Author: Lee Ross

The nation’s top environmental regulator says she’s as anxious as everyone else to see if Wednesday’s planned operation by BP to plug its damaged Gulf of Mexico pipeline will stop the flow of oil into the sea.

“Like so many people down there, I am praying that it is successful,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Fox News late Tuesday. “Because we cannot get in front of this thing until BP stops that leak.”

Jackson spoke shortly after her return to the Washington-area following her third trip to the Gulf region since last month’s explosion of a BP oil rig that led to the calamitous spill. Jackson said she was unaware of a controversy about the video transmission of the oil company’s “top kill” plan. BP has since decided to broadcast that live feed.

The EPA’s involvement in the oil spill is just one part of the overall federal response and is the agency that may ultimately have the imprimatur to punish BP. A recent report by ProPublica says the EPA is reconsidering its position on BP over other outstanding environmental disputes. The article highlights the EPA’s authority to enact sanctions–known as debarment–against BP including the suspension of all federal contracts and leases.

Debarment is an administrative measure that in its most severe application would essentially declare BP institutionally incapable of complying with federal environmental laws. An EPA official didn’t immediately respond to a request from Fox News about the agency’s current position on BP and the debarment process.

Jackson was asked if she felt BP was on the whole, a responsible economic steward. “I don’t see how I can make that judgment about a company that’s having what could well be the biggest environmental disaster this country has ever seen. I mean it is too soon to write what it was but certainly as it unfolds, I don’t think anybody could call them a steward that’s responsible when oil is leaking into the Gulf the way it is right now.”

Several days ago, Jackson issued a directive calling on BP to reduce the amount of chemical dispersants it was using to contain oil that had already leaked into the water. Jackson said the company has complied with her order and reduced its use of chemicals from nearly 70 thousand gallons each day to less than 15 thousand.

“I think that is entirely a result of us making it clear that the time for using dispersants freely was over,” Jackson said.

A newly released videotape of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and Justice Anthony Kennedy offers an interesting insight into a relationship that some hope will evolve into a liberal leaning legal partnership on the high court.

Much of the discussion about Kagan’s nomination, announced by President Obama on May 10, has been on her reputation as someone who is skilled at reaching consensus with colleagues. This talent is considered critical in securing Kennedy’s vote which is often necessary to attain a majority in sharply-divided cases.

In the videotape, Kagan discounts the often used phrase describing Kennedy as the Court’s “swing vote,” saying that depiction fails to properly illuminate the public on Kennedy’s contributions. “Far from swinging between positions that are defined by others, Justice Kennedy consistently charts his own course,” Kagan said in an introduction to a Harvard Law School class in 2008.

Kagan went on to call Kennedy, “a deeply intelligent and reflective man who has emerged as one of our nation’s most admirable and greatest jurists.” Kagan, as dean of the law school, was hosting the justice, himself a Harvard Law School graduate, in honor of his first two decades of service on the Supreme Court.

In announcing his selection to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens, Obama praised Kagan’s legal skills and intellect but also stressed her temperament and what he called “her openness to a broad array of viewpoints; her habit, to borrow a phrase from Justice Stevens, ‘of understanding before disagreeing’; her fair-mindedness and skill as a consensus-builder.”

That skill will undoubtedly be tested if Kagan is confirmed to the high court. Even Stevens, who is all but deified by many liberals, has often been unable to persuade Kennedy to join him in cases where one vote–often Kennedy’s–makes the difference between majority and dissent. It may be asking too much of Kagan, in an institution where personal affections can only go so far when there is genuine disagreement on matters of legal substance, to work some sort of mystic charm on Kennedy when Stevens could not.

Whether in genuine admiration or simply bestowing kind words on her guest, Kagan in 2008 certainly laid down the ground work necessary to foster a good relationship with Kennedy. In explaining his influence on the court, Kagan pointed to Kennedy’s independence, integrity and what she called his “unique and evolving vision of law.”

Kennedy for his part welcomed Kagan’s gracious introduction and spoke approvingly of her work in adjusting the curriculum at the law school. Interestingly, Kennedy who called himself an “old duffer,” after a few minutes of speaking said he wanted his comments to be off the record and not reportable. His request didn’t appear to be directed to anyone in particular and was made out of an interest that his words not “go out on the cosmic web or something.”

It’s not clear if Kennedy was aware of the video camera in the back of the room recording the class which lasted 55 minutes.

Kennedy reflected on some of the significant cases of the past 20 years including those focused on abortion and flag burning. He also talked about the mechanics of the Court including the thousands of petitions the justices get each year to hear cases. “Every great job has some drudgery to it,” Kennedy said. “In our business it is [these] petitions.”

He also described the scene in the closed-door conference when the justices meet after hearing oral arguments. It is here where the justices vote and decide who will write the opinions. “There’s a moment of quiet–a moment of awe, as you recognize that someone is going to have to write a decision in a case that may be quite controversial as a public matter. And you know that in announcing the opinion–especially if it is controversial–you are going to make a withdrawal from a deposit of capital or reservoir of trust.”

Justice John Paul Stevens with the unanimous opinion.

***This antitrust case comes from an Illinois based apparel company that lost out on a clothing contract when the league decided to entire into a contract with Reebok covering all 32 teams.***

 

***This is not a total loss for the NFL because the opinion says the League may engage in some activities as a single entity and disputes over those actions need to be judged on a case-by-case basis but “the activity at issue in this case is still concerted activity covered for [Sherman Antitrust Act] purposes.”

From the opinion: “While teams have common interests such as promoting the NFL brand, they are still separate profit-maximizing entities, and their interest in licensing team trademarks are not necessarily aligned.”

BACKGROUNDER

Lee Ross

– FOXNews.com

– January 13, 2010

Supreme Court Tackles Dispute Over NFL Authority

In a fight as fierce as any seen in the Super Bowl, lawyers on Wednesday tussled with Supreme Court justices in a case examining the fundamental operations of the 32-team National Football League.

In a fight as fierce as any seen in the Super Bowl, lawyers on Wednesday tussled with Supreme Court justices in a case examining the fundamental operations of the 32-team National Football League.

The NFL asserts that as a legal joint venture it operates as a single entity in making key decisions that impact all of its member teams.

But a lawyer representing a small apparel company that sued the league for supposedly violating the Sherman Antitrust Act argued the teams are independent actors free to enter into business contracts as they see fit.

Labor unions, including the one representing NFL players, contend a ruling in the league’s favor will give it too much power at the expense of the men on the field and fans.

New Orleans Saints quarterback and union representative Drew Brees recently wrote that team owners would use a high court victory to restrict player free agency, raise prices on merchandise and stadium tickets and freeze coaches salaries. Others have suggested that a ruling for the league will lead to increased labor strife and strikes that could lead to cancelled games.

It was difficult to discern from Wednesday’s arguments how the justices will resolve the dispute, possibly sending it back to lower courts for further development. But the wholesale victory the NFL asked for and the unions fear does not appear to be likely.

“You are seeking through this ruling what you haven’t gotten from Congress: An absolute bar to an antitrust claim,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said to the NFL’s lawyer.

The case started as a lawsuit from American Needle Inc., an Illinois based company that over the years had produced logoed clothing for several NFL teams. But a decade ago the NFL signed an exclusive contract with Reebok to cover every team. American Needle was shut out and sued saying the contract with Reebok violated antitrust laws.

“The 32 teams of the National Football League are separately owned and controlled profit-making enterprises,” American Needle lawyer Glen Nager said at the beginning of his case. It was a point he returned to repeatedly throughout the morning.

The issue over competition took an interesting twist when Justice Stephen Breyer wondered why a fan of a particular team would have any interest in buying merchandise featuring another.

“I don’t know a Red Sox fan who would take a Yankees sweatshirt if you gave it away,” Breyer said after stating he is more of baseball fan than football but his analogy applies just the same.

Later in the argument, Justice John Paul Stevens, who specialized in antitrust law in his early career, focused on the league’s agreement to equally share revenues. He said that fact would “support the conclusion that this is basically a pro-competitive agreement because it tends to make competition stronger on the playing field…and that’s the end of the ball game.”

The key for the justices may come down to their determination over how vital the selling of logoed merchandise is to the purpose of the league to play games and promote the NFL which would be permissible under the Sherman Act.

It’s an issue Chief Justice John Roberts suggested needed further review.

“If there is a factual dispute about whether a particular activity of the league is designed to promote the game or is designed simply to make more money, than that is the sort of thing that goes to trial,” Roberts said.

***Lower courts had dismissed the attempts of the American Needle company from pursuing legal action against the NFL. Today’s ruling allows the legal action to go forward.

In detail that most people would find exhaustive, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan submitted her official questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday afternoon, but critics will likely find little useful information in the 202 page document with assorted attachments in their attempt to better understand Kagan’s judicial philosophy.

The questionnaire is a standard requirement for judicial nominees and many of Kagan’s answers are very similar if not identical to the ones she provided to the committee last year prior to her confirmation as Solicitor General. Since many of the questions are biographical in nature, this repetition is not surprising.

What is new is her responses to questions about recusals and her interactions with senior White House staff in the weeks prior to her nomination. The filing also includes numerous newspaper articles she wrote as an undergraduate at Princeton and speeches she’s given over the years. She also declared her net worth at $1,762,519 and said if confirmed she would step down from the Harvard Law School faculty.

On the issue of recusals, which comes up in questions 13 and 23 of the questionnaire, Kagan says she removed herself from several cases because of connections to the Harvard Law School which she led before becoming Solicitor General. She also took herself out of a case that was before a federal court in New York related to her friend Eliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York.

Kagan was asked what she would do as a justice when conflicts arise, she said, “if confirmed, I would recuse in all matters for which I was counsel of record. I would also look to the letter and spirit of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges (although it is not formally binding on members of the Supreme Court of the United States), the Ethics Reform Act of 1989…and any other relevant prescriptions.” Kagan also said she would consult with other members of the Court before making a decision.

The issue of recusals has come up, more so than other high court confirmations, because of the many cases that Kagan has been exposed to as Solicitor General. The last person to make that transition was Thurgood Marshall (Kagan clerked for Marshall in the 1980’s) who refused to take part in several dozen cases early in his tenure on the Supreme Court because of his prior work as Solicitor General. There has also been some discussion that Kagan might have to beg off from hearing a high court challenge to the recently passed health care legislation.

In discussing her nomination, Kagan who was passed over for the spot last year that went to Sonia Sotomayor, said she was first contacted by White House officials on March 5, more than a month before Justice John Paul Stevens publicly announced his intention to retire.

In addition to interviews with President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, Kagan said she had meetings with White House Counsel Bob Bauer and his deputy Susan Davies. She also met with top White House aides David Axelrod, Ron Klain, Cynthia Hogan and Lisa Brown, as well as, various lawyers with the Washington D.C. law firm Skadden Arps that helped with the vetting process.

In addition to the questionnaire there are numerous attachments to various articles, speeches and other writings. 47 of these come from her time at Princeton when she worked on the student newspaper, the Daily Princetonian in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.

In one article, she quotes Class of ’81 student Eliot L. Spitzer. In another piece, co-authored by her fellow editors of the Princetonian, apparently at the end of their tenure as the editors, Kagan and two others say [January 21, 1981 – the day after Reagan was inaugurated]: “People don’t edit the Prince because of the personal recognition that goes with the job; there isn’t any. And people don’t do it because they believe in the Right of the People to Know; noble ideals die quickly in a newsroom atmosphere. The camaraderie of the newsroom? People only mention that on law school applications.”

Also included in the attachments are articles Kagan wrote covering the 1978 election night victory of former Senator Bill Bradley (D-NJ) who was a Princeton graduate and a November 1979 article about a student group’s planned protest against the possible use of American military force against Iran just a couple of weeks after the takeover of the embassy in Tehran. There is also a short article about a Playboy photographer coming to campus to take pictures of female students. Another well- publicized article about her anguish as a political staffer who cried when her candidate lost is also included.

There is also an article written about Kagan after she won a prestigious scholarship to attend Oxford for two years of graduate work. The article says the purpose of the scholarship was to reward a senior whose prospective career “would be most likely to have consequence of value to the public.”

Fox’s James Rosen contributed to this post.

A 134 page document–manifesto if you must–on the American socialist movement of the early 20th Century is hardly a light read nor must it have been an easy paper for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan to write in 1981 as an undergraduate at Princeton University.

Yet she produced “To the Final Conflict: Socialism in New York City, 1900-1933,” as her senior thesis in the hope as she wrote “of clarifying my own political ideals.” Unfortunately, whatever conclusions Kagan reached about her own ideology based on her study of the socialist movement is largely omitted from her final product.

In what has become a rote description of Kagan, she, even as an undergraduate, displays an uncommon brilliance and intellect but leaves the reader with little understanding of her own deeply-held views.

The paper is a graduation requirement for Princeton students who are able to select the topic of their research. Kagan dedicated the work to her parents who are now deceased. She also expressed appreciation to her brother Marc “whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideals.”

The premise of her paper, dated April 15, 1981, is that previously written accounts of the American Socialist Party largely missed the main reason why the party crumbled in the wake of World War I as a viable political institution. “Historians have looked everywhere but to the American socialist movement itself for explanations of U.S. socialism’s failure,” Kagan wrote.

Internal dissention, Kagan argued, was the main cause of the party’s failure to become a significant political force. Her paper examined the dynamics of the Socialist Party’s New York chapter which was the largest in the country.

“It would be absurd to over-estimate the strength of the early twentieth century socialist movement,” Kagan wrote acknowledging the minimal impact the Socialist Party had on electoral politics a century ago. The party’s most frequent standard-bearer for president, Eugene Debs, never won an electoral vote in his five bids for the presidency and never garnered more than a million popular votes.

Nonetheless, Kagan contends “the specter of socialism haunted Americans to a far greater extent than the SP’s numerical strength might indicate.”

Because Kagan’s paper focuses on the role of New Yorkers in the evolution of the Socialist Party she spends a great deal of time discussing the importance of the participation of Jewish immigrants. Of them Kagan writes, “like many other foreigners, Jews arrived at Ellis Island expecting to find ‘the promised land.’ They found instead the Lower East Side, the most filthy, congested, and unhealthy section of New York.”

Kagan is herself Jewish and born and raised in New York City. It isn’t immediately clear if there is a direct familial connection to this time that might have made the topic of unique interest to her.

In her introduction, Kagan credits the assistance of Sean Wilentz for “painstakingly read[ing] each page of this thesis.” Wilentz is still a professor at Princeton and told Fox News via email that Kagan’s work is still memorable nearly 30 years later. He calls it “a very successful study of futility. In short, I remember thinking it was a mature piece of scholarship coming from a college senior.” Wilentz says the history of early 20th century socialism has long been a subject of interest to scholars and Kagan wanted to take a fresh look at the subject. “It was something of a classic topic in the field,” Wilentz says “and Elena had the intellectual fortitude to take it on.”

Absent from the paper is any overarching sense of personal attachment to the Socialist Party, its views, or the movement itself. There is scant evidence to suggest that Kagan wrote her senior thesis as an opportunity to promote the Socialist Party as a proxy for her political views.

Perhaps the closest she comes in expressing admiration for the Socialist Party, and the spirit of liberalism from someone just a couple of weeks shy of her 21st birthday, is in her conclusion. She called it a sad story “but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America.”

Kagan finishes her paper by writing that “radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle an entrenched and powerful foe.” Thus for Kagan the lesson to be learned was that “American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies. In unity lies their only hope.”

In a 7-2 ruling penned by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court says a federal law passed by Congress to keep convicted sex offenders confined beyond the term of their prison sentences is Constitutional. The decision, however, does not foreclose the opportunity for the offenders from continuing to challenge their detention under other legal grounds.

Justice Breyer says there are sound reasons for the law adding that “The Federal Government, as custodian of its prisoners, has the constitutional power to act in order to protect nearby (and other) communities from the danger such prisoners may pose.”

Monday’s ruling falls under the Constitution’s “Necessary and Proper” Clause which Breyer offers five points of justification for upholding the law. “Taken together, these considerations lead us to conclude that the statute is a ‘necessary and proper’ means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned, and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others.”

The ruling does not address claims that the law violates the offenders’ rights under other Constitutional protections including the 14th Amendment’s guarantee to equal protection and due process.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia dissent. They contend the law goes beyond the powers given the federal government by the Constitution. “To be sure, protecting society from violent sexual offenders is certainly an important end,” Thomas writes but continues by saying “the Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it.”

BACKGROUNDER

Supreme Court to Review Law Targeting Sex Predators Monday, June 22, 2009 By Lee Ross

The Supreme Court announced Monday it will review a lower court’s order that struck down part of a federal law designed to keep sexual deviants locked up beyond their criminal sentences.

The Court’s decision will be welcome news to victim’s rights advocates and others who supported the 2006 law known as the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. A provision of that law allowed federal prosecutors to seek court-ordered “civil commitment” of sex offenders whose criminal sentences were about to end.

Earlier this year, a three judge appeals court panel in Richmond, Va. unanimously ruled that part of the law unconstitutional. They concluded the Constitution doesn’t allow the government to confine someone simply because it believes the person is sexually dangerous.

They said the government “has no unexhausted power to prosecute a former federal prisoner simply because he could violate [a law]; any person could violate federal law.”

In asking the Supreme Court to take the case, Solicitor General Elena Kagan defended the “important act of Congress” designed to protect Americans from people who are “sexually dangerous to others.” She argues the law is necessary and appropriate.

The primary purpose of the legislation was to create a national database of sex offenders.

“The goal of the act was to track these guys going across state lines,” says Ernie Allen President and CEO of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

That part of the law is not under scrutiny nor are the civil commitment laws of at least 20 states.

The lawyers for five men each convicted of sexually-based crimes who remain imprisoned after their sentences expired asked the Court to deny further review. They argued there are other cases that would have provided the Court a better vehicle for examining the issue.

They also contend Congress does not have the authority to “institute new proceedings that extend federal power over an individual beyond that authorized by” the original conviction.

The Court will not hear the case until after its next term starts in October. However in April, Chief Justice John Roberts issued an order that keeps the men behind bars until the case is finally resolved.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that juvenile criminals cannot be sentenced to life in prison with no chance at parole for crimes other than homicide because it violates their Eighth Amendment right against Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy has the opinion of the Court. In it he writes that “The inadequacy of penological theory to justify life without parole sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders, the limited culpability of such offenders, and the severity of these sentences all lead the Court to conclude that the sentencing practice at issue is cruel and unusual.”

Florida is the state with the most juvenile offenders (77) with life/no parole sentences and that is where this case comes from.

Kennedy says a categorical rule making such a sentence unconstitutional is necessary because otherwise “a court or jury will erroneously conclude that a particular juvenile is sufficiently culpable to deserve life without parole for a nonhomicide. It also gives the juvenile offender a chance to demonstrate maturity and reform.”

The Court opinion also makes note of the fact the United States is the only country in the world that had allowed such a sentence. “While the judgments of other nations and the international community are not dispositive as to the meaning of the Eighth Amendment, the Court has looked abroad to support its independent conclusion that a particular punishment is cruel and unusual.”

Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito are in dissent. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed that the juvenile sentenced in this case, Terrance Graham, was excessive. He disagrees with the ruling that says all life without parole sentences for juveniles are cruel and unusual.

Justice Thomas writes that “Although the text of the Constitution is silent regarding the permissibility of this sentencing practice, and although it would not have offended the standards that prevailed at the founding, the Court insists that the standards of American society have evolved such that the Constitution now requires its prohibition. The news of this evolution will, I think, come as a surprise to the American people.”

BACKGROUNDER

Case: Graham v. Florida

Date: Monday, November 9th 2009

Issue: Whether the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments prohibits the imprisonment of a juvenile for life without the possibility of parole for committing a non-homicide (armed burglary).

Background: This case is a step removed from the high court’s 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons that a death sentence for someone younger than 18 years old is cruel and unusual as defined by the Eighth Amendment. Florida is like most states that allow life without parole sentences for juveniles even when the underlying crime did not result in someone’s death. But Florida is unique in that it appears to be home to the vast majority of prisoners who fit this category.

Terrance Graham was 16-years-old when he pled guilty to armed burglary. He was eventually released from jail and on probation when he busted into a man’s home and robbed him at gunpoint. A judge concluded that Graham violated his probation, wasted his second chance at freedom and was a significant threat to society. The judge sentenced Graham to life in prison with no chance of parole.

Graham’s lawyers argue the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Roper is the same that should extend to their client. Namely that like the mentally retarded, juveniles are “categorically less culpable than the average criminal” and that when compared to adults juveniles “cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders” when it comes to imposing the harshest of sentences.

Florida argues the severity of Graham’s sentence was “not grossly disproportionate to [the] violent crimes against [his] vulnerable victims.” The state further argues that Graham’s crime was so severe that even he didn’t challenge his treatment as an adult offender. Florida also dismisses attempts to extend Roper’s prohibition to life sentences saying that doing so is “compelled neither by legal logic nor by societal norms.”

There is a significant following in this case from varying interest groups who’ve submitted briefs supporting both sides. Perhaps the most interesting brief is from seven now successful men (including actor Charles Dutton and former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson) who were lawbreaking teenagers and are “living, breathing testaments to the resiliency, adaptability, and rehabilitative potential of juvenile offenders.”

A free speech fight that was part of a recent battle in Washington State over a controversial civil union law will be heard by the Supreme Court Wednesday in a case that examines the breadth of “anonymous speech” protection.

The high court has often ruled that the sweeping reach of the First Amendment’s speech protection also covers the rights of people to speak under the cloak of anonymity..

Wednesday’s case presents the justices with the unique question of whether people who sign a petition forcing a state-wide referendum are entitled to keep their identities under wraps.

Last May, lawmakers in Olympia passed a law expanding the rights of same-sex partners. In response, a group called Protect Marriage Washington circulated a petition forcing 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 a state open records law to obtain the petition list and publish those 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 ability to remain anonymous violates “core political speech.” The groups seeking access to the names argue “there is no right, fundamental or otherwise, to secrecy in the legislative process.”

15 years ago the Supreme Court sided with an Ohio woman who anonymously distributed leaflets opposing a tax hike. In writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, “when a law burdens core political speech, we apply ‘exacting scrutiny,’ and we uphold the restriction only if it is narrowly tailored to serve an overriding state interest.”

The most famous example of anonymous political speech in American speech is the collection of essays now known as the Federalist Papers. Many of those writings were published anonymously by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay.

Coincidently, Wednesday’s case is the last one the justices have scheduled for its current term, thus making it likely that it will be the last one heard by Justice Stevens, who earlier this month announced his retirement effective when the Court begins its summer recess.

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 uphold the civil union law.

The recurring conflict of American capitalism pitting large versus small will once again play out Tuesday. This time in front of the Supreme Court where a global agri-business leader is asking the justices to overturn a lower court ruling in favor of a family-operated farm with environmental sensitivities.

But as is often the case at the Supreme Court, the underlying legal dispute is considerably more pedantic than the broader overtones of the larger conflict.

The issue the justices will have to solve is assessing the authority of a federal trial court judge to issue a sweeping injunction under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Nonetheless, the case offers a glimpse into the ages-old dispute between the competing interests of modernity and environmental stewardship.

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 its ability to generate higher yields which means more money in farmers pockets. Its Roundup Ready alfalfa is believed to offer greater resistance to a common herbicide that Monsanto also produces.

Geertson Seed Farm objects to the Monsanto seed believing it will contaminate organically produced alfalfa. The Idaho-based operation contends the Roundup Ready alfalfa will be difficult to kill and then cross-pollinate with other seeds. Geertson says 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 is prohibited from selling its seed, at the very least, until those protocols are 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 may be granted only when necessary to prevent likely irreparable harm.”

The justices are almost certain to focus their attention 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.

The case is Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms

More than a month after lawmakers passed a major overhaul of the American health care system, businesses, their employees and even government officials are still sifting through all of the details of what that legislation means.

At an event Monday in Washington a panel of experts tried to answer some of the questions left in the wake of historic legislation that has employers looking for answers on how to implement the changes lawmakers mandated, employees wondering how to take advantage of the new system and officials at the Department of Health & Human Service figuring out how to fill in the holes that Congress left behind.

“The biggest of all questions employers are getting is on adding dependants,” Paul Dennert, senior vice president of the American Benefits Council says about the new law’s provision allowing parents to add children up to 26 years old on their family insurance policies.

What’s not clear from the law is how the costs associated with adding extra family members to plans will be spread out. There are tax questions for the employer and employee alike that need to be sorted out. Dennert says officials at HHS are in the process of offering some guidelines to sort out all of the details. Those guidelines could come out as early as Friday, Dennert said at the event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Even if HHS is able to answer some of these lingering questions this week, uncertainty over the new law is expected to continue for quite some time. In the short run, this puts employers who are now in the process of making decisions about their health care coverage for next year and beyond in a precarious situation of possibly running afoul of federal rules that have yet to come down.

Dennert calls this a “real world decision for many employers” that can’t wait on HHS officials to tell them what to do. He hopes employers who make good faith efforts in their health care policies will be protected if their decisions ultimately run afoul of federal law.

Other questions left unresolved include the amount of any yearly cap on benefits and what changes plans grandfathered from the new law will have to make to maintain exempt status.

So much of the underlying uncertainty comes from the massive size of the bill and the piecemeal fashion by which many of the changes will take place. Most of the significant adjustments, especially the exchanges that will add millions more to the insurance rolls, will not take place until 2014 or later, which makes the next few years a period of significant transition.

Another concern was raised over the viability of a small business tax credit offered to help offset some of the costs associated with coverage. “We’re unsure how many people are going to be able to access this credit,” said Amanda Austin of the National Federation of Independent Businesses. Employers are eligible to apply for the credit now but Austin is critical of lawmakers for what she views is a narrow set of requirements that few small business owners will be able to meet to qualify for the full credit.

Austin also bemoaned a new mandatory tax reporting requirement she says is sure to increase costs for business owners.

Monday’s event included the release of a study sponsored by the Chamber analyzing the impact of the new law which its backers said would insure more Americans while containing costs. The report cited a small Philadelphia trash company that has 55 full-time employees and spends $600,000/year on health care costs. In 2014, if the company decided to drop its health plan, it would pay $50,000 in fines. In other words, the study shows, the company will save $550,000 by not offering its workers health insurance and forcing them to find insurance on their own.

All of the day’s panelists said changes to the current law are likely. One even suggested part of the legislation might be repealed. Bruce Josten of the Chamber put it rather simply when he said, “health care reform is not over.”

WASHINGTON – A California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors that lower courts deemed too broad and in violation of the First Amendment will get another look by the Supreme Court, the justices announced Monday.

The Court’s decision could ultimately lead to a ruling reinstating the law, passed in 2005, that prohibited the sale or rental of certain violent video games to children younger than 18 years old.

So far, video game makers have successfully challenged the law saying it violates their freedom of expression.

Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals expressed sympathy with California lawmakers who were attempting to protect children from the potentially harmful effects of exposure to violent video games, but nonetheless ruled against the law.

A unanimous three judge panel concluded the law was too broad and that the state didn’t sufficiently link the video games to a concern that minors exposed to the games will be more likely to commit violent crimes. It further held that even if the state were able to make such a link, there are other measures the state could have taken that wouldn’t threaten First Amendment protections.

In its petition to the Court, California argues the justices should expand a late 1960’s ruling that prohibits of sale of sexual material to minors to include violent video games. It also says the current industry imposed labeling standards for video games is ineffective.

A final ruling by the Court, which will not come until next year, will likely impact the handful of other states that have similar laws.

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) says she’s once again on President Obama’s short list for appointment to the Supreme Court. In an interview with CNN, the term-limited governor says she has talked with people in the Obama administration about the upcoming nomination to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

“It’s a great honor to be on — considered on the list,” said Granholm who went through this process last year with the opening that went to Sonia Sotomayor. She did not say if she’s spoken with the President who Fox News reported this past week held informal discussions with some of the people he’s considering.

Granholm, like Obama, holds a law degree from Harvard and appeals to some people who want the President to pick someone who is not currently serving as a federal appellate court judge. All nine members of the current Court were federal appellate judges before their elevation to the high court.

Granholm shares that interest saying, “I think it’s a very wise move to consider experience that is not just from the judicial monastery because — I mean not just me but Janet Napolitano, people that have applied the laws that Congress enacts, that have seen their impact on people, that — you know, I mean I’m from the most challenged state in the country. And, you know, for somebody to experience and see what everyday people are feeling and experiencing out there, I think is an important thing to consider.”

Last Wednesday, key senators including Republican leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) met with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House. On Fox News Sunday, McConnell said the president didn’t tip his hand about the pick. McConnell also passed on the opportunity to publically support someone for the lifetime appointment. He even made light of the situation saying his support would work against an endorsement. “I don’t want to eliminate somebody’s possibility of being on the Supreme Court by suggesting that I might find them a worthy selection,” McConnell said before adding, “I think it would not do them any good, put it that way.”

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.

Click Here to read the letter President Obama sent to retiring Justice John Paul Stevens who turned 90 years old today. Interestingly, the letter is date last Friday. But today is his birthday.

As the letter notes, only one other sitting justice in history has lived as long as Justice Stevens.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says she finds talk that she could be President Obama’s selection to the high court “flattering” but doesn’t give any indication that she’s about to leave her agency anytime soon.

In a wide-ranging interview with Fox’s Mike Levine, Napolitano said “It is flattering to be mentioned in connection with the Supreme Court of the United States, but as this interview already reveals, I am pretty focused on the big job I have.”

Napolitano’s comments are consistent with what she told reporters in Boston last week. “I’m flattered but I am focused on the job that I’ve got. It’s a big job and it requires all of my attention,” she said at Logan Airport during an event displaying new explosives detection devices.

Napolitano, a former federal prosecutor in Arizona before becoming that state’s governor, was on Obama’s short list last year to replace now retired Justice David Souter. The nod eventually went to Sonia Sotomayor who was confirmed by the Senate in August.

Napolitano is believed to be under consideration again and appeals to some Court observers who would see her addition to the high court as a welcome change of pace. Unlike the other justices on the bench, Napolitano has never served as a federal appellate judge and unlike the other eight justices she could sit with who each hold Ivy League law degrees, Napolitano earned one at the University of Virginia.

In an 8-1 opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling striking down a federal law that bans images of animal cruelty. The Court’s opinion says the law is “substantially overbroad, and therefore unvalid under the First Amendment.”

From the Opinion:

“While the prohibition of animal cruelty has a long history in American law, there is no evidence of a similar tradition prohibiting depictions of such cruelty.”

CJ Roberts says the law which made it a crime to create, sale, possess depictions of animal cruelty including dog fighting and “crush” videos “creates a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.”

Today’s ruling is a huge victory for First Amendment advocates. To that end Chief Justice Roberts says the First Amendment “reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the Government outweigh the costs.”

Justice Samuel Alito was the only dissenter.

Alito says today’s ruling “has the practical effect of legalizing the sale of such videos and is thus likely to spur a resumption of their production….”

Click Here for a background article on the case.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a case that could impact every American worker who uses a computer, blackberry or text messaging device–whether for innocent messages to loved ones or sexually-charged texts to a mistress.

A final ruling from the justices may establish guidelines on how far the right to privacy covers personal e-mail messages and other communications that workers send or receive on their employer-issued devices.

The use of email and text messaging is ubiquitous. A recent study concluded that 47 billion e-mails are sent worldwide daily. A different study calculated that Americans send nearly 5 billion text messages each day. Those reports do not distinguish messages sent from employer or personally-owned devices.

“Encouraging or allowing the personal use of company-provided communications devices produces significant business advantages, incentivizing employees to employ their devices ever more frequently, and thus to be ever more available-and willing-to attend to business tasks, in addition to personal ones,” lawyer Andrew Pincus wrote to the Supreme Court on behalf of several organizations in support of two police officers who sued their boss after he obtained a print out of their text messages.

Sergeants Jeff Quon and Steve Trujillo were part of the Ontario, California SWAT team who received pagers capable of sending text messages. Officials with the police department, located 35 miles east of Los Angeles, believed the pagers would help expedite internal communications especially during critical situations.

Several months after the pagers were issued, Quon’s boss asked for a read-out of his messages. As it turned out, most of Quon’s texts were not work related. “To say the least, [the messages were] sexually explicit in nature,” observed Judge Virginia Phillips. The majority of Quon’s personal messages went to his estranged wife, his office girlfriend and Trujillo.

Once Quon found out about the police chief’s decision to look at the messages he and the people he was messaging sued claiming the boss had no right to look at the communications. The quartet lost their case when a jury concluded the chief’s decision to look at the messages was prompted by concerns over the cost of the messages.

The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals reversed that decision. A three judge panel ruled that an informal arrangement Quon had with his immediate supervisor to cover any excess costs was enough of a policy to assure Quon that his messages wouldn’t be read by superiors.

A key issue in the case will be how the justices interpret a standard the high court created in 1987 that focuses on the “operational realities of the workplace.” The Ninth Circuit concluded that the excess cost arrangement was a sufficient reality in the police department that when Quon’s boss gained access to the messages, he violated Quon’s right to privacy.

“The Ninth Circuit properly found that the search was excessively intrusive,” Quon’s lawyer, Dieter Dammeier, wrote to the Supreme Court in asking the justices to uphold the lower court’s decision

The lawyer for the Ontario Police Department highlights a signed statement by the officers that they “should have no expectation of privacy or confidentiality” in using city owned computers or other devices. The pagers were distributed after the officers signed the statements, but the city contends a meeting was held telling the officers that the pagers were included in the statement.

“The panel erroneously overextended Fourth Amendment protection with its sweeping ruling that individuals who send text messages to a government employee’s workplace pager-rather than to a privately owned pager-reasonably expect that their messages will be free from the employer’s review,” Kent Richland argues.

The city further objects to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that also covered the privacy rights of the people on the other end of Quan’s messages. The panel concluded that the recipients had a right to expect that their messages to Quon would not be seen by his boss; likening them to letters or phone calls.

“These plaintiffs, who knowingly exchanged text messages with a police officer on his police department pager-rather than on a privately owned pager-could not reasonably expect that their messages would be free from the department’s review in its capacity as a public employer,” Richland said.

The case is City of Ontario v. Quon.

Christian Case Could Impact Obama Pick

For the second consecutive year, the Supreme Court is about to hear arguments in a case that could have a direct impact on the prospects of someone who is on President Obama’s short list of candidates for appointment to the high court.

The justices on Monday will hear arguments in a controversial First Amendment case from San Francisco that is nearly identical to one Judge Diane Wood heard as a judge on the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Obama interviewed Wood for last year’s high court opening and is believed to be considering her again as a replacement for retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.

Wood’s 2006 case and the current dispute in front of the Supreme Court center on the ability of law school students affiliated with the Christian Legal Society (CLS) to join together and form school-sanctioned campus chapters. CLS is a national organization of lawyers, law students and others who “share a common faith and seek to honor Jesus Christ in the legal profession.”

Carrie Severino, policy director for the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, draws the comparison between the CLS case and the situation now Justice Sonia Sotomayor faced during last year’s confirmation process. “If Diane Wood is nominated to the Supreme Court, the CLS case could be her Ricci,” Severino said in referring to Ricci v. DeStefano, last year’s affirmative action case that drew so much attention to Sotomayor. “If the Supreme Court rules for the Christian Legal Society….Judge Wood will have an uphill battle to convince the Senators and the American people that she is in the judicial mainstream.”

Last year, the justices heard a highly-charged discrimination case a few weeks before Obama made Sonia Sotomayor his first Supreme Court selection.

As an appellate judge, Sotomayor ruled against a group of predominately white firefighters from Connecticut who then won their case in front of the Supreme Court while Sotomayor’s nomination was pending before the Senate. It was an embarrassing though not crippling reversal for Sotomayor who was later confirmed.

The current controversy revolves around CLS’s Statement of Faith and its requirement that voting members and club officers adhere to that pledge. In 2004, CLS concluded that “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the Statement of Faith, and consequently may be regarded by CLS as disqualifying such an individual from CLS membership.” CLS considers premarital sex and all homosexual conduct immoral.

Monday’s case examines the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law decision to deny official recognition of the CLS chapter based on its conclusion that the CLS Statement of Faith violated the school’s nondiscrimination policy. In short, the university argues CLS does not allow gays to become voting members and therefore will not give official recognition (and the privileges that come with it) to the CLS students.

CLS students at Hastings filed a lawsuit in an attempt to force the school to grant their chapter official recognition. So far they have been unsuccessful and now argue to the Supreme Court that the school is violating their First Amendment rights.

“For Hastings College of the Law to force the CLS chapter to admit nonadherents to its leadership and voting ranks-on pain of exclusion from an otherwise open speech forum-violates Petitioner’s rights of speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion,” lawyer Michael McConnell wrote in his brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of the CLS students.

The school’s lawyer argues Hastings is doing nothing more than enforcing its open-membership policy and that the CLS students on its campus are not harmed by a lack of formal recognition. “Religious student groups have for decades been an important part of Hastings’ educational community and remain so today,” Gregory Garre, wrote in his brief to the Court. “But no student group is entitled to a special ‘exemption’ from Hastings’ neutral and generally applicable open-membership policy.”

Wood’s 2006 case is nearly identical to the one pending in the Supreme Court, only the lawsuit Wood considered came from CLS students at Southern Illinois University. Over her dissent, a three judge panel of the Seventh Circuit ruled that a preliminary injunction should have been issued to force the school to recognize the student chapter. The case was then favorably settled in the students favor.

But Wood felt the school was within its rights not to recognize the CLS chapter under its nondiscrimination policy. “If such an organization (here CLS) discriminates on any basis forbidden by the policy, it is subject to corrective measures. This is enough, in my view, to tip the balance [in the school’s favor].”

Under her view of the case, Wood believed that CLS would still have been free to adopt whatever policies it wanted just without the privileges that come with official recognition. “Nothing SIU has done infringes on CLS’s freedom of expressive association,” Wood wrote.

“Underneath the surface of her dissent, everyone recognizes that she thinks the homosexual agenda is more important than the First Amendment,” CLS lawyer Greg Baylor told Fox News. Baylor argued the Seventh Circuit case before Wood where he objected to comments Wood made during oral arguments that he felt were dismissive of CLS’s position.

In reviewing the ruling and Wood’s dissent, Ayesha Khan, Legal Director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says CLS should not have won. “I thought Judge Wood got it exactly right,” Khan says adding that Wood’s approach to the case was “far more conscientious and cautious” that the two other judges who formed the majority ruling.

A decision in the Hastings case isn’t expected until June. The breadth of a potential ruling from the high court could have a huge impact not just on college campuses but over vast parts of society that are covered by discrimination policies.

The justices will hear arguments in CLS v. Martinez Monday morning.

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway who is running in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate is now in the running for a much more difficult prize: The Kentucky Derby.

Conway’s horse, Stately Victor, won Saturday’s prestigious Bluegrass Stakes in Lexington by 4 1/4 lengths. The win guarantees Stately Victory a place in the 20 horse Derby starting gate at Churchill Downs on May 1.

Stately Victor was lightly regarded by bettors going off at 40-1. He was the longest shot in the field and is now the biggest upset winner in the history of the Bluegrass Stakes.

Conway owns Stately Victor with his father, Tom Conway, who is an attorney in Louisville. The Kentucky Senate primary is May 18.

STATEMENTS FROM THE SUPREME COURT

REGARDING JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS’S RETIREMENT

April 9, 2010

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.:

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens has earned the gratitude and admiration of the American people for his nearly 40 years of distinguished service to the Judiciary, including more than 34 years on the Supreme Court. He has enriched the lives of everyone at the Court through his intellect, independence, and warm grace. We have all been blessed to have John as our colleague and his wife Maryan as our friend. We will miss John’s presence in our daily work, but will take joy in his and Maryan’s continued friendship in the years ahead.

 

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia:

John Paul Stevens leaves behind a distinguished career of service on the federal bench, first on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and then, for the last 34 years, on this Court. He has authored a significant number of our landmark opinions, but that alone would be a misleading indicator of his impact. In many, many cases where he did not write he brought to Conference brilliant and distinctive insights that affected the outcome. I shall miss his brilliance, and his companionship.

Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:

 

For decades John Stevens did more than follow standards of judicial excellence. He set them. He insists on the mastery of every case, clarity in thought and expression, courtesy to colleagues and counsel, and, above all, unquestioned independence and integrity. He demonstrates that to fulfill its role the judiciary must remain capable of attracting to its ranks those lawyers who are preeminent in the profession. His love for this Nation is evident from his distinguished service in World War II, his years at the bar, and his career as a jurist. It is a historic privilege for me to have John Stevens as an admired, splendid colleague, and devoted, wonderful friend.

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas:

I am deeply honored to have served with Justice Stevens. From my first days on the Court and throughout our time together, he has been a model of kindness and decency. I will treasure the years I have been privileged to work with him. I am certain that he will be remembered for his keen intellect and his prodigious body of work here at the Court. And, he should be. I consider it my good fortune to have served so long with him and to know that he is my friend. Virginia and I will miss him and Maryan.

Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

John Paul Stevens is the very best and most collegial of jurists. On the bench, his polite “May I . . . ,” invites advocates to get to the nub of the case. Work from other chambers invariably takes precedence over all else on his agenda. I will miss his bright company, but his caring opinions, sometimes pathmarking, sometimes prophetic, remain to inspire generations of judges, lawyers, and law students.

Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer:

Ever since I have known John Stevens I have recognized that he is a model of intelligence, judicial wisdom, decency, and common sense. All of us on the Court will miss his service here. So will the Nation.

Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito:

I was deeply saddened to learn that Justice Stevens will be leaving the Court at the end of this Term. He will surely be remembered as one of the most important Justices to serve on the Court, and his contributions to the law will long endure. No one could hope for a better colleague, and it has been a distinct honor for me to have had the opportunity to serve with him for the past four years. I wish John and Maryan all the best in the years ahead.

Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

It would have been my wish to have served longer with John Paul Stevens. I thank my new friend for his warm welcome and shared wisdom, as well as for his immeasurable contributions to the Court and our country. One Term together was not long enough for me, but I will treasure our service together and all I have learned from him for the remainder of my time on the Court.

Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (Retired):

Justice John Stevens is remarkable. Although close to 90 years of age, he is in splendid physical condition and his mind is as sharp as ever. He has been a splendid, efficient and hardworking Justice for 34 years and the Court will miss him greatly.

Associate Justice David Souter (Retired):

Justice Stevens is the gold standard of intellectual integrity and personal decency, and the Nation’s debt to him is incalculable. Besides, he’s a friend of mine, which makes me as lucky as anyone can get.