On Tues. the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument (Riley v. CA & U.S. v. Wurie) on whether police need to get a warrant to "search" the cellphone of a person who is lawfully arrested.  Most lower courts have held that a warrant is not necessary and that such phones can be searched under the "search incident to lawful arrest" exception to the warrant requirement.  There are good arguments on both sides.  The questions and comments by the Justices suggest they are divided on the issue. As usual, Justice Kennedy may provide the swing vote for one side or the other.  Given the vast amounts of personal information on many such phones and the fact that the privacy interest of others (e.g. those who left messages, etc.) is involved should tip the scales in favor of the defendant or at least result in special protections if the searches are allowed without a warrant.

Another Second Amendment Setback--at least temporarily

On Wed.,  Justice Kennedy denied  without explanation, a request to block enforcement of a Sunnyvale CA ordinance limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines (more than 10 rounds).

The exclusionary rule in danger

This author argues that the federal constitutional exclusionary rule has been badly weakened and even its existence may be in jeopardy.  Conservatives on the Court, often joined by Kennedy, have been slowly gutting it for years.  We badly need the rule.  I agree with the Court's liberals on this one.

Book Review: Jeffrey Toobin's "The Oath."

I am a long-time Supreme Court watcher and analyst and have taught courses on the Court and constitutional issues (e.g. Fourth Amendment, Second Amendment).  I eagerly took up this book.

The book “The Oath,” by Jeffery Toobin, is subtitled “the Obama White House and the  Supreme Court.” 

As the subtitle suggests, this book is primarily about the struggle between  our most liberal President ever, and the conservative faction on the Court, and the struggle between the liberal and conservative factions on the Court.  One faction is the four conservatives on the Court (Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts) who are sometimes joined by Justice Kennedy, who is the Court’s most frequent swing vote.  The liberal faction is Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer.  Toobin provides an inside look at both the White House and the Court.  This review will cover only selected points.

Obama has appointed two Justices, both female (Sotomayor and Kagan), and, for the first time the Court has three females, all of whom vote in a liberal direction.  Like all recent  Presidents, Obama sought appointees who share his ideology.  His appointees have not disappointed him.

In terms of qualifications and background, Kagan’s is a very questionable choice.  Kagan had not practiced law  in two decades before being appointed Obama’s Solicitor General.  She had never had a case before the Court.   She had never been a judge anywhere.  She, unlike most recent Justices, had never clerked for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Prior to becoming Solicitor General, she had never argued a case in any courtroom.  Her main claim to fame was that she was the first female Dean of Harvard Law School.  Obama wanted her on the Court and his only option was to name her Solicitor General so that she would have at least some minimal qualifications.  Even this appointment was a reach.  Solicitor General frequently had long records of litigation and were active in constitutional litigation (e.g.  Johnson’s appointee Thurgood Marshall).  As has become the case recently with most nominees, Kagan danced around the questions, dodged frequently and was a vague as possible in her confirmation hearing.  In spite of her minimalist qualifications, the Democratic majority in the Senate assured her confirmation.

The book discusses the most controversial cases that came before it, including D.C. v Heller (Second Amendment gives right to individuals), McDonald v. Chicago (Second Amendment applies against the states) Citizens United (First Amendment invalidates portions of “campaign reform” legislation) NFIB v. Sebelius (upholding Obamacare).  Toobin takes the liberal position in all these cases.  Rather than celebrating the strengthening of Constitutional vales and the Bill of Rights in these decisions, Toobin bad-mouths them.   Liberal hypocrisy appears to be at work.    When the liberals lose we generally see accusations of ignoring precedent, ignoring the Constitution, blatant policy- making, etc.   When the liberals win, we generally get praise for the decision.

It is clear to Toobin who are the “bad guys,” on the Court, the four conservatives and Kennedy.  Additional bad guys are the NRA, powerful corporations and the Tea Party.  Obama ‘s policies and the Constitution are often portrayed as the victims of the conservatives on the Court.   Anyone looking for a balanced, sophisticated treatment of the decisions and the Justices will be sadly disappointed.  However, the book is informative about the Court, some of its history, Justices, important cases, etc.  It provides interesting insight into the members of the Court and their interactions.  With these caveats, I’d recommend this book for light reading.

 

ObamaCare oral argument: Swing-vote Justice Kennedy expresses concerns

Oral argument in the ObamaCare case was held today in Washington. Kennedy, as is usually the case, is expected to be the swing vote. The 4 knee-jerk conservatives will vote against it and the 4 knee-jerk liberals will vote for it. Sometimes, as in D.C. v. Heller, Kennedy will tip his hand as to which way he is leaning and likely to vote. No clear indication from Kennedy today, but he seems to be troubled by the individual mandate. What he appears to be hinting at is that the federal government is not supposed to be a government of unlimited powers, but this mandate seems to be saying just that. Without some clear statement of limiting principles on this exercise of federal power, Kennedy may vote against ObamaCare. If some federal power limiting principle emerges, that allows ObamaCare, but doesn't turn the federal goverment into one of unlimited powers, Kennedy may find it constitutional. Stay tuned!

Preview of possible S.Ct. decision on Obamacare

It seems highly likely that the final say on the constitutionality of Obamacare will be had by the U.S. Supreme Court. If past patterns hold it will be 4-4 with Kennedy the swing vote. Doctrinally, I think he will vote against it, but he may decide that this is too great a leap by the Court and go with it. Stay tuned. See the linked article from the Economist which is an excellent publication (sometimes with a conservative lean).