2009: A Year for Key U.S. Supreme Court Rulings

The United States Supreme Court is expected to make several landmark legal rulings in 2009, addressing a variety of legal issues ranging from police search and seizure procedures and pharmaceutical drug liability to sentencing guidelines and labor laws. The nation’s highest court receives about 10,000 petitions each year from attorneys across the country hoping to have their cases heard. However, the court selects only about 100 cases to be argued and ruled upon. In order to qualify for Supreme Court review, a case most often must involve a controversy involving federal law or an interpretation of the Constitution.

The Supreme Court typically hears oral arguments from attorneys during the Fall and Winter months before releasing its rulings in the Spring. The rulings are closely watched, as they represent the final word in some of the most controversial and contested legal issues in the country.
The following cases are among the key hearings the Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments for and rule upon in 2009:

Wyeth v. Levine

Drug company Wyeth seeks to overturn a Vermont state court’s ruling in favor of Diana Levine, a musician who lost part of her right arm after an infection caused by an injection of a Wyeth painkilling medication. The case centers on whether preemption, the legal concept that says federal law preempts conflicting state laws, bars state personal injury claims against drug makers for injuries caused by FDA-approved drugs. The case could pave the way for drug companies to be immune from state personal injury claims for drugs the FDA has reviewed and approved.

Arizona v. Gant

Rodney Joseph Gant challenged the police search of his car upon his arrest. The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure requires law enforcement officers to show that their safety is threatened or that there is a need to preserve evidence of a crime in order to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle following an arrest.

FCC v. Fox Television

This closely watched case centers on whether Fox and other television broadcasters can be held in violation of federal communications law for allowing single-use expletives to be uttered over the airwaves. The case stems from uses of the “F word” and other expletives by musicians Bono and Cher and actress Nicole Richie on live televised awards programs in 2003 and 2004. The networks claim that the Federal Communications Commission rules against single-use expletives is unconstitutionally vague and unreasonable because it imposes stiff penalties for singular and fleeting uses of expletives.

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

The city of Pleasant Grove, Utah owns and displays a number monuments, memorials, and similar objects in a city-owned public park. A resident argued that he had a First Amendment (free speech) right to erect his own monument in the park, which he dubbed “Seven Aphorisms.” A lower federal circuit court ruled in favor of Summum and ordered the city to immediately install his monument in the park alongside the others. The city appealed to the Supreme Court.

Herring v. United States

The court will be asked to determine the scope of the so-called “Good Faith Exception” for police officers making arrests and conducting searches. The plaintiff, Bennie Dean Herring, was arrested after a county clerk in a neighboring county incorrectly reported to an arresting officer that Herring had an active warrant for his arrest. Based on that erroneous information, the officer in good faith arrested Herring and searched his vehicle, where he found illegal drugs and a loaded gun. Only after the arrest and search had occurred did the court clerk notice the mistake and inform the officer that there was, in fact, no warrant out for Herring. The Supreme Court must therefore determine whether the arrest and the search were valid despite the officer’s mistaken belief of an active arrest warrant for Herring.

No related posts.