The Supreme Court of the United States announced one decision this morning:
Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission, No. 11-1184: Plaintiffs claimed that West Virginia’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan violates the “one person, one vote” principle embodied in Article I, §2, of the Constitution. A three judge District Court agreed, declaring the plan “null and void” and enjoining West Virginia’s Secretary of State from implementing it. The state defendants appealed directly to the Supreme Court, and the Court today reversed, holding, in a per curiam opinion, that the District Court misapplied the standard for evaluating such challenges and failed to afford appropriate deference to West Virginia’s reasonable exercise of its political judgment.
The Court’s decision is available here.
The Court also granted review today in six cases:
Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 11-1274: Where Congress has not enacted a separate controlling provision, does the government’s claim first accrue for purposes of applying the five-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2462 when the government can first bring an action for a civil penalty?
Levin v. United States, 11-1351: Whether the Gonzalez Act, which immunizes military medical personnel from claims arising out of the performance of their health care functions by designating the Federal Tort Claims Act as the exclusive remedy for such claims, authorizes a battery claim against the United States.
Missouri v. McNeely, 11-1425: Whether a law enforcement officer may obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.
Millbrook v. United States, No. 11-10362: Whether 28 U.S.C. §§1346(b) and 2680(h) waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for the intentional torts of prison guards when they are acting within the scope of their employment but are not exercising authority to “execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law.”
Maracich v. Spears, No. 12-25: Whether lawyers who obtain, disclose, or use personal information solely to find clients to represent in an incipient lawsuit – as opposed to evidence for use in existing or potential litigation – may seek solace under the litigation exception of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994, and whether a lawyer who files an action that effectively amounts to a “place holder” lawsuit may thereafter use DPPA-protected personal information to solicit plaintiffs for that action through a direct mail advertising campaign on the grounds that such use is “inextricably intertwined” with “use in litigation.”
Delia v. E.M.A., No. 12-98: Whether a North Carolina statute which provides that the state has a subrogation right to, and may assert a lien upon, the lesser of one-third of a Medicaid recipient’s recovery from a third-party tortfeasor or the state’s actual medical expenditures is preempted by the Medicaid Act’s anti-lien provision as construed in Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services v. Ahlborn, 547 U.S. 268 (2006).