ACSBlog: The Blog of the American Constitution Society

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in eight cases. All, according to SCOTUSBlog, are likely to be heard in next year's Term. The orders, and links to lower court decisions, are available here. ScotusWiki has links to all cases granted for the 2008 Term.

The cases involve freedom of speech, voting and democracy, immigration, business, and criminal law.

Voting and Democracy

• The Court will hear whether the Voting Rights Act permits the creation of "influence districts" that contain between 40-50% minority voters or requires that districts be drawn so that minorities constitute more than 50% of the population. Promoters of influence districts, such as the NAACP, argue that minorities can maintain their power as a voting bloc because of changes in racial attitudes that has prompted cross-over support for minority candidates. Opponents argue that the VRA only allows the creation of districts with a numerical majority of minority voters, raising concerns that minorities will be concentrated into fewer districts. The Fayetteville Observer has more.

Freedom of Speech

• As has been widely reported, the FCC is appealing a lower court's ruling that struck down the FCC's decision to begin fining media companies that broadcast fleeting expletives, instead of the examining the context in which the words are spoken. Although the lower court decision focused on how the FCC promulgated its rule change, the Supreme Court in FCC v. Fox Television Stations may examine the broader First Amendment principles regarding broadcast indecency. This 2006 CRS Report provides background information.

Criminal Law

• Whether a judge can impose consecutive sentences based upon facts found by the judge, and not a jury, is the question presented by Oregon v. Ice, and explored by bloggers (here and here) as to the reach of Apprendi and Blakely.

• In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the High Court will examine whether prosecutors may introduce crime lab reports as evidence without requiring testimony by the forensic analyst who prepared the report. According to the Associated Press, Luis Melendez-Diaz was convicted of trafficking cocaine partly on the basis of a crime lab analysis, but was not afforded the opportunity to question the person who prepared the report as to testing methods, how the evidence was preserved, and other issues.

• If and when federal courts hearing habeas appeals may review state court determinations on the adequacy of jury instructions is the subject of Waddington v. Sarausad. According to a news report, the trial judge instructed the jury that "Sarausad could be convicted of murder regardless of whether he knew of any plan for a killing." The appellate court disagreed, saying Sarausad could only be convicted "if he knew what was being planned."

• In a question of access to justice, the Supreme Court will consider whether a prisoner, whose right to directly appeal his criminal conviction was restored by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals nine years after his attorney improperly waived it, will have his right to a habeas appeal restored despite the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations that began ticking at his initial conviction.

Immigration

• In Negusie v. Mukasey, the Court will determine whether a refugee may be granted asylum status if he was compelled by threats of death or torture to assist in the persecutions of other persons.

Business/ Preemption

• The issue presented is whether a federal court may look beyond the face of a claim to the underlying dispute to find a federal question that would give it jurisdiction to hear a lawsuit brought under the Federal Arbitration Act. The case is Vaden v. Discover Bank, and Lawmemo has more.