U.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument: Week of December 3, 2007
Monday, December 3
- Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn (admission of "me, too" evidence in a single worker's age discrimination cases)
Tuesday, December 4
- Riegel v. Medtronic (whether the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts state tort claims for devices that received premarket approval)
- Snyder v. Louisiana (peremptory challenges based on race)
Wednesday, December 5
- Boumediene v. Bush (Guantanamo Bay detainees right to bring habeas challenge) (consolidated with Al Odah v. United States)
Questions Presented are below the fold.
Sprint/United Management v. Mendelsohn
This case presents a recurring question of proof in employment discrimination cases: whether a district court must admit “me, too” evidence - testimony, by nonparties, alleging discrimination at the hands of persons who played no role in the adverse employment decision challenged by the plaintiff. The Tenth Circuit panel majority held that a court commits reversible error by excluding “me, too” evidence. This decision conflicts with those of other circuits. Specifically, four circuits have held “me, too” evidence wholly irrelevant. Five circuits have held that “me, too” evidence may be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Granting certiorari will resolve the conflict between the circuit courts of appeals on this important question of law.
Whether the express preemption provision of the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §360k(a), preempts state-law claims seeking damages for injuries caused by medical devices that received premarket approval from the Food and Drug Administration.
Petitioner Allen Snyder, a black man, was convicted and sentenced to death by an all-white jury in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, for the fatal stabbing of his wife’s male companion. Prior to trial, the prosecutor reported to the media that this was his “O.J. Simpson case.” At trial, the prosecutor peremptorily struck all five African Americans who had survived cause challenges and then, over objection, urged the resulting all-white jury to impose death because this case was like the O.J. Simpson case, where the defendant “got away with it.” On initial review, a majority of the Louisiana Supreme Court ignored probative evidence of discriminatory intent, including the prosecutor’s O.J. Simpson remarks and argument, and denied Mr. Snyder’s Batson claims by a 5-2 vote. This Court directed the court below to reconsider Mr. Snyder’s Batson claims in light of Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005). See Snyder v. Louisiana, 545 U.S. 1137 (2005).
On remand, a bare majority adhered to its prior holding, once again disregarding substantial evidence establishing discriminatory intent, including the prosecutor’s references to the O.J. Simpson case, the totality of strikes against African-American jurors, and evidence showing a pattern of practice of race-based peremptory challenges by the prosecutor’s office. In addition, the majority imposed a new and higher burden on Mr. Snyder, asserting that Rice v. Collins, 546 U.S. 333 (2006), permitted reversal only if “a reasonable factfinder [would] necessarily conclude the prosecutor lied” about the reasons for his strikes. Three justices, including the author of the original opinion, dissented, finding the prosecutor’s reference to the O.J. Simpson case in argument to an all-white jury, made “against a backdrop of the issues of race and prejudice,” supported the conclusion that the State improperly exercised peremptory strikes in a racially discriminatory fashion. The Louisiana Supreme Court’s consideration of Mr. Snyder’s Batson claims on remand from this Court raises the following important questions:
1. Did the majority below ignore the plain import of Miller-El by failing to consider highly probative evidence of discriminatory intent, including the prosecutor’s repeated comparisons of this case to the O.J. Simpson case, the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges to purge all African Americans from the jury, the prosecutor’s disparate questioning of white and black prospective jurors, and documented evidence of a pattern of practice by the prosecutor’s office to dilute minority presence in petit juries?
2. Did the majority err when, in order to shore up its holding that Mr. Snyder had failed to prove discriminatory intent, it imported into a direct appeal case the standard of review this Court applied in Rice v. Collins, an AEDPA habeas case?
3. Did the majority err in refusing to consider the prosecutor’s first two suspicious strikes on the ground that defense counsel’s failure to object could not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel because Batson error does not render the trial unfair or the verdict suspect — i.e., that failure to raise a Batson objection can never result in prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) — a holding directly conflicting with decisions from inter alia the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the Alabama and Mississippi Supreme Courts?
1. Whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600, validly stripped federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by foreign citizens imprisoned indefinitely at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay.
2. Whether Petitioners’ habeas corpus petitions, which establish that the United States government has imprisoned Petitioners for over five years, demonstrate unlawful confinement requiring the grant of habeas relief or, at least, a hearing on the merits.
1. Did the D.C. Circuit err in relying again on Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), to dismiss these petitions and to hold that petitioners have no common law right to habeas protected by the Suspension Clause and no constitutional rights whatsoever, despite this Court’s ruling in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004), that these petitioners are in a fundamentally different position from those in Eisentrager, that their access to the writ is consistent with the historical reach of the writ at common law, and that they are confined within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States?
2. Given that the Court in Rasul concluded that the writ at common law would have extended to persons detained at Guantanamo, did the D.C. Circuit err in holding that petitioners’ right to the writ was not protected by the Suspension Clause because they supposedly would not have been entitled to the writ at common law?
3. Are petitioners, who have been detained without charge or trial for more than five years in the exclusive custody of the United States at Guantanamo, a territory under the plenary and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, entitled to the protection of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and of the Geneva Conventions?
4. Should section 7(b) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which does not
explicitly mention habeas corpus, be construed to eliminate the courts’ jurisdiction over petitioners’ pending habeas cases, thereby creating serious constitutional issues?