Noteworthy U.S. Supreme Court Decisions of 2010

Once again, this year, I was mesmerized by the melodic cadence of renowned Professor Erwin Chemerinsky’s lecture discussing the significant U.S. Supreme Court opinions of 2010.  Here is a tongue in cheek recap of some of the more interesting decisions Professor Chemerinsky highlighted.

• Don’t expect a Fourth Amendment right to privacy when sending text messages with employer-owned equipment to your mistress while on the job.

City of Ontario v. Quon, 560 U.S. ___ (2010).

• If you want to invoke your right to remain silent, break your silence and say so.

Berguis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. ___ (2010).

• Justice Scalia has decided the invocation of the right to counsel while being questioned automatically expires after 14 days.  Thus, the new police interrogation  techniques will be to arrest and Mirandize  a suspect, and if he invokes his right to counsel during questioning, simply wait 14 day periods before interrogating again.

Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. ___ (2010).

• Locking up your teenager and throwing away the key for anything less than murder is cruel and unusual punishment.

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. ___ (2010).

• Criminal lawyers who want to get their resident alien clients off, advise them to plead guilty and then misadvise them a guilty plea will not result in automatic deportation.

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. ___ (2010).

• Corporations are people too; at least when it comes to the First Amendment and spending money in election campaigns.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010).

Professor Chemerinsky has a unique ability to keep participants attentive with not only his distinctive style of speech, but with his humorous side notes and commentary.  This year I noticed that not only do more questions get asked in Professor Chemerinsky's CLE lectures, but the questions are generally the sort one would have asked in one's Constitutional Law class in law school to impress the professor, i.e., statements of opinion or analysis disguised as questions:  "Well, is it your opinion professor that this case modifies the (insert obscure reference to case law not being discussed) case?"

But, I have to admit, listening to my fellow attendees attempt to impress Professor Chemerinsky is almost as much fun as listening to his lecture.

Share

Federal Court, Rather Than Arbitrator, Had Authority to Rule on Enforceability of Arbitration Clause In Employment Agreement

Last week the United States Supreme Court decided a case originating out of Nevada,

Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. ___ (2010).  An employee of Rent-A-

Center filed an employment discrimination suit in federal court, and the employer filed a

motion to compel arbitration.  On Certiorari from the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court ruled

that under the Federal Arbitration Act, codified in Title 9 of the United States Code (FAA),

the courts could decide the enforceability of an arbitration clause in an employment agreement 

that stated the arbitrator must decide the enforceability of the agreement as a whole,  

whereas only the arbitrator could decide whether the employment agreement as a whole

was enforceable.

In opposing the motion to compel arbitration, Jackson argued the arbitration clause was unconscionable under Nevada law.  The federal trial court dismissed, stating the arbtration clause prevented it from deciding Jackson's unconscionable argument. Jackson appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed, stating the courts decide the threshold question of whether the agreement was enforceable, affirmed the trial court's finding against Jackson on part of his unconscionable argument, and remanding for the trail court to decide the remainder of Jackson's unconscionable argument.

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion, and pointed out that Jackson's challenge was not to the validity of the agreement but to his manifestation of intent to the arbitration clause based on his unconscionability agrument.  Additionally, Jackson's briefs argued the entire agreement was invalid.  Based on those observations, Scalia concluded that Jackson's challenge was to the validity of the agreement as a whole versus the validity of the arbitration clause, and reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision.

Relying on First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938 (1995), Justice Stevens dissented, reasoning that the arbitration clause at issue did not "clearly and unmistakeably" evince Jackson's assent to arbitration because of his unconscionability argument.  Stevens characterized Scalia's opinion as a "'fantastic' and likely erroneous decision" because it went beyond what the parties asked the Court to decide.  Stevens also asserted that the majority opinion expanded the holding in Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967), where the challenge was to the validity of the agreement due to fraud in the inducement, and not to the embedded arbitration clause.  Thus, Stevens would have affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision.

 Share

Ninth Circuit Reverses Las Vegas Judge's Grant of Rule 50(b) Motion

On March 3, 2009, the Ninth Circuit published the opinion, Tortu v. LVMPD, reversing a decision of the U.S. District Court District of Nevada, Hon. Robert C. Jones presiding. The plaintiff sued the Las Vegas Metro Police Dept. and several Metro Police officers for unreasonable force when plaintiff was arrested at McCarren International Airport. The jury found in favor of two of the officers and found a third officer, Engle, liable to the plaintiff. Engle filed a Rule 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law and, in the alternative, a Rule 59 motion for a new trial. The court granted both motions.

The Ninth Circuit reversed, stating that Engle was not entitled to file a Rule 50(b) motion without first having filed a Rule 50(a) motion prior to submission of the case to the jury. The Court cited the plain language of the Rule and the 1991 advisory committee notes stating, "This provision retains the concept of the former rule that the post-verdict motion is a renewal of an earlier motion made at the close of evidence."

The Court also reversed the district court's grant of Engle's Rule 59 motion for a new trial. The Court concluded that the district court abused its discretion because the weight of evidence was not against the jury's verdict. Contrary to the district court's reasoning that finding for the other two officers conflicted with the jury's finding for plaintiff against Engle, the Ninth Circuit conluded only that plaintiff had not met his burden of showing excessive force by the other two officers, particularly where separate evidence as to Officer Engle was given. Moreover, the district court was not entitled to substitute its evaluation of the evidence for the jury's, simply because it would have arrived at a different verdict. Thus, the jury's verdict was not irreconcilable, and Engle could have been found liable while the other two officers were not found liable.
Share