Novalawcity

Bush v. Gore as Precedent

As Joan Biskupic writes in her Supreme Court blog Court Beat, the case has been cited in over 200 state and federal court decisions since it was issued 9 years ago. Biskupic's post focuses on the role that Justice Antonin Scalia played in the legal battle that resulted in the Supreme Court decision that terminated Florida's recount efforts, and the declared that George W. Bush was the winner of the 2000 presidential election. She also notes that, although the majority opinion stated that "our consideration is limited to the present circumstances", "[t]he 2000 ruling has enhanced the grounds for equal-protections challenges to unreliable voting procedures."  

The Supreme Court Hit Parade

Here's a trivia question for you lawyers in our reading audience.  Which Supreme Court case leads the list of those most-cited, according to HeinOnline's citation metrics?  No peeking, now.  It's Brown v. Board of Education, followed closely by Roe v. Wade, cited 15, 991 times.  Next are Griswold v. Connecticut, Miranda v. Arizona and New York Times v. Sullivan.  Reassuringly for those of you who are thinking, "Geez, I didn't need to go to law school to recognize those names," Marbury v. Madison appears at lucky number 13.  Marbury v. Madison is the secret handshake of the lawyering guild, as anyone who has ever turned themselves inside out trying to understand, and to explain to their professor, why it's in their Con law book, can attest.   

And just to satisfy your curiosity, Lemon v. Kurtzman comes in at number 50, with 4,486 citations.

"Why Minnesota 2008 Is Not Florida 2000"

Edward B. Foley, director of Ohio State University's Election Law @ Moritz, has posted a very interesting analysis of the current contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken for Minnesota's senate seat. Among other points, he argues that, unlike the decisions in Florida's 2000 presidential election snafu, Minnesota's "judicial rulings over the counting of ballots do not appear to be a partisan effort to tilt the legal playing field to assist a favored candidate."  To read the entire post, click here.

11th Circuit Rules that Miami School Board Can Ban Vamos a Cuba

See this post on the First Amendment Center's blog. Read  ACLU of Florida v. Miami-Dade County School Board at the U.S. Courts website.

Friend or Foe? On Facebook, It’s Not So Clear

An Australian court has ruled that a mortgage lender may serve a foreclosure notice via Facebook.  See Aussie court OKs using Facebook for serving lien.  Efforts at contacting the homeowners had failed until the attorney for the lender was able to locate the profile of the borrower through an associate’s Facebook page.  While there are certain electronic means that are recognized as proper methods for serving legal documents, notice by way of a social networking website is a new tactic.  In Australia, e-mails and text messages also have been deemed acceptable methods of service.  Professor Rory Ryan of Baylor Law School says, in the U.S., “legal rules list several acceptable delivery methods, but not surprisingly, Facebook isn't included.”  While Facebook boasts that it “helps you connect and share with the people in your life,” it may some day help the people in your life to serve you with court papers.

Court Allows E-mail Recovery Effort to Continue

Sabrina Pacifici reports that "the National Security Archive may proceed with its effort to force the White House to recover millions of Bush Administration Executive Office of the President (EOP) e-mail records before the presidential transition."  Click here to see the November 10th ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and  here to see the chronology of this effort.

A Nation of Immigrants

Faithful readers of Novalawcity may recall when I blogged about questions regarding John McCain's citizenship (Citizen McCain?).  The Democratic candidate's citizenship qualifications have been challenged as well.  Pennsylvania attorney Philip Berg brought suit against Barack Obama, alleging that he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States as required in Article II Section 1 and hence not entitled to serve as President.  Relying heavily on the case of Hollander v. McCain,  which challenged Candidate McCain's citizenship, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed the suit.  Judge R. Barclay Surrick held that Berg did not have standing to bring suit, because he would not be directly harmed even if his allegation that Obama lost his citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian man were true. 

Perhaps it is time to take another look at the "natural born citizen" requirement, which originally stemmed from the fear that a malign Brit would take the infant United States back under British rule.  A movement  to amend the constitution to remove the requirement was organized at the height of Arnold Shwarzenegger's popularity, but has since languished. Hat tip to Concurring Opinions.

Conservative Federal Appellate Judges Assail SCOTUS Second Amendment Ruling

Seventh Circuit Judge Posner and Fourth Circuit Judge Wilkinson have attacked the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.  Both likened it to the decision in Roe v. Wade, saying that in both cases, the SCOTUS violated the federalist principle of deference to the judgment of state legislatures.  Both judges assumed that Heller will apply to the states, as well as to the District of Columbia.  Far from hewing to his originalist principles, Justice Scalia is said to have been swayed by political considerations to strike down D.C.'s gun control ordinance.  Read the story in The New York Times.

This year's important Supreme Court decisions

In case you want to catch up or refresh your memory, the New York Times has posted summaries of the most important opinions of the Supreme Court's 2007-2008 term.

(edited to add)

Linda Greenhouse's analysis of the term is also available.  It's likely her last, as she is retiring.  Visual thinkers and others may appreciate this illustration of the term's major rulings.

Tip for the latter two links: Southern District of Florida blog.

"My name is a footnote in American legal history...

...which I’m perversely kind of proud of," George Carlin said in an interview in February. 

In memory of Carlin, here's a link to Oyez's presentation, including the written opinion and audio oral arguments, of F.C.C. v. Pacifica Foundation 438 U.S. 726, the 1978 Supreme Court case that resulted from a New York radio station's afternoon airing of Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue.

A transcript of the monologue itself is available at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law's Exploring Constitutional Conflicts: Regulation of  Indecent Speech webpage.