Supreme Court opens big term

Daily News Article   —   Posted on October 2, 2012

(by Mark Sherman, WashingtonTimes.com) AP, WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court [began] its new term Monday…. The next nine months hold the prospect for major rulings on affirmative action, gay marriage and voting [ID laws].

The term that concluded in June set a high bar for drama and significance, and the new one holds considerable potential as well. Cases involving some of the most emotional issues in American life are likely to be decided after voters choose a president and new Congress next month.

Meeting on the first Monday in October, as required by law, the justices entered the crowded marble courtroom for the first time since their momentous decision in late June that upheld President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul [the law is also known as Obamacare].

An Oct. 8, 2010, group portrait of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court at the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Seated from left to right are: Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Standing, from left are: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. (AP Photo)

Chief Justice John Roberts, who was the decisive vote in favor of Obamacare, was smiling as he led the justices into the courtroom just after 10 a.m. The conservative chief justice will be watched closely in the coming months for any new indications of a willingness to side with the court’s liberals, as he did in the health care case. …

Roberts formally opened the term, and the court turned quickly to its first argument, which could have far-reaching implications.

The dispute involves a lawsuit against Royal Dutch Petroleum, or Shell Oil, over claims that the company was complicit in murder and other abuses committed by the Nigerian government against its citizens in the oil-rich Niger Delta.

Human rights groups are warily watching the case because it would be a major setback if the court were to rule that foreign victims could not use American courts, under a 1789 law [the Alien Tort Statute], to seek accountability and money damages for what they have been through. …

Justice Samuel Alito said the Nigerian case has no connection to this country because the businesses, the victims and the location of the abuse all are foreign. “Why does this case belong in the courts of the United States?” Alito asked.

Among other concerns raised by the justices was the prospect that U.S. firms could “be sued in any country in any court in the world,” in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s words.

The Obama administration is partly on the oil company’s side in this case. “There just isn’t any meaningful connection to the United States,” Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. said. …

The court first heard the case in February to consider whether businesses could be sued under the law. But the justices asked for additional arguments about whether the law could be applied to any conduct that takes place abroad.

A decision is expected by spring.

The first blockbuster case on the court’s calendar is Oct. 10, when the justices will hear arguments in a fight over the University of Texas’ affirmative action program. Texas uses multiple factors, including community service, work experience, extracurricular activities, awards and race, to help fill 20 to 25 percent of the spots in its freshman classes. The outcome could further limit or even end the use of racial preferences in college admissions.

The court also is expected to [address] gay marriage in some form. Several cases seek to guarantee federal benefits for legally married same-sex couples. A provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA, signed into law by President Clinton] prohibits same-sex couples from receiving a range of federal benefits available to heterosexual couples.

Several federal courts have agreed that the provision of the law is unconstitutional, a situation that practically ensures the high court will step in.

A separate appeal asks the justices to sustain California’s Proposition 8, the amendment to the state Constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman in the nation’s largest state. Federal courts in California have struck down the amendment.  The justices may not consider whether to hear the gay marriage issue until November.
…..

Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC.   From the Associated Press.  Reprinted from the Washington Times for educational purposes only.  Visit the website at washingtontimes.com.

Among other important cases already on the court’s docket:

— A high-stakes dispute, to be argued first thing Monday, between the business community and human rights advocates over the reach of a 1789 law. The issue is whether businesses can be sued in U.S. courts for human rights violations that take place on foreign soil and have foreign victims.

— A challenge to the use of drug-sniffing dogs in two situations. Florida police used a marijuana-sniffing dog’s alert at the door of a private home to obtain a search warrant to look inside the house. The question is whether the dog’s sniff itself was a search. A separate case looks at the reliability of animals trained to pick up the scent of illegal drugs.

— A challenge to the detention of a man who police picked up a mile away from an apartment they had a warrant to search. Occupants of a home may be detained during the search for the safety of officers, but this case tests how far that authority extends away from the place to be searched.

— Environmental disputes involving runoff from logging roads in Oregon and water pollution in Los Angeles.



Background

On the Supreme Court from BensGuide.gpo.gov:

EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURE FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN THE SUPREME COURT:
(from supremecourt.gov/visiting/visitorsguidetooralargument.aspx)