Supreme Court Hears Argument: Week of October 8
The Supreme Court will hear argument on three cases this week. The Court will not hear argument again until October 29. Video of ACS' Preview of the 2007-2008 Supreme Court Term is available in ACS' Multimedia Library.
Tuesday, Oct.9
(1) Watson v. U.S. (criminal)
(2) Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta (securities)
Wednesday, Oct. 10
(1) Medellin v. Texas (international criminal)
Questions Presented are below the fold.
Watson v. U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) criminalizes the “use” of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense and imposes a mandatory consecutive sentence of at least five years’ imprisonment. In Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), this Court held that “use” of a firearm under § 924(c) means “active employment.” Id. At 144. The question presented in this case is: Whether mere receipt of an unloaded firearm as payment for drugs constitutes “use” of the firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 24(c)(l)(A) and this Court’s decision in Bailey.
Stoneridge v. Scientific-Atlanta
Whether this Court’s decision in Central Bank, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994), forecloses claims for deceptive conduct under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b), and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c), 17 C.F.R. 240.l0b-5(a) and (c), where Respondents engaged in transactions with a public corporation with no legitimate business or economic purpose except to inflate artificially the public corporation’s financial statements, but where Respondents themselves made no public statements concerning those transactions.
Medellin v. Texas
In the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), I.C.J. No. 128 (judgment of Mar. 31, 2004), the International Court of Justice determined that 51 named Mexican nationals, including petitioner, were entitled to receive review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences through the judicial process in the United States. On February 28, 2005, President George W. Bush determined that the United States would comply with its international obligation to give effect to the judgment by giving those 51 individuals review and reconsideration in the state courts. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that the President’s determination exceeded his powers, and it refused to give effect to the Avena judgment or the President’s determination.
This case presents the following questions:
1. Did the President of the United States act within his constitutional and statutory foreign affairs authority when he determined that the states must comply with the United States’ treaty obligation to give effect to the Avena judgment in the cases of the 51 Mexican nationals named in the judgment?
2. Are state courts bound by the Constitution to honor the undisputed international obligation of the United States, under treaties duly ratified by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate, to give effect to the Avena judgment in the cases that the judgment addressed?