October 2011 Term (Oct. 2011 - July 2012)

For in-depth summaries of specific key cases, see also Prof. Rory Little's Case Summaries.

United States v. Alvarez (6-3, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on June 28, 2012)

Summary: In a plurality opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court affirmed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Court held that the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. §704(b), which makes it a crime to falsely represent that one has been awarded a decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the U.S. Armed Forces, violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.  Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Kagan joined.  Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf

-----------

Miller v. Alabama (5-4, Opinion by Justice Kagan, on June 25, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court reversed and remanded consolidated decisions by the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, holding that “the Eighth Amendment forbids a sentencing scheme that mandates life in prison without possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders.”  Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined.  Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito joined.  Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia joined.  Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Scalia joined.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9646g2i8.pdf  

ABA Amicus in support of petitioners is available at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/amicus/miller_v_state_of_alabama_and_kuntrell_jackson_v_ray_hobbs_ray_hobbs.authcheckdam.pdf

 -----------

Dorsey v. United States (5-4, Opinion by Justice Breyer, on June 21, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Breyer, the Court vacated the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Court held that the Fair Sentencing Act’s lower mandatory minimum sentences for possession of crack, apply to offenses sentenced after it was passed on August 3^rd, 2010, even if they were committed prior to the passage of the Act. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-5683i7k8.pdf

 ----------------

Southern Union Co. v. United States (6-3, Opinion by Justice Sotomayor, on June 21, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, the Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.  The Court held that the rule established in Apprendi v. New Jersey, which held that the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee requires that the jury needs to find facts leading to the imposition of a higher punishment, applies to the imposition of criminal fines.  The Court held that the rule’s “core concern” applies regardless of whether the sentence is imprisonment or a death sentence or a criminal fine.  Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-94a1b2.pdf

 -----------

Williams v. Illinois (5-4 opinion by Justice Alito, plurality, on June 18, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court affirmed the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court and held that the form of expert testimony given in this case, allowing an expert witness to discuss the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts did not violate the Confrontation Clause.  Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion.  Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.  Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

Decision is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-8505.pdf

-----------

Parker v. Matthews (9-0, Per Curiam, on June 11, 2012)

Summary: The Court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.  The Court held that “it was plain and repetitive error for the Sixth Circuit to rely on its own precedents in granting Matthews habeas relief.”  The Sixth Circuit’s decision, which set aside two 29-year-old murder convictions, “is a textbook example of what the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) proscribes: ‘using federal habeas corpus review as a vehicle to second-guess the reasonable decisions of state courts.’”

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-845.pdf

------

Coleman v. Johnson (9-0, Per Curiam, on May 29, 2012)

Summary: The Court summarily reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.  The Court held that the evidence was sufficient to convict Johnson as an accomplice and a co-conspirator in the murder of Taraja Williams.  “Affording due respect to the role of the jury and the state courts, [the Court concluded] that the evidence at Johnson’s trial was not nearly sparse enough to sustain a due process challenge under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (1979).”

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-1053.pdf

----------

Blueford v. Arkansas (6-3, Opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, on May 24, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas and held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar reprosecution of a greater offense after a jury announces that it is “unanimous against guilt” on the greater offense, but subsequently deadlocks on a lesser-included offense.  Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1320.pdf

------------

Wood v. Milyard (9-0, Opinion by Justice Ginsburg, on April 24, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the Court reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Court held that courts of appeals, like district courts, have the authority—though not the obligation—to raise a forfeited timeliness defense on their own initiative in exceptional cases. The Tenth Circuit abused its discretion when it dismissed Wood’s habeas petition as untimely because the State in this case deliberately waived the statute of limitations defense. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Scalia.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-9995.pdf

-----------

Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority (9-0, Opinion by Justice Sotomayor, on April 18, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, the Court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and held that as used in the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 (TVPA), the term “individual” encompasses only natural persons and therefore does not impose liability against organizations.  Justice Scalia joined except as to Part III-B.  Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-88.pdf

----------

Rehberg v. Paulk (9-0, Opinion by Justice Alito, on April 2, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and held that a witness in a grand jury proceeding is entitled to the same absolute immunity from suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, as a witness who testifies at trial.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-788.pdf

----------

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the (5-4, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on April 2, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and held that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments do not require correctional officials to exempt some detainees who will be admitted to a jail’s general population from more invasive search procedures.  Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia and Justice Alito joined the opinion in full, Justice Thomas joined as to all but Part IV.  Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito filed concurring opinions.  Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Ginsberg, Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf

---------

Vartelas v. Holder (6-3, Opinion by Justice Ginsberg, on March 28, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Ginsberg, the Court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.  “Guided by the deeply rooted presumption against retroactive legislation,” the Court held that as to a lawful permanent resident convicted of a crime before the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), IIRIRA, §1101(a)(13)(C)(v), does not apply retroactively.  Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1211.pdf

----------

Setser V. United States (6-3, Opinion by Justice Scalia, on March 28, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and held that a federal district court has the authority to order a federal sentence be consecutive to an anticipated state sentence that has not yet been imposed. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsberg.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-7387.pdf

--------

Missouri v. Frye (5-4, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on March 21, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court vacated the decision of the Missouri Court of Appeals (Western District) and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.  The Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel extends to consideration of plea offers that lapse or are rejected and that right applies to “all ‘critical’ stages of criminal proceedings.”  Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-444.pdf

ABA Amicus in support of respondents is available at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/amicus/frye_brief.authcheckdam.pdf

---------------

Lafler v. Cooper (5-4, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on March 21, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court vacated the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.  The Court held that where counsel’s ineffective advice led to an offer’s rejection, and where the prejudice alleged is having to stand trial, a defendant must show that but for the ineffective advice, there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the court, that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the actual judgment and sentence imposed.  Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Thomas joined, and which Chief Justice Roberts joined as to all but Part IV.  Justice Alito filed a separate dissenting opinion.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-209.pdf  

----------

Martinez v. Ryan (7-2, Opinion by Justice Kennedy, on March 20, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.  The Court held that where, under state law, ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing those claims if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective.  Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1001.pdf

------------

Martel v. Clair (9-0, Opinion by Justice Kagan, on March 5, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court held that when evaluating motions to substitute counsel in capital cases under 18 U. S. C. § 3599, courts should employ the same “interests of justice” standard that applies in non-capital cases under 18 U. S. C. § 3006A.  The Court further held that the district court had not abused its discretion when it denied Clair’s second request for new counsel under the “interests of justice” standard, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in overturning that denial.  The Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Decision is available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1265.pdf

-----------

Messerschmidt v. Millender (6-3, on February 22, 2012)

Summary: The Court held, by a vote of six to three, that the California Police Officers were entitled to qualified immunity for executing a search warrant for firearms and evidence of gang activity in a home after a victim reported that the suspect (who was known to be a member of the Mona Park Crisps and the Dodge Park Crisps) had threatened her with a gun. Messerchmidt got a warrant to look for any weapons on the property and gang-related material, the detective had his supervisors approve the warrant before submitting it to the district attorney and a judge, who also approved the warrant. The now-deceased owner of the home sued the officers, saying the warrant was constitutionally overbroad because police had no right to look for any weapon at her house, only the weapon the suspect had used to shoot at his ex-girlfriend, and that because the shot was a domestic incident, police had no right to look for gang-material at her house. The Supreme Court on a 6-3 vote overturned the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion, said “The officers’ judgment that the scope of the warrant was supported by probable cause may have been mistake, but it was not ‘plainly incompetent” Justice Roberts also stated that the fact that the officers sought and obtained approval of the warrant from a superior and a deputy district attorney before submitting it to a magistrate is further proof that the officer could reasonably have believed the scope of the warrant was supported by probable cause. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Ginsburg.

Decision is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-704.pdf

----------------

Kawashima v. Holder (6-3, Opinion by Justice Thomas, on February 21, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Thomas, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and held that violations of 26 U. S. C. §§7206(1) and (2) are crimes “involv[ing] fraud or deceit” under 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(43)(M)(i) and are therefore aggravated felonies as that term is defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U. S. C. §1101 et seq., when the loss to the Government exceeds $10,000. Justice Ginsberg filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan.

Decision is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-577.pdf

----------

Howes v. Fields (6-3, Opinion by Justice Alito, on February 21, 2012)

Summary: In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and held that the Sixth Circuit’s categorical rule – that an interrogation is per se custodial, for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, when a prisoner is questioned in private about events occurring outside the prison – is not clearly established by Supreme Court precedent and is “simply wrong”. Justice Ginsberg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which was joined by Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor.

Decision is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-680.pdf

----------

Wetzel v. Lambert (6-3, per curiam opinion, on February 21, 2012)

Summary: The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had granted Lambert, who was convicted of capital murder in 1984, habeas relief; the court held that the failure to disclose a police activity sheet violated Lambert’s rights under Brady v. Maryland.  In a per curiam opinion, the Court vacated the judgment of the Third Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings on the grounds that the Third Circuit had failed to address the state court’s determination that the notations on the activity sheet were “not exculpatory or impeaching” but instead “entirely ambiguous.” Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Ginsberg and Justice Kagan.

Decision is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-38.pdf

--------

Maples v. Thomas, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections (7-2, opinion by Justice Ginsburg, on January 18, 2012)

Summary: In a 7-2 opinion reversing the Eleventh Circuit, the Supreme Court held Death row inmate, Cory Maples, has shown the requisite “cause” to excuse his procedural default of his lawyer missing a filing deadline in state court.

Facts:  After Petitioner Cory R. Maples was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death in Alabama state court he sought post-conviction relief pursuant to Alabama Rule 32 alleging his underpaid and inexperienced pro-bono attorneys (from the firm Sullivan & Cromwell) failed to afford him his Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.  In 2002, while his post-conviction petition was pending, his pro-bono attorneys left Sullivan & Cromwell, and no longer could represent Maples.  They did not inform Maples of their departure or inability to serve as his counsel, nor did they request the court’s leave to withdraw.  No other attorney at Sullivan & Cromwell intervened in the case.  Maples petition was denied in 2003 and notices of the order were mailed to the original pro-bono attorneys still listed as Maples’ only representation.  The postings were returned to the clerk unopened, and the clerk did not attempt any further mailings.  Eventually, the 42-day period to file a notice of appeal ran out.  The Alabama Assistant Attorney General contacted Maples by letter informing him that he had four weeks remaining to file a federal habeas petition.  The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals denied a writ of mandamus that would have granted Maples leave to file an out of time appeal, and the State Supreme Court affirmed.  Thereafter Maples sought federal habeas relief, but the district and eleventh circuit denied his request pointing to the procedural default in state court.  The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit finding that Maples has shown the requisite “cause” to excuse his procedural default.  The Supreme Court ruled that cause for procedural default exists where an attorney abandons his client without notice, and thereby occasions the default as opposed to the attorney’s negligence.  “Cause” was demonstrated by Maples never realizing he was reduced to pro se status, and never having received proper notice.

Decision is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-63.pdf

--------------

Perry v. New Hampshire (8-1, opinion by Justice Ginsburg, on January 11, 2012)

Summary: Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion for the Court, which affirmed the decision of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, and held that the Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement.  Justice Thomas joined the Court’s opinion and filed a concurring opinion.  Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.

Decision is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-8974.pdf

---------------

Gonzalez v. Thaler (8-1, opinion by Justice Sotomayor, on January 10, 2012)

Summary: Justice Sotomayor wrote the opinion of the Court, which affirmed the decision of the Fifth Circuit and held that Section 2253(c)(3) is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional rule.  The failure of a certificate of appealability to “indicate” a constitutional issue does not deprive a court of appeals of jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal.  Moreover, the Court held that the petitioners appeal was untimely; for a state prisoner who does not seek review in a state’s highest court, the judgment becomes “final” for purposes of Section 2244(d)(1)(A) upon the expiration of the time for seeking such review.  Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion.

Decision is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-895.pdf

-------------

Minneci v. Pollard (8-1, opinion by Justice Breyer, on January 10, 2012)

Summary: Justice Breyer wrote the opinion of the Court, which reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and held that no Bivens remedy can be implied in this case because state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions.  Justice Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Thomas; both Justices also joined the Court’s opinion.  Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion.

Decision is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1104.pdf

-----------

Smith v. Cain (8-1, opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, on January 10, 2012)

Summary: Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court, which reversed the decision of the state court and remanded the case for further consideration.  The Court held that substantial Brady claims in the case require a reversal of the petitioner’s conviction.  Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

Decision is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-8145.pdf

ABA Amicus Brief in support of petitioner is available at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/2011_build/amicus/smith_brief.pdf 

--------------

Greene v. Fisher (9-0, opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia on Nov. 8, 2011)

Summary:  Justice Scalia wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court, which held that for purposes of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, “clearly established federal law” is limited to the Supreme Court’s decisions “as of the time of the relevant state-court adjudication on the merits.”  The Court further held that because the last state-court adjudication on the merits of Greene’s claims – that of the Pennsylvania Superior Court – predated the Court’s decision in Gray v. Maryland by nearly three months, the Third Circuit correctly held that Gray was not “clearly established Federal law” against which it could measure the state-court decision,  and the state court’s decision was thus neither “contrary to” nor “an unreasonable application of” any “clearly established Federal law.”

Decision is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-637.pdf

---------------

Bobby v. Dixon (per curiam summary reversal, on Nov. 7, 2011)

Summary: The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit’s grant of habeas corpus and remanded the case back to the Sixth Circuit to deal with other issues raised in this case, among them allegations of ineffectiveness of counsel and the trial court’s exclusion of evidence in the sentencing phase of the case.  “Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court ‘must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.’  Harrington v. Richter, 562 ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 13).  The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit purported to identify three such grievous errors in the Ohio Supreme Court’s affirmance of respondent Archie Dixon’s murder conviction.  Because it is not clear that the Ohio Supreme Court erred at all, much less erred so transparently that no fairminded jurist could agree with that court’s decision, the Sixth Circuit’s judgment must be reversed.”

Decision is available at: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1540.pdf