The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed itself and ruled that forced DNA testing of those who have completed their jail sentences and been placed on parole is consitutitonal. Criminal Appeal has all the details.

Howard Bashman of How Appealing has a roundup of news articles on the decision. He provides this quick analysis of the ruling.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit by Florida's death row inmates today that alleged the temperatures on the row were so hot as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment:

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the Constitution "does not mandate comfortable prisons," rejecting a class-action lawsuit that claimed the heat on death row forced inmates at Union Correctional Institution in Raiford to stand in toilets, drape themselves in wet towels and sleep naked on concrete floors.

The lawsuit was filed four years ago by the Florida Justice Institute in Miami. The agency's attorney, Peter Siegel, said the organization has not decided whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I hope the inmates decide to appeal. Here's the position the Court should have taken:

Hannah Floyd, director of the Florida Death Row Advocacy Group, criticized the ruling as inhumane, saying "people in this nation have to realize that prisoners, including the ones on death row, are humans and should be treated as such."

by TChris

One of the great barriers to equal justice is the inability of poor defendants to afford a lawyer. The Gideon decision was supposed to level the playing field, assuring counsel for criminal defendants who can't hire an attorney, but the chronic underfunding of public defender and other assigned counsel programs has betrayed the promise of that landmark decision.

Recognizing that those accused of crimes have no voice in state government, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts spoke on their behalf this week, ordering indigent defendants in Hampden County released from jail if they aren't furnished with a lawyer within seven days. After 45 days, charges must be dismissed (subject to refiling if the state gets around to furnishing the defendant with counsel).

The decision is expected to force the state legislature to raise the hourly rate of pay for court-appointed lawyers. Current rates, ranging from $30 to $54, haven't significantly increased in twenty years. Lawyers can't pay their overhead at those rates, providing them with no incentive to take appointed cases. The state's other alternative is to increase funding for the Committee for Public Counsel Services so that it can hire enough lawyers to meet the demand for indigent defense.

by TChris

Linda Greenhouse opines that this was the term in which Chief Justice Rehnquist lost his court.

One statistic is particularly telling. There were 18 cases this term decided by five-member majorities .... Of the 18 cases, Chief Justice Rehnquist was in the majority in only eight.

Blakely is among the latest of the 5-4 decisions in which Rehnquist's reading of the Constitution failed to command a majority. A court on which Rehnquist is a frequent dissenter must be doing something right. Greenhouse offers a lengthy analysis of Rehnquist's waning influence upon the Court's decisions.

by TChris

Bringing the term to an end with another 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction that prevents the Justice Dept. from enforcing an overbroad law that's meant to shield minors from internet porn -- a law that, in practice, threatens to keep adults from viewing materials that are legal for an adult to see.

The law, which never took effect, would have authorized fines up to $50,000 for the crime of placing material that is "harmful to minors" within the easy reach of children on the Internet. The law also would have required adults to use access codes and or other ways of registering before they could see objectionable material online.

For now, the law, known as the Child Online Protection Act, would sweep with too broad a brush, Kennedy wrote. "There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech" if the law took effect, he said.
Kennedy said that filtering software "is not a perfect solution to the problem of children gaining access to harmful-to-minors materials." So far, he added, the government has failed to prove that other technologies would work better.

The Court sent the case back to the district court for a trial, giving the government a chance to prove that filtering software has improved in the five years since the injunction was granted.

Foreign detainees also have the right to challenge their detentions. The Rasul v. Bush opinion is here (pdf).

United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad inconnection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.

(a) The District Court has jurisdiction to hear petitioners’ habeas challenges under 28 U. S. C. §2241, which authorizes district courts, “within their respective jurisdictions,” to entertain habeas applications by persons claiming to be held “in custody in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States,” §§2241(a), ©(3). Such jurisdiction extends to aliens held in a territory over which the United States exercises plenary and exclusive jurisdiction, but not “ultimate sovereignty.”

That's our word for it--weasels--the Associated Press calls it a sidestep. Whatever. The Supreme Court today declined to address the Jose Padilla case on its merits. The opinion is here (pdf):

The Supreme Court sidestepped a third major terrorism case, ruling that a lawsuit filed on behalf of detainee Jose Padilla improperly named Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld instead of the much lower-level military officer in charge of the Navy brig in South Carolina where Padilla has been held for more than two years. Padilla must refile a lawsuit challenging his detention in a lower court.

Update: Scotus blog is blogging live via Blackberry while reading the Padilla and Hamdi opinions. Some of their comments:

Hamdi is 8-1. Within the majority, the 4 Justice plurality (which gives Hamdi intermediate procedural rights) is formed by the dissenters in the Apprendi cases, reflecting their pragmatic take on the Sixth Amendment. The strongest believers in Apprendi - Scalia and Stevens - take the hardest line on the right to get into a criminal court.

More:

This may get lost in the shuffle of today's big opinions, but it shouldn't. The Supreme Court decided two Miranda cases today, and in one of them, Miranda takes a hit.

The Court holds that physical fruits of a Miranda violation don't get suppressed but that purposeful Miranda violations vitiate a subsequent confession.

The Siebert opinion is here and the Patane opinion is here.

Update: AP article on decisions here.

In a rebuke to the Bush Administration, the Supreme Court ruled today in Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld that enemy combatants may challenge their detention, and that they have the right to counsel. The opinion is here (pdf).

The New York Times is reporting here that the Court, in an opinion by Justice O'Connor, has "partially" sided with the Bush administration in the Hamdi case, ruling that Hamdi can be held without charges or trial, but can challenge his detention in court, and that he can "unquestionably" have access to counsel. This sounds as if it is a significant loss for the Government. (Hamdi, unlike Padilla, had not seriously challenged the Government's right to detain him if he is an enemy combatant.)

Associated Press story here. From Reuters:

Four of the nine justices concluded that constitutional due process rights demand that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant must be given "a meaningful opportunity" to contest case for his detention before a neutral party. Two more justices agreed that the detention of American citizen Yaser Hamdi was unauthorized and that the terror suspect should have a real chance to offer evidence he is not an enemy combatant.

One quote from O'Connor's opinion:

the court has "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

by TChris

For all its flaws, the Rehnquist Court has recognized that federal legislators unnecessarily meddle in areas that should be left to state regulation, resulting in the federalization of crimes that are largely of state or local concern. It will have another chance to consider the limits of federal power when it responds to John Ashcroft's invitation to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling blocking DEA agents from arresting California patients who have been using marijuana under the advice of a physician -- an activity that is legal under California (but not federal) law.

The Ninth Circuit held that growing or possessing pot for personal use is different from interstate trafficking, which Congress can regulate pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Ashcroft doesn't care if there's an interstate commerce connection when it comes to drugs, but Ashcroft has never been a friend of the Constitution.

The Rehnquist court has frequently taken cases from the Ninth Circuit just to reverse them, but this time, the Ninth Circuit is following logic that is consistent with Rehnquist's narrow view of the Commerce Clause. We should know soon what the Court will do.

The appeal came before the justices Thursday in their last regularly scheduled conference of this term, and they are likely to decide Monday whether to review the case.... If the court turns away Ashcroft's appeal, it would leave untouched the 9th Circuit's ruling that protects a patient's right to use home-grown marijuana.

Update: The Supremes voted to review the case.

New York's highest appeals court has declared the state's death penalty unconsitutional. The decision affects all four of the state's death row prisoners:

In a 4-3 ruling, the court said New York's sentencing rules might unconstitutionally coerce jurors into voting for a death sentence rather than risk a deadlock by holding out for life without parole. If a jury deadlocks, the judge imposes a sentence of 20-25 years to life, giving the possibility of parole.

The prospect of that lesser sentence may coerce the jury to choose the death penalty when they do not want to, the court said.

The Supreme Court has ruled that VP Dick Cheney does not need to reveal secret energy documents--at least for now, and in all likelihood, not before the election. It sent the case back to the lower court for further review:

The Bush administration won't have to reveal secret details of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force before the election, after the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a lower court should spend more time sorting out the White House's privacy claim.

In a 7-2 decision, justices said the lower court should consider whether a federal open government law could be used to get task force documents. Even if that court rules against the administration, appeals would tie up the case well past November.