Next week is the last for oral arguments this term. Here’s a look at the four cases. The biggest cases are on Tuesday with a look at Alfalfa Seeds and on Wednesday over a dispute related to the 2009 referendum out of Washington that set aside that state’s civil union law:
Case: Rent-a-Center, West v. Jackson
Date: Monday April 26, 2010
Issue: Congress passed the Federal Arbitration Act so disputing parties could resolve their differences and without clogging the court system. An employment-employer agreement in this case called for the mandatory resolution of claims under the FAA. Antonio Jackson claims his bosses at Rent-a-Center, a national retailer that specializes in rent-to-own installment plans for furniture and electronics, subjected him to racial discrimination and retaliation. Jackson contends the employment agreement was one-sided and decided to sue in federal court. But the trial court dismissed the case ruling that Jackson’s employment contract mandated arbitration. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set aside that decision and now the case is before the Supreme Court. The question presented to the justices: Is the district court required in all cases to determine claims that an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) is unconscionable, even when the parties to the contract have clearly and unmistakably assigned this “gateway” issue to the arbitrator for decision?
Case: Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins.
Date: Monday April 26, 2010
Issue: This is yet another case involving the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, (ERISA) to come to the high court. This case involves a dispute over the payment of attorney fees and whether a prevailing party is the only side entitled to those claims. Certain language in the ERISA law suggest a trial court judge has the discretionary authority to award the payment of costs to either party in a particular case.
Case: Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms
Date: Tuesday April 27, 2010
Issue: Put simply this case is a fight between big agri-business and a family-operated farm with environmental sensitivities. But as is often the case, the underlying legal dispute is considerably more pedantic. At issue is the authority of a federal trial court judge to issue a sweeping injunction under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Monsanto is one of the world’s largest agriculture companies and has developed a genetically engineered alfalfa variety known as Roundup Ready alfalfa. Monsanto claims its product is simply another in a line of stronger seeds that have “become a mainstay of American agriculture” because of the ability to generate higher yields which means more money in farmers pockets. Its Roundup Ready alfalfa seed is believed to offer greater resistance to a common herbicide.
Geertson Seed Farm objects to the Monsanto seed believing it will contaminate organically produced alfalfa. The Idaho-based operation contends Roundup Ready alfalfa will be difficult to kill and will cross-pollinate with natural alfalfa seeds. Geertson claims this “will contaminate other feral plants and conventional alfalfa seed fields in the area. In a few years, it will be extremely difficult to avoid contamination from [genetically engineered] alfalfa to conventional alfalfa seed.”
Geertson sued and convinced a federal judge to issue a nationwide injunction preventing Monsanto from selling its alfalfa seed. The judge ruled that certain procedures weren’t followed under NEPA and that Monsanto couldn’t sell its seed until those protocols were completed.
Monsanto says Geertson’s “science fiction-like scenarios” about the fate of natural alfalfa seeds are bogus. It also objects to the judge’s decision to issue the injunction which Monsanto claims is an “extraordinary remedy” that should be granted only when necessary to prevent likely irreparable harm.”
The justices will likely decide the case on the legal merits of the injunction and stay away from the back-and-forth over the seed. The judge who issued the injunction, Charles Breyer, is the brother of Justice Stephen Breyer who has recused himself from the case. That means eight justices will decide the matter and if they split, the ruling of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which affirmed the injunction order will be upheld.
Case: John Doe #1, #2, and Protect Marriage Washington v. Reed
Date: Wednesday April 28, 2010
Issue: This is the term’s final case set for oral arguments which means it will likely be the last one heard by retiring Justice John Paul Stevens. It concerns the names of people who signed a petition to overturn Washington’s civil union statute passed by state lawmakers. An attempt was made to obtain the petition and publish the names on the internet.
The core issue before the high court is determining what level of protected speech is given to the petition-signers. Should their identities be kept anonymous out of fear of retribution or should the names be exposed as a matter of public record?
Last May Washington lawmakers passed a law expanding the rights of same-sex partners. In response, a group called Protect Marriage Washington circulated a petition to force the issue onto the November ballot. Washington, similar to other states, allows voters to overturn state laws by referendum. The state requires a sufficient number of names on the referendum petition to place the matter before the voters. Protect Marriage Washington submitted more than 138,500 names to the Secretary of State who verified the petition and placed the issue on that November’s ballot.
During the petition gathering process, several groups supportive of the civil union measure announced their intentions to use an open records law to obtain the petition list and publish the names on the internet. Referendum supporters expressed concern that the people who signed the petition could be subject to retributive attacks. They pointed to violence associated with the contentious fight over California’s Proposition 8 and went to court to stop the names from becoming public.
A trial court judge initially enjoined the state from releasing the names but the Ninth Circuit U.S Court of Appeals ruled the names should be made public. The lower courts disagreed over the level of First Amendment protection petition signers are entitled. Referendum supporters argue an abridgement of their privacy rights violates “core political speech” which in this case requires a level of anonymity. The groups seeking access to the names argue “there is no right, fundamental or otherwise, to secrecy in the legislative process.”
In taking the case, the high court stayed the Ninth Circuit’s disclosure order pending its ruling which is expected in a couple of months. As for the November referendum, Washington voters with a 53% majority decided to overturn the civil union law.