The Supreme Court today heard arguments in two cases concerning warrantless searches of cell phones. The old rules about searching belongings and the immediate area in the course of an arrest need to be reassessed now that most people carry a great deal of information around on their smartphones.
Lyle Denniston’s argument recap is here. The rest of my sketches are posted below.
Edward Lane was fired from his job at an Alabama community college after testifying truthfully before a grand jury and at trial about corruption at the college. Lane sued saying he was let go in retaliation, but the lower courts, citing an earlier Supreme Court opinion, ruled against him. He was represented at the Court by lawyer Tejinder Singh, who I have to say was fun to draw.
On the other side of the argument were Alabama’s Attorney General, who’s drawing I never finished, and lawyer Mark Waggoner, who was at the lectern a bit longer.
You can read about it here.
Earlier, the Court heard arguments in a patent case, Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments. Biosig has a patent on a device used in exercise machines to measure heart rate. It’s basically a bar with incorporated electrodes that receive signals from contact with a person’s hands. Nautilus claims the patent is too vague, particularly in describing the placement of the electrodes.
Now comes Justice Breyer, “I’m a little confused here. Imagine there are two kinds of electrodes, a blue one and a green one, and you have a blue one and green one on left hand and a blue one and green one on right hand. . . you cannot let them touch . . . I got that. And suppose on your left hand you put the blue one here and the green one there. And in the right hand, you put the blue in here and the green in here. . . . Does it work or not?”
And so it goes for awhile until Justice Scalia interrupts, “Let the record show that [Justice Breyer] is holding his fingers in the air.”
Anyway, it’s all “insolubly ambiguous”.
Overshadowed by yesterday’s affirmative action opinion in Schuette were arguments in two newsworthy cases, Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, and ABC v. Aereo.
“Ministry of Truth” was the Orwellian label SBA List’s lawyer, Michael Carvin, used when referring to an Ohio law that makes it a crime to use false statement in an election campaign.
The lawyer for the State of Ohio reminded the Court that issue is not the constitutionality of the law, but whether plaintiffs can show harm.
The second case argued was about a company, Aereo, Inc., that stores broadcast TV programs, which it then makes available to consumers who pay for an individual “antenna”. The broadcast networks say this is simply a work around to avoid copyright.
The lawyer for Aereo, David Frederick, tried to convince the Justices that his client only “is attempting to entice consumers to replicate on the cloud what they can do at home at lower cap costs and more efficiency.”
“. . if all they have is a gimmick,” said Clement in rebuttal, “then they probably will go out of business and nobody should cry a tear over that.”
On my way to the Supreme Court yesterday morning I read a Tweet that said it was unlikely the Court would announce any major opinion today since two big cases were scheduled for argument. Well, so much for the Twitter tea leaves.
Justice Kennedy announced the opinion in Schuette v.Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action saying, ” this case is not about . . . race-conscious admissions policies.” The 6-2 opinion approves a Michigan ban on the use of racial preferences in state university admissions.
In a fierce and lengthy dissent from the bench Justice Sotomayor castigated the majority opinion that “fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the injustice.”
Great quote from Garrett Epps in The Atlantic: Does anybody else think it could be a problem to put the question of minority rights to a majority vote in state initiatives?
I wonder what Cecilia Marshall, widow of the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, and her son, Thurgood “Goodie” Marshall Jr., thought of the Court’s decision?
The Supreme Court heard two cases today, the first day April’s two-week argument session after which the Court will only sit to deliver this term’s opinions.
The first case, Argentina v. NML Capital, concerns Argentina’s default on bonds the government issued in 1997, and stopped repayments when the domestic economy tanked in 2001. The issue before the Court is how far can creditors go in searching for assets.
The second argument, POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola, is about truth-in-labeling. Was Coca-Cola guilty of false advertising under the Lanham Act when it labeled its product “Pomegranate Blueberry” even though it was mostly apple juice with only 0.3% pomegranate and 0.2% blueberry? POM Wonderful, which grows and sells pomegranate products, especially juice, thinks so.
The two sides certainly brought the heavy-hitters, former Solicitor General Seth Waxman and Stanford Law professor Kathleen Sullivan, to the lectern.
Though, not everyone found the arguments riveting.