Monday, June 20, 2005
Six decisions, two grants of cert. These are what scotusblog rightly calls second-tier cases, no major new constitutional landmarks. Mostly statutory interpretation questions about deadlines and such.
I'm a Thomas fan, and except for Eldred not a Breyer fan. But I think Breyer has the better argument, in Graham County v US, as to whether the statute of limitations ('s-o-l' in lawyer-speak) is the 6 year federal term the statute says it is, or is anywhere from 90 days to 3 years depending on state law.
Graham County Soil and Water district was caught, or accused, of ripping off the feds.
Qui Tam actions are suits filed by individuals who catch somebody ripping off the feds, so that the individual gets a share, and legal fees and such. It has a whistleblower protection clause so that the stool pigeon is protected against retaliation. The case is about how long that protection runs. A secretary turned in the S&W district, was harrased to the point she quit, and sued more than 3 years, but less than 6, later. Thomas says she is S O L. He retroactively changes the rules to deny her justice, where she reasonably relied on the plain meaning of the federal statute.
Courts have to have rules to function. The rules though tend to get in the way of the underlying function of the court, if that is to do great justice. The 7th circuit, for example, is especially infamous for a multiplicity of unknowable hidden rules that interfere with being able to sue the bastards what have harmed you. The result is a bleak house where the transaction costs of litigation outweigh the retributive function, so everybody loses except the lawyers. In order to know why justice stevens concurred in this case, I have to go read the next case...
In the next case, there's a one year SOL that's already run by the time the rules allow him to file, so he's SOL...
In the case after that, they actually prevent an execution, 5-4, under Strickland ineffective counsel.
San Remo Hotel v San Franscisco is deeply disturbing at several levels, but it has a 4-person concurrence that offers hope.
It creates a procedural thicket making it hard to get taking claims heard anywhere.
On the merits, the hotel has a valid claim that the city stole their hotel and ransomed it back to them for $0.5 million, violating takings clause. Procedurally, 12 years later, they have yet to get a fair hearing on the merits in federal court.
The part I find most troubling is that the court treats a decision under the state constitution as resolving the federal claims. That is deeply wrong, and offends commity and federalism and dual sovereignity. All for now.
update 12 hours later: will baude at crescat has the best discussion of the case i've seen yet - partly because i haven't reviewed the literature. He makes the valid point that San Remo is not a second-tier case after all. It's the concurrence that makes it important.
update wednesday: a discussion in the comments to a post on scotusblog shed more light on the dual sovereignity issue. Richard Stamp argues that the court's opinion carefully limits itself to the question presented, and does not review the 9th circuit's glaring error on the issue preclusion issue. That makes sense to me.
I'm a Thomas fan, and except for Eldred not a Breyer fan. But I think Breyer has the better argument, in Graham County v US, as to whether the statute of limitations ('s-o-l' in lawyer-speak) is the 6 year federal term the statute says it is, or is anywhere from 90 days to 3 years depending on state law.
Graham County Soil and Water district was caught, or accused, of ripping off the feds.
Qui Tam actions are suits filed by individuals who catch somebody ripping off the feds, so that the individual gets a share, and legal fees and such. It has a whistleblower protection clause so that the stool pigeon is protected against retaliation. The case is about how long that protection runs. A secretary turned in the S&W district, was harrased to the point she quit, and sued more than 3 years, but less than 6, later. Thomas says she is S O L. He retroactively changes the rules to deny her justice, where she reasonably relied on the plain meaning of the federal statute.
Courts have to have rules to function. The rules though tend to get in the way of the underlying function of the court, if that is to do great justice. The 7th circuit, for example, is especially infamous for a multiplicity of unknowable hidden rules that interfere with being able to sue the bastards what have harmed you. The result is a bleak house where the transaction costs of litigation outweigh the retributive function, so everybody loses except the lawyers. In order to know why justice stevens concurred in this case, I have to go read the next case...
In the next case, there's a one year SOL that's already run by the time the rules allow him to file, so he's SOL...
In the case after that, they actually prevent an execution, 5-4, under Strickland ineffective counsel.
San Remo Hotel v San Franscisco is deeply disturbing at several levels, but it has a 4-person concurrence that offers hope.
It creates a procedural thicket making it hard to get taking claims heard anywhere.
On the merits, the hotel has a valid claim that the city stole their hotel and ransomed it back to them for $0.5 million, violating takings clause. Procedurally, 12 years later, they have yet to get a fair hearing on the merits in federal court.
The part I find most troubling is that the court treats a decision under the state constitution as resolving the federal claims. That is deeply wrong, and offends commity and federalism and dual sovereignity. All for now.
update 12 hours later: will baude at crescat has the best discussion of the case i've seen yet - partly because i haven't reviewed the literature. He makes the valid point that San Remo is not a second-tier case after all. It's the concurrence that makes it important.
update wednesday: a discussion in the comments to a post on scotusblog shed more light on the dual sovereignity issue. Richard Stamp argues that the court's opinion carefully limits itself to the question presented, and does not review the 9th circuit's glaring error on the issue preclusion issue. That makes sense to me.
Comments:
Post a Comment
