Supreme Court to Ponder Juvenile Lifers, Government Cross and Dogfight Videos
The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term Monday with a docket that includes two kinds of videos (one opposing Hillary Clinton and another featuring dogfights), a cross in the Mojave National Preserve, and life sentences for juveniles.
More than half of the 45 cases already accepted for argument this term focus on business, the National Law Journal reports. Six cases involve the day-to-day practice of law, the National Law Journal reports in a separate story.
One of the biggest questions is whether the court’s conservative bloc will become more unified this term, according to the Wall Street Journal. Those who hope for an affirmative answer point to arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the case involving the Hillary Clinton video. The justices could use the case to overturn precedent upholding campaign finance restrictions. Or, the justices could avoid overturning past rulings by reading restrictions on “electioneering communications” less broadly. The restrictions were cited by the government in a decision barring the video from a cable on-demand service.
Another test could come in a case to be heard the first week of the term involving a cross on government land in the Mojave National Preserve, the Wall Street Journal says. Proponents say the cross was originally erected to honor World War I dead, and has a secular purpose, according to a story on the case in the Washington Post. Opponents say the cross reflects government association with Christianity and violates the establishment clause. The cross has been covered by a plywood box as the courts sort out the answers. The case is Salazar v. Buono.
Other cases include:
• Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida, which test the constitutionality of life terms for juvenile offenders convicted of crimes other than murder. Amnesty International says 109 inmates are serving life sentences for crimes other than murder committed when they were younger than 18, according to a preview of the case by the Los Angeles Times. One of the two men challenging the law, Terrance Graham, was sentenced to life in prison for a home break-in after an earlier conviction for robbing a restaurant. He was 16 at the time.
• United States v. Stevens, which asks whether the United States can ban videos depicting animal cruelty. A story by the First Amendment Center calls Stevens the most controversial First Amendment case on the docket.
• Bilski v. Kappos, one of the business cases. At issue is to what extent business methods can be patented. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had ruled that a patent can’t be issued unless the business method is tied to a machine or involves a physical transformation. The court’s newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, is a former intellectual property litigator, and some observers expect her to be less hostile to patents that her predecessor, David H. Souter, according to the NLJ.
• Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. United States, one of the law-of-lawyering cases. At issue is whether a federal bankruptcy law restricting the advice of debt relief agencies applies to lawyers. A federal appeals court had ruled the law does apply to lawyers, but it violates the First Amendment because it “prevents attorneys from fulfilling their duty to clients to give them appropriate and beneficial advice.”
