Here are the latest United States Supreme Court Opinions with the new Justices.
Harry F. Connick (Juniors Dad) v. John Thompson, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S887 (Mar 29, 2011): Writ of Certiorari, Granted – John Thompson claimed that the DA’s Office in Orleans Parrish deliberately had a pattern of Brady Violations (one of which came within weeks of having him executed) and, under a section 1983 claim, they were liable. Thompson was awarded millions by the lower courts. The USSCt granted certiorari and found that Thompson had not established his claim. There is an opinion, a dissent, and a concurring opinion that should be read in that order.
Astra USA, Inc. et al. v. Santa Clara County, California, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S901 (Mar 29, 2011): Writ of Certiorari, Granted – This has to do with the Public Health Services Act. Apparently, “[t]his case presents the question whether 340B entities, though accorded no right to sue for overcharges under the statute itself, may nonetheless sue allegedly overcharging manufacturers as third-party beneficiaries of the PPAs to which the manufacturers subscribed. We hold that suits by 340B entities to enforce ceiling-price contracts running between drug manufacturers and the Secretary of HHS are incompatible with the statutory regime.” Ah, yes, the joy of (whatever they said).
Oops! – Then there was a Habeas Corpus case which I skipped and refuse to jump into because of the extra-ordinary amount of citations to other cases that seem to be deliberately used by the court to obfuscate what the hell they are trying to say. Probably the most important opinion out of this batch.
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Kathleen M. Winn, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S922 (Apr 4, 2011): Writ of Certiorari, Granted – A group of “taxpayers” got upset because Arizona has a tax credit for contributions to School Tuition Organizations [STO]. Apparently, some of these STOs happen to be private and some of those happen to be of a religious bent. So, if you contribute to one of these you can claim a tax credit probably like a charitable contribution (however those are not “credits” but deductions). Anyway, the “taxpayers” got all out of whack because some people’s contributions where being used for scholarships at private religious-based schools. Bottom line is the court found that the “taxpayers” did not have standing. (Question: Who has time to get all bent out of shape over where people give their money? If it is about religion and taxes shouldn’t the question be why those organizations are tax exempt to begin with? Not taking a position either way, just saying).