Another Bilski-Free Day at the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is approaching the home stretch in its dash to end the current term, and it's a period when the big pending decisions start to emerge. But not this morning.

None of the marquee cases that would make big headlines were handed down, so we'll have to wait for Thursday, when the Court will sit again, for the likes of Bilski v. Kappos (on business method patents), McDonald v. Chicago (on the Second Amendment and local firearm regulation), Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (on First Amendment rights for religious clubs at state universities) or the trio of "honest services" fraud cases of keen interest to white collar crime law aficionados.

But the Court did issue four decisions in argued cases, and granted review in several new cases for argument in the fall -- including, notably, Schwarzenegger v. Plata, on California's challenge to a court order that it reduce its prison population to address deficiencies in prison health care.

Among the decisions issued are two that pertain to lawyers and lawyering. In Astrue v. Ratliff, the Court ruled unanimously that the government can tap into a lawyer's attorney fee award under the Equal Access to Justice Act when the client has an outstanding debt to the government. In Holland v. Florida, the Court ruled 7-2 that the one-year statute of limitation for habeas filings under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 can be tolled -- delayed or paused -- under certain circumstances, including egregious attorney misconduct.

Check back for more on today's Supreme Court action later today here and at nlj.com.

Comments

[Leif Rakur]

In case the Supreme Court has trouble reaching its NcDonald v. Chicago decision, they can use mine, which reads the amendment as a link betweem the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

According to the Declaration of Independence, it is “the right of the people” to abolish a government that doesn’t serve the interests of the people, and to create one that does. The Second Amendment says that it is the “right of the people” to provide militia service to secure the government that the people have chosen. And that is the right that the Second Amendment declares “shall not be infringed.”