I'm a bit of a Court-watcher (being a lawyer by trade), although I admit I have not been keeping up with things as much this term. I hope to do this more often if there's interest; I realize that the large number of non-US readers may or may not be as interested.
But, better late than never, and here're the last three cases of the term, all decided today.
Vosine v. United States. Under federal law, it's illegal for someone convicted of certain crimes to purchase or own a firearm. In addition to felonies, so-called "misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence" also mean someone can't buy a gun. The petitioners in this case were both convicted under state domestic violence statutes, and were later prosecuted for violating the federal one (by owning guns). They argued that the state crimes under which they were convicted did not require intentional acts, only recklessness, and that they therefore didn't fall under the statute. Ruling 6-2, the Supreme Court disagreed.
Opinion (PDF).
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. This case involves a Texas law that puts additional requirements on doctors and facilities that perform abortions. Specifically, doctors that perform abortions must have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and the clinics themselves are required to have a lot of (expensive) facilities that are more akin to what's found in hospitals. The state argued that it was to protect women's health, whereas those challenging it say it was an attempt to restrict abortion. The Court ruled 5-3 that the requirements put an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion, and so are unconstitutional.
Opinion (PDF).
McDonnell v. United States. An interesting one for me, as McDonnell was the former governor of my state of Virginia. He was convicted for violating a federal law that makes it a crime to provide "official services" in exchange for money. Specifically, a businessowner gave McDonnell and his wife (who was also convicted) large gifts and loans, and McDonnell provided him with access to regulatory people who may or may not have helped the businessowner get his products to market. The Court ruled unanimously that the jury who originally convicted McDonnell was given improper instructions as to what constitutes an "official act." Specifically, they said the instruction was far too broad, and that only more specific actions are enough. Just setting up a meeting is not enough, by itself, to violate the statute.
Opinion (PDF)
That's the end of the Court's term for a bit, so it'll be some months before new decisions are handed down. If I remember, I hope to do this again!
PLEASE keep doing these, johnnyFive! The SCOTUS is where the rules hit the road, and therefore their decisions are very important for us to be informed about. Your writeups are clear, concise, and help us lay-people understand the importance of SCOTUS decisions.
Thanks! So what's interesting about SCOTUS is they get the biggies. But the circuit courts of appeals, the level below for most things, actually have a greater impact in a lot of ways. They collectively hear thousands of cases per year, but don't get half the press.
Thanks! As for Scalia's vote, that was a sorta-big question. Big because of its significance, but I don't think anyone expected his death to change things much. Kennedy has pretty much been pro-Roe his whole tenure, so I didn't see any suggestion that it was going to go other than it did.
I have no idea whether it is any good, but there's a new podcast from WNYC called More Perfect about interesting SCOTUS cases and stories. Thought you might want to know about it.
Already stated in so many words. There is. ;) It's phenomenal that you're able to do this paired with your own insight in the field. I'm sure these will be eaten up, if the response to this post isn't already apparent.I hope to do this more often if there's interest
Well, again, not sure how much insight I can add, but I'll do what I can. If you haven't seen, I went ahead and did another installment.
Great write-up, I'd love to see more content like this! Perhaps you could also do a periodical write-up on other legal issues of note in the United States? Also, in McDonnell v. United States, was McDonnell's conviction overturned by the ruling? Or would it just be retried?
Thanks, and I'd like to keep up with this kind of thing. I spent all this money to become a lawyer, may as well pretend it went somewhere :) Anything in particular you'd like to see discussed?
I can't say anything comes to mind, just anything you think is of particular importance. You are the legal expert after all!!
Haha, "expert" may be pushing it a little, but I'll keep my eyes open!
Sorry, forgot to answer your question. McDonnell's conviction was vacated, so it's no longer a thing. Now it goes back to the trial court, where the prosecution can decide whether they want to re-try it or not. If they do, then we start over, just with a more narrow focus thanks to the case. If they don't, that's the end of it, and McDonnell goes free. In the meantime, his wife, who was also convicted of the same thing, had appealed her conviction to the 4th Circuit. That court was waiting to see what SCOTUS did on this one, so it seems likely that they'll send her case back as well.
How does this jibe with the principle that you can't be tried for the same crime twice? There was a trail. He was convicted. He appealed. The appeal went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said that the jury were given improper instructions that were over-broad, and therefore convicted him (possibly) incorrectly. So yeah... you go back and have a "more perfect" trial but... how is this not being tried twice for the same crime?
It is, basically, but that's not really what the Double Jeopardy Clause was intended to prevent. Alexander Hamilton actually submitted slightly different language to the House: This was rejected due to fears that it could mean that a successful appeal, such as the one in McDonnell's case, would prevent a new trial. In other words, the Founders specifically decided that they didn't want the Double Jeopardy Clause to mean that there was literally only one shot at the prize for the prosecution. Instead, the idea was to prevent sour grapes (basically), i.e. the prosecution loses a case via acquittal, so they decide to try the person again. Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187–88 (1957). This desire isn't thwarted if it's the defendant who appeals his conviction. In other words, he asked for it. This isn't to say the prosecution can never appeal in a criminal case, but usually that gets more into collateral issues and not the underlying guilt or innocence. See, for example, a rather disturbing case (in more ways than one) from earlier in this term where the prosecution appealed a state supreme court's decision to vacate a sentence of death. The lone dissenting justice on the US Supreme Court argued (persuasively in my opinion) that the case never should've been heard, although not on Double Jeopardy grounds.No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or trial for the same offense.
“The constitutional prohibition against ‘double jeopardy’ was designed to protect an individual from being subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense. . . . The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo–American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.”
Oh right... I see what I was missing... the defendant asked for the appeal. It was granted. So now he gets a chance to stand up in court again and defend himself against (presumably false) charges. Ok. Got it. I wasn't thinking each actors' viewpoint through clearly. Thanks for the clarification!