The cases in which the Supreme Court will hear oral argument this week involve issues that range from how to determine whether a jury pool is representative of its community to the rights of a national union in a local labor dispute. It may be a short work week, but the Court's week will be full of hearings on matters that affect us all, as well as, in all probability, the issuance of some decisions that may give us more insight in the place of Justice Sotomayor on this court.
Here is a synopsis of the cases on the Court's calendar next week, as well as a recap of last week's arguments.
Mac's Shell Service v. Shell Oil Products; Shell Oil Products v. Mac's Shell Service:
The Petroleum Marketing Practice Act (PMPA) was enacted in the 1970s in response to unfair termination or non-renewal of franchises held by people operating gas stations by big oil companies. In 1998, Shell, Texaco, and Saudi Refining combined their refining and marketing operations in the eastern United States under the umbrella company Motiva Enterprises. Texaco and Shell franchises were thus transferred to Motiva Enterprises, which stopped the rent subsidies based on sales volume provided by Shell to its franchisees. It also changed the formula by which rent was calculated, resulting in (what a shock) the rent being raised on gas station operators. Mac's Shell Service and other individual business owners sued under the PMPA, alleging that Motiva was formed to force franchisees out of business in order to convert the gas stations into company-owned stations. They further alleged that the rent changes effectively illegally terminated, or failed to renew, franchises. The trial jury found in Mac's favor even though some of the plaintiffs were continuing to run their businesses. The question for the Supreme Court is whether a gas company's franchise agreements can be deemed illegally terminated when it changes the terms in bad faith to force individual gas station operators out of business.
Why you should care: This is a classic David v. Goliath law suit, with both the American Petroleum Institute and the United States government weighing in on behalf of Shell. The question is where to draw the line between legitimate changes in the terms of a franchise and bad faith changes designed to drive individual entrepeneurs out of business. If Mac loses here, big corporations will be encouraged to use franchise terms to scoop up small businesses. It is hoped that Congress will close this loophole should the Court decide that it exists.
Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters:
Granite Rock is a company producing building materials. Its employees belong to a number of different unions. One of those unions, Teamsters Local 287, went on strike. It was supported by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. A tentative agreement was reached between the union and the company and was, or was not, ratified by the local (the question of whether the agreement was ratified was and continues to be debated; the local said that it never signed off on the contract and the company insists that it did; a trial jury found in favor of Granite Rock on this question). That agreement included a no-strike clause. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, however, was not satisfied with the agreement because it did not include a provision holding all other unions, local and national, free from harm (a provision which would, for example, prevent the company from punishing other unions which struck in sympathy with Local 287). Thus, the Teamsters ordered the local to go back out on strike despite the tentative agreement. The company sued the Teamsters for tortious interference with its agreement with Local 287. The issue for the Court is whether such a suit is permissible under the Labor-Managment Relations Act given the fact that the International Brotherhood of Teamsters was not a party to the contract. A secondary issue is whether damages owed to Granite Rock by the local union should be determined by jury or by arbitration.
Why you should care: On its face, this one looks even more boring than Mac's Shell Service, but in fact the case involves important issues about what risks national unions take when they intervene in, or advise, labor actions taken by locals. This is why several business groups, including the American Chamber of Congress have filed briefs in support of Granite Rock, and the AFL-CIO has argued in support of the Teamsters. If Granite Rock wins, the power of national unions and their ability to assist in local actions will be diminished.
Berghuis v. Smith:
The Sixth Amendment protects a criminal defendant's right to have his jury chosen from a fair cross-section of the community. Thus, for example, women can't be exempted from jury service - not because it violates the woman's right to serve, but because it violates the defendant's right to have a jury pool that does not exclude or underrepresent a group in his community. In this case, Mr. Berghuis was convicted of murder in Kent County, Michigan, by an all-white jury. The jury was chosen from a panel of 60, 3 of whom were black. However, jury-eligible African-Americans make up 7.8% of the county. Testimony taken on the issue established a consistent under-representation of African-Americans in jury pools over the years with a comparative disparity between the venire and the county's population of 34.7% in the year of Mr. Berghuis' trial. Michigan's argument is that the under-representation is not so bad, and that it couldn't do anything about it anyway. The Court will have to wrestle with how much of a disparity is too much, and how far to bend over backwards to accept the state's rationale for its statistically overly Caucasian jury venires.
Why you should care: One of the biggest causes of inequity in the criminal justice system is that it is still largely dependent on white jurors sitting in judgment on criminal defendants of color. In this case, Michigan wants the Supreme Court to rule that there is no Sixth Amendment violation unless the proportion of a group in a community is 10% or more above its proportion in the jury pool (for example, if a group constituted 20% of the population, but only 10% of the jury pool, it would fall within this proposed rule). Under this rule, as African-Americans make up only 7.8% of Kent County's population and thus could never be underrepresented by 10% or more, African-Americans could be kept completely out of jury venires without violating the Constitution. Thus, the Court's determination of how underrepresentation should be measured, and when it can be excused, will be crucial in whether this will continue to be a nation in which people of color stand trial in front of juries which contain none of their peers. The joker in this card game may be the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) which provides that state decisions cannot be overturned by Federal courts unless the state court violates clearly established Federal law. Michigan is arguing that because the Supreme Court has never established how to measure jury underrepresentation, there was no clearly established Federal law for it to violate. Thus, it is asserting that although it may have violated the defendant's Constitutional rights, the defendant should have no recourse because the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this precise issue. The tragedy of AEDPA is that it allows state courts to make such dishonorable arguments.
Conkright v. Frommert:
The Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulates pension funds. This case asks how far this act allows courts to intervene in program administrators' decisions about what benefits should be paid. At stake for the parties is how much retirement Xerox owes to employees who left the company with lump sums reflecting their pension payments, but who were rehired some years later.
Why you should care: The core question here is how much can employees rely on the courts if they disagree with claim decisions made by their pension plan administrators. Both the Federal government and the AARP are on the side of the employees in this case, arguing that the administrator's decision about benefits was not entitled to deference when his first decision in that regard was an abuse of his discretion. A decision for respondents thus would strengthen employees' and retirees' ability to use ERISA to challenge benefit decisions.
Last week in review:
For those who read my last week's diary and are curious about how oral arguments went, here's a quick rundown.
Alabama v. North Carolina: it's a little hard to tell how the Court will come down on the issue of whether commissions can sue states, but it certainly seems evident that the Court was not thrilled with North Carolina's behavior. The following exchange gives a flavor of the argument:
NORTH CAROLINA'S ATTORNEY (trying to be folksy): I think I should begin with a simple question that my grandson asked me, which is why did North Carolina quit?...
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You took -- you took -- $80 million and they got nothing for it. That would be a question your grandson might ask. What did you do with the $80 million?
Briscoe v. Virginia: Virginia is losing this one. Justice Scalia was irritated that the case was in front of the Court at all, and Justice Sotomayor was clearly concerned with the concept raised by Virginia's position that the Constitution would permit an entire criminal trial to be tried by affidavit just as long as the defense had subpoena power.
United States v. Comstock: Surprisingly enough, it looks as though the Court may well hold that civil commitment of sexual offenders after they have finished their Federal prison sentences is beyond the powers of the Federal government.
Abbott v. Abbott: The majority's sentiments seem to be with Mr. Abbott.
American Needle v. NFL: The lawyer representing the NFL made the ridiculous argument that the purpose of selling team jerseys and caps was to promote the teams and not to make money (which would of course explain the steep rise in prices for such clothing after Reebok got exclusive rights to manufacture it). However, the Court did seem concerned that its decision not go so far as to create a situation in which the NFL couldn't create game rules, or schedule games. The Court does seem to be wrestling with this one, even reaching past this question of whether the NFL is a single entity or not to ponder whether the Reebok agreement in fact restrained competition (since NFL jerseys compete with jerseys representing teams in other sports).
Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kraemer & Ulrich LPA: This one is a bit tough to call, but it looks like the lawyers will lose.
And, of course, last week brought us the horrible Hollingsworth v. Perry opinion. So much has already been written about this case, prohibiting the limited broadcasting of the Proposition 8 trial, that there is not much to add, other than to caution against using it as a litmus test for Justices' positions on laws restricting gay marriage. Justice Sotomayor's vote for the minority position, however, is a reason for future hope.