On Monday the justices heard argument over whether an antitrust lawsuit brought by iPhone users unhappy that apps may only be purchased through the Apple store can move forward. Apple claims it does not have a monopoly because it is the app developers who set the prices.
Tuesday saw argument about who owns Oklahoma brought by members of the Muscogee Creek Nation.
Wednesday’s only case was about seizure of assets upon criminal conviction in state court and whether that violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases yesterday morning – a third argument was heard in the afternoon, but I didn’t sketch that one.
The first case, Samsung Electronics v. Apple, involves the design patents of Apple’s iPhone. Samsung, having lost in the lower courts, was ordered to pay Apple all the profits from smartphones that copied design elements of the iPhone, close to $400 million. Samsung naturally argues that such an outsized award is unfair considering their smartphones are more than just the package.
In the second case, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the justices were asked to make an exception to the rule that jurors cannot testify about deliberations. Here one of the jurors expressed a strong racial bias against the defendant and his alibi witness, both of whom are Hispanic.