Today the Supreme Court of the United States convenes for its first arguments of the new term, with Justice Elena Kagan's joining the Court being the big news of the day. Being the junior-most Justice, it's her job to take notes at the justices' private conferences, open the door if there's a knock and yes, fetch coffee for her colleagues. She will speak last at the private conferences, and will occupy the far-right seat in the room for argument, a seat held by Justice Breyer for a near-record 11+ years before Justice Alito was confirmed. At argument, the array of justices looks will look like this, from left to right from the attorneys' perspective:
Sotomayor-Breyer-Thomas-Scalia-The Chief Justice-Kennedy-Ginsburg-Alito-Kagan
Today's cases include one pair of interest to this community and one ... maybe not. The first case to be argued, Ranson v. MBNA, asks this question:
A debtor who files for Chapter 13 bankruptcy is permitted to deduct from projected income the “ownership costs” of a vehicle, thereby lowering the amount of money he has to pay to his creditors. Can the debtor claim this deduction once the loan for the vehicle has been paid off?
If you can stifle your excitement, the other pair of cases today deal with mandatory minimums:
A federal statute requires an additional five-year sentence for using a gun during certain drug trafficking crimes or crimes of violence, unless another statute provides a higher minimum sentence. (1) Does the five-year addition apply when the underlying drug trafficking offense or crime of violence carries a mandatory minimum sentence of more than five years? (2) Does it apply when the defendant was convicted for a separate offense, arising from the same incident, that carries a minimum sentence of more than five years? (Kagan, J., recused).
You'll see that last parenthetical a number of times this year given Justice Kagan's work as SG. As a reminder, a 4-4 tie means the decision below is affirmed, and there is no procedure by which (though it's been discussed) a retired Justice (and there are three living) can be called back to sub in for a recused one.
What else is coming up this term? Not the cases you probably care most about -- none of the three gay rights challenges (Prop 8, DADT, DOMA) currently moving through the lower courts will likely make it to the Supremes until next fall.
The NYT highlights a pair of free speech cases -- whether family members at one of Fred Phelps' military funerals protests can sue him for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and whether California can ban the sale or rental of violent video games to children. There's also a test of Arizona's previous anti-immigration law regarding its penalties on businesses which hire undocumented workers, an Establishment Clause case regarding a state program to provide parents with tax credits for tuition at private schools which is used primarily to pay for religious schooling and, as usual, prisoners will find new ways to get screwed -- though not always. The National Law Journal and SCOTUSblog provide solid overviews, the latter including links to all the briefs. More cases will be added to the docket weekly as the Term continues.
[As for one last review of the term which recently ended, I strongly recommend John Elwood's jocular take for The Green Bag: "Some of the major decisions of OT2009 were widely anticipated, so that once events were set in motion, all that remained was to wait . . . and wait . . . and wait . . . for the expected outcome to come to pass. Which is not to say OT2009 was not entertaining. Far from it. People continue to flock to horror movies to see if a group of preternaturally good-looking and clear-skinned teenagers will once again decide that the best course of action when confronted with a grisly murder is to split up; go to Hugh Grant movies to see whether a stammering Englishman with fluttering eyelids who uses 'actually' for every part of speech will get the girl; and watch Supreme Court confirmation hearings hoping to learn something about the views of the nominee."]
Today, for the first time in our Nation's history, three female Justices will be sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States. History marches on.