Sunday, Roberts cited to the songwriter in his dissent on whether or not companies hired to collect on behalf of pay-phone operators have standing to sue phone companies over fees.
Roberts writes (PDF):
“The absence of any right to the substantive recovery means that respondents cannot benefit from the judgment they seek and thus lack Article III standing,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “ ‘When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.’ Bob Dylan, Like a Rolling Stone, on Highway 61 Revisited (Columbia Records 1965).”
The Times article discusses the different ways lyrics have made their way into legal opinions, noting that while this is the first time a Supreme Court justice has cited to popular music, many lower court decisions are riddled with these references.
Can you think of any lyrics that Roberts can use in future opinions? Maybe “You can’t always get what you want,” by the Rolling Stones? Or the great Gershwins’ standard, “They can’t take that away from me,” if it’s an eminent domain case?
CHRISTINA DORAN, Assistant Legal Editor
Sphere: Related ContentSCOTUS nixes gun ban, ‘Millionaire’s amendment’
June 26, 2008
In two of the last three opinions of its term, the Supreme Court struck down both the D.C. handgun ban and portions of the “Millionaire’s amendment” to federal campaign financing laws, both by 5-4 votes.
“[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy options off the table,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the five-judge majority in the handgun ban case, D.C. v. Heller. “These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”
In one of two dissents, Justice John Paul Stevens expressed disbelief that “over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.” (For more quotes from Heller, see our sister blog, D.C. Dicta.)
In the second case, Davis v. Federal Election Commission, the court sided with Jack Davis, who’s spent millions of his own money in two unsuccessful bids for a Congressional seat and hopes to make a third run. Davis claimed it’s unconstitutional to triple the limit his opponents can raise from individual donors once he spends $350,000 of his own money. The majority agreed, noting that the limit was not lifted on Davis’ outside donors.
“This Court has never upheld the constitutionality of a law that imposes different contribution limits for candidates competing against each other,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “and it agrees with Davis that this scheme impermissibly bur¬dens his First Amendment right to spend his own money for cam¬paign speech.”
In the third case, Morgan Stanley Capital Group v. Public Utility District 1 the justices agreed that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should reconsider the validity of power contracts purchased by utilities in California, Nevada and Washington state during the energy crisis of 2000 and 2001.
However, contrary to the 9th Circuit, it found the Mobile-Sierra doctrine does apply in this case. That means FERC must presume the contractual rate is “just and reasonable” unless it finds that the contract “seriously harms the public interest.”
Morgan Stanley was decided by a 5-2 vote; Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Stephen Breyer recused themselves.
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law
Sphere: Related ContentSCOTUS consensus? Not so much…
June 24, 2008
Think the declining number of 5-4 splits on the Supreme Court this term was a tribute to the Chief Justice’s consensus-building skills? Not so, says veteran SCOTUS litigator Walter Dellinger. Instead, he thinks the margins have been wider simply because the court has had fewer hot-button issues to resolve. “I’m doubtful as to whether it’s a trend,” he said.
And if anyone should know about hot-button issues, it’s Dellinger: the O’Melveny & Myers partner argued both the Exxon v. Baker and D.C. v. Heller cases this term. While waiting (and waiting, and still waiting) for the high court’s opinions in those cases, Dellinger spoke at a media briefing Tuesday hosted by the National Chamber Litigation Center, the public policy law arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. You can read more about Dellinger’s comments on our sister blog, DC Dicta.
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law
Sphere: Related ContentSupreme Court stays out of W.R. Grace dispute
June 23, 2008
The Supreme Court declined to step into a dispute over the definition of “asbestos,” dashing the hopes of Columbia-based W.R. Grace & Co. and six of its former executives. The decision allows the prosecution to move forward with criminal charges under the Clean Air Act for the release of asbestos from its vermiculite mine in Libby, Montana, prior to 1990.
If convicted, Grace faces fines of $280 million and the individual defendants face prison time of up to 15 years, Bloomberg News reports. The case is W.R. Grace & Co. v. United States, 07-1286 and 1287. We’ll have more on this story in tomorrow’s Daily Record.
In other action, the high court issued three opinions – one on sentencing, one on right to counsel, and one on a collection agent’s right to sue Sprint and AT&T on behalf of pay-phone operators (PDFs). Details are available on our sister blog, DC Dicta.
Nothing yet on the Exxon Valdez damages award, the D.C. handgun-ban challenge or whether rape can be a capital crime, all of which will be coming out any day now. Literally.
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law
Sphere: Related ContentSupreme Court gets down to work
June 19, 2008
The Supreme Court issued four employment-related opinions this morning, with two favoring workers and two favoring employers:
- The court made it easier for older workers to show age discrimination in disparate impact cases, in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (PDF).
- In MetLife v. Glenn (PDF), the court agreed that when the same entity administers and funds an ERISA benefits plan (as MetLife did here), it has a financial incentive to deny disability claims – a conflict of interest that should be weighed in favor of employees who challenge a denial of benefits.
- The court pre-empted California’s first-in-the-nation ban on employers’ use of state money to influence employees’ views of unions, in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown (PDF).
- Reversing an appeals court, it upheld Kentucky’s retirement system, which denies disability benefits to workers who are eligible to retire when they become disabled. (They receive their regular retirement benefits, but no disability benefits.) The case is Kentucky Retirement Systems v. EEOC (PDF).
The court also decided one criminal case, Indiana v. Edwards (PDF), rejecting an argument that a defendant who is deemed competent to stand trial has the constitutional right to represent himself.
Hat tip to our sister blog, DC Dicta.
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law
Sphere: Related ContentKeep-away on the high court
June 17, 2008
Watching oral arguments at the Supreme Court is “like watching a very young, very energized bloc of four conservatives on the court playing keep away with the ball…,” Slate’s SCOTUS reporter Dahlia Lithwick said at the American Constitutional Society’s convention last weekend. “You have a sense that energy has shifted.”
Linda Greenhouse, speaking on the same panel, picked up the sports metaphor and ran with it.
“It’s harder to get energized when you are playing defense,” the New York Times’ reporter said, pointing to recent close calls that went the conservatives’ way.
Liberal Justices Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg and Stevens (average age: 75) “have a lot of intellectual energy,” she added.
“I think their role as they see it now is to keep [too-conservative rulings] from happening,” Greenhouse said. “That is not as visibly an energetic position to be standing on.”
For more on Saturday’s panel, check out this report on our sister blog, DC Dicta.
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor/Law
Sphere: Related ContentLaw Blog Round-up
June 16, 2008
Hello! Here are a few law links to ease you into the week:
We’re about to see a tidal wave of foreclosures in Maryland, says bankruptcy lawyer Brett Weiss.
The Janice M. v. Margaret K. same-sex visitation majority opinion doesn’t consider the “real world experience of children and alternative families,” divorce lawyer Jill Breslau writes.
There’s still time to confirm Rod Rosenstein, the Examiner says.
Yes, summer associates, it is OK to inquire about your firm’s financial health and plans for the future, says a big-firm recruiting director. And if you don’t have enough work, go to all the practice group meetings you can, she says.
Ever tried a rape case without being able to use the word “rape”? The National Law Journal has a trend piece about judges banning prosecutors from using “loaded” words. Hat tip: ABA Journal.
From The Volokh Conspiracy comes this link to a Dahlia Lithwick piece about what the last term shows about the changing dynamic on the Supreme Court.
CARYN TAMBER, Legal Affairs Writer
Sphere: Related ContentAnniversary for Loving v. Virginia
June 12, 2008
Today marks the 40th 41st anniversary of the legalization of interracial marriage, which followed a landmark decision in the case Loving v. Virginia. The June 12, 1967 Supreme Court decision struck down anti-miscegenation laws in more than a dozen states.
At the heart of the case were Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple from rural Virginia, who were married in 1958 in Washington, D.C. When the Lovings returned home to Caroline County, Virginia, they were arrested and banished from the state for violating Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act. They sued after relocating to D.C, hoping to return to Virginia.
Since the Loving decision, mixed marriages have become more common but still rare, at only 7 percent of total marriages in the nation.
NPR took a look back at the historic case in 2007.
JACKIE SAUTER, Web Editor
Sphere: Related ContentThis week in Maryland Lawyer
June 9, 2008
- Mandatory retirement ages for lawyers have lost favor with the ABA and many law firms, but as Danny Jacobs writes, performance-based retirement can bring its own set of problems. In a related story, the lawyer for a retired founder says his suit against his former partners is “just business,” but it feels personal to one of the men he mentored.
- Kathy Kelly Howard, lobbyist for property-owners’ rights, will be sworn in this week as president of the 23,000-member Maryland State Bar Association. Find out how she plans to use her year.
- The Court of Appeals heard argument Friday in two cases we’ve been following: A disciplinary matter against Lemon Law firm Kimmel & Silverman, and a zoning dispute between Loyola College in Maryland and North Baltimore County residents over the college’s plans for a retreat center in Parkton.
- A Frederick lawyer wins a round in his defamation suit over a blog post; and, in Verdicts & Settlements, a woman is ordered to repay $190,000 to her stepmother after her father dies.
- Leadership in Law honoree Mark Thomas, now a judge, talks about how being on the bench has literally given him a new perspective; Rommel Loria talks about the “low bono” green-card case he took for a Peruvian man after taking a class at Catholic Charities.
- The Editorial Advisory Board calls for more changes to Maryland’s foreclosure process; Wilhelm Joseph calls for more money for Legal Aid; and the woman at the center of a controversial child support ruling tells her side of the story in a letter to the editor.
Also, find legal briefs, “movers,” case digests, and summaries of the U.S. Supreme Court, the 4th Circuit and the Office of Administrative Hearings opinions here.
As always, you can comment on any of these stories by responding to this blog. Or, if you’re in Ocean City for the MSBA’s annual meeting, stop by our booth and leave me a message!
BARBARA GRZINCIC, Managing Editor, Law
Sphere: Related Content-
Business
Business postsLaw
Law posts- Garrett closer to getting a judge
- Can’t do the canned food drive
- Is Harrell the new Cathell?
- Uphill climb for gas-leak plaintiffs
- This week in Maryland Lawyer
- ‘Generally happy’ with billable training
- Law blog round-up
- Possible Enzyte trouble for Venable?
- Eiswert, Sherbin seek Garrett bench seat
- Blogger arrested for leaking songs
Recent Posts
- Bowie Baysox made the playoffs - if anyone noticed
- Garrett closer to getting a judge
- Wound up about design
- Loyola gets a nod for its tech offerings
Recent Comments
- Russell D. McGeorge: Don’t they still feel pressured to meet what they know to be the recent standard? If I...
- BeagleMom: I truly think it depends on each individuals situation and financial stability. With the economy...
- Kathleen Cook: Jeff is right. Not a proud moment. This one is doubly not proud. As the $1.5 mill wife, I was not an...
- Ginger Wassum: I was another unfortunate person who was traveling from another state on a quiet Sunday morning to...
- tfr: Yes. I have seen a deer in the City. Foxes too.
On Commenting
We ask that our readers follow a few guidelines, noted below.Please do not post any personal attacks, profanity, spam or other advertisements — they will be removed. Also, please post using only one name or pseudonym, as this consistency helps establish a sense of community. We will delete posts if they are signed with different names but originate from the same IP or email address. And if you’re going to comment using a proper name, please make it your own. Deliberate misrepresentations will be removed.