ACSBlog: The Blog of the American Constitution Society

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in five cases this week. Follow the links for a press briefing and blog discussion regarding the Second Amendment case, Heller. More information on the Term, including briefings, analysis, and videos, may be found here.

Monday, March 17

• Philippines v. Pimentel (06-1204) (whether, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must dismiss an interpleader action involving a foreign country that has successfully claimed sovereign immunity)
• Rothgery v. Gillespie County (07-440) (whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches to defendants brought before a magistrate and jailed pending posting of bond if prosecutors were not involved in the arrest or court appearance)

Tuesday, March 18

• District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290) (whether DC law violates the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia but wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use)

Wednesday, March 19

• Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff (06-1717) (whether paralegal services are to be paid at the market rate for such services, or only at the level of their actual cost)
• Chamber of Commerce v. Brown (06-939) (whether a California law barring employers from supporting or opposing unionizing efforts with money received from the state is constitutional)

Questions Presented are below the fold.

Philippines v. Pimentel 

This interpleader action was brought to settle ownership of assets misappropriated by Ferdinand Marcos when he was President of the Republic of the Philippines. The assets are claimed both by the Republic, which under Philippine law is the owner of property acquired though the misuse of public office by Philippine officials, and by a class of private judgment creditors of the Marcos estate. The Republic was dismissed from the action on sovereign immunity grounds. In the Republic’s absence, however, the district court held that the Republic is not an indispensable party to the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b), proceeded to resolve the interpleader action, and awarded the disputed assets to the class of private claimants. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The case presents the following question:   

Whether a foreign government that is a “necessary” party to a lawsuit under Rule 19(a) and has successfully asserted sovereign immunity is, under Rule 19(b), an “indispensable” party to an action brought in the courts of the United States to settle ownership of assets claimed by that government. 

In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue on the following question: Whether the Republic of the Philippines (Republic) and its Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG), having been dismissed from the interpleader action based on their successful assertion of sovereign immunity, had the right to appeal the District Court's determination that they were not indispensable parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(b); and whether the Republic and Its PCGG have the right to seek this Court's review of the Court of Appeals’s opinion affirming the District Court. 

Rothgery v. Gillespie County 

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when “adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated.” Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 688 (1972). This Court has held that when a defendant is arrested, “arraigned on [an arrest] warrant before a judge,” and “committed by the court to confinement,” “[t]here can be no doubt . . . that judicial proceedings ha[ve] been initiated.” Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387, 399 (1977).   

In this case, petitioner was arrested and brought before a magistrate judge who informed petitioner of the accusation against him, found probable cause that he had committed the offense based on a police officer’s sworn affidavit, and committed him to jail pending trial or the posting of bail. The question presented is whether the Fifth Circuit correctly held—in a decision that conflicts with those of other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort—that adversary judicial proceedings nevertheless had not commenced, and petitioner’s Sixth Amendment rights had not attached, because no prosecutor was involved in petitioner’s arrest or appearance before the magistrate. 

District of Columbia v. Heller 

Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns. 

The petition for a Writ of Certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 – violate the Second Amendment Rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes? 

Richlin Security Service v. Chertoff 

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)(l) and 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), may a prevailing party be awarded attorney fees for paralegal services at the market rate for such services, as four circuits have held, or does EAJA limit reimbursement for paralegal services to cost only, as the Federal Circuit panel majority below held? 

Chamber of Commerce v. Brown 

Is the State of California’s regulation of noncoercive employer speech about union organizing, California Assembly Bill 1889, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 16645.2, 16645.7, preempted by federal labor law?