Monday morning notes

1. The Supreme Court will hear the GPS case tomorrow. Really interesting issues. SCOTUS Blog has all the news and analysis.

2. Speaking of SCOTUS Blog, there is an excellent interview of Justice Stevens posted there. His former clerk Jeffrey Fisher asks some intriguing questions:

Question: Turning to the different chapters of the book, one of the things that leaps out to me are the different internal procedures the Court has used over the years. For example, you mention that when you were a law clerk under Chief Justice Vinson, the Court’s conferences [at which the Justices cast their initial votes on cases and vote on cert. petitions] ran differently than they do now. Back then, there was a rule that everybody had a chance to speak once before anyone voted. Now, by contrast, Justices vote in conjunction with making their initial comments. Do you think that difference matters in terms of outcomes?

Justice Stevens: I think there might well be cases in which the outcome could be affected. I remember debating this with Byron White, among others, who said, “Well really the vote is never firm until the whole conference is over — in fact until the opinion is released.” And, as you know, votes change from time to time.

But I do think that the old model tends to give the junior Justice a better opportunity to convince more senior members of the Court if everybody has withheld his or her vote until everybody has had something to say. It just seems to me it’s a better way to proceed. And as I think I say in the book, Bill Rehnquist and I used to sit next to each other in the conference when I was a junior Justice and he was next most junior, and we both raised it once or twice, and he felt the same way then. But he became Chief, and he changed his view.

Question: What do you think changed his view?

Justice Stevens: He became Chief.

Question: He wanted to vote first, do you think?

Justice Stevens: I think — that’s right, he recognized the fact that the order of precedence may have an impact.

3. Could hackers free everyone at FDC:

Federal authorities are concerned about new research showing U.S. prisons are vulnerable to computer hackers, who could remotely open cell doors to aid jailbreaks.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons is “aware of this research and taking it very seriously,” spokesman Chris Burke told The Washington Times.

Mr. Burke was reacting to research by private experts who found that the security systems in most American prisons are run by computer software vulnerable to hackers.

“You could open every cell door, and the system would be telling the control room they are all closed,” said John J. Strauchs, a former CIA operations officer who helped develop a cyber-attack on a simulated prison computer system and described it at a hackers’ convention in Miami last week.

The security systems in most American prisons are run by special computer equipment called industrial control systems, or ICS. They are also used to control power plants, water treatment facilities and other critical national infrastructure. ICS has increasingly been targeted by hackers because an attack on one such system successfully sabotaged Iran’s nuclear program in 2009.
A malicious cyber-intruder could “destroy the doors,” by overloading the electrical system that controls them, locking them permanently open, said Mr. Strauchs, now a consultant who has designed security systems for dozens of state and federal prisons..

Hackers could “shut down secure communications” through the prison intercom system and crash the facility’s closed-circuit television system, blanking out all the monitors, he added.

4. Should those who view child porn on the internet get the same sentence (life) as murderers? The NY Times examines that question here:

A circuit court judge in Florida clearly thinks so: On Thursday, he sentenced Daniel Enrique Guevara Vilca, a 26-year-old stockroom worker whose home computer was found to contain hundreds of pornographic images of children, to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

But the severity of the justice meted out to Mr. Vilca, who had no previous criminal record, has led some criminal justice experts to question whether increasingly harsh penalties delivered in cases involving the viewing of pornography really fit the crime. Had Mr. Vilca actually molested a child, they note, he might well have received a lighter sentence.

“To me, a failure to distinguish between people who look at these dirty pictures and people who commit contact offenses lacks the nuance and proportionality I think our law demands,” said Douglas Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University, who highlighted Mr. Vilca’s case on his blog, Sentencing and Law Policy.

Sexual offenses involving children enrage most Americans, and lawmakers have not hesitated to impose lengthy prison terms for offenders. In Florida, possession of child pornography is a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. Mr. Vilca was charged with 454 counts of possession, each count representing one image found on the computer.

5. Can police set up a fake cell phone tower to get information from your phone without a warrant? Via Wired:

Federal authorities used a fake Verizon cellphone tower to zero in on a suspect’s wireless card, and say they were perfectly within their rights to do so, even without a warrant.

But the feds don’t seem to want that legal logic challenged in court by the alleged identity thief they nabbed using the spoofing device, known generically as a stingray. So the government is telling a court for the first time that spoofing a legitimate wireless tower in order to conduct surveillance could be considered a search under the Fourth Amendment in this particular case, and that its use was legal, thanks to a court order and warrant that investigators used to get similar location data from Verizon’s own towers.

The government is likely using the argument to avoid a court showdown that might reveal how stingrays work and open debate into the tool’s legality.

Stingrays spoof a legitimate cellphone tower in order to trick nearby cellphones and other wireless communication devices into connecting to the tower, as they would to a real cellphone tower. When devices connect, stingrays can see and record their unique ID numbers and traffic data, as well as information that points to a device’s location. To prevent detection by suspects, the stingray sends the data to a real tower so that traffic continues to flow.

By gathering the wireless device’s signal strength from various locations, authorities can pinpoint where the device is being used with much more precision than they can get through data obtained from the mobile network provider’s fixed tower location.

Justice Stevens weekend

Justice Stevens was everywhere this weekend. In the NY Times, discussing the death penalty:

In 1976, just six months after he joined the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens voted to reinstate capital punishment after a four-year moratorium. With the right procedures, he wrote, it is possible to ensure “evenhanded, rational and consistent imposition of death sentences under law.”

In 2008, two years before he announced his retirement, Justice Stevens reversed course and in a concurrence said that he now believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional.
But the reason for that change of heart, after more than three decades on the court and some 1,100 executions, has in many ways remained a mystery, and now Justice Stevens has provided an explanation.

In a detailed, candid and critical essay to be published this week in The New York Review of Books, he wrote that personnel changes on the court, coupled with “regrettable judicial activism,” had created a system of capital punishment that is shot through with racism, skewed toward conviction, infected with politics and tinged with hysteria.
The essay is remarkable in itself. But it is also a sign that at 90, Justice Stevens is intent on speaking his mind on issues that may have been off limits while he was on the court.

The whole review by Justice Stevens is worth a read.

Stevens was also on 60 Minutes:



It's amazing to watch him -- he still seems young and vibrant. I didn't know that his father was convicted and that an appellate court reversed the conviction. He discusses how that impacted him as a kid and as a judge. He also was at the game where Babe Ruth called the shot, and he talks about that as well. Great stuff.

UPDATE -- Rumpole has more on the Stevens interview here.

Monday morning (JPS edition)

1. Today is John Paul Stevens' last day on the Court. He has been a Justice for 35 years -- third longest ever on the Court. He took over for Justice Douglas -- interestingly, the longest serving Justice ever. At 90, he's also the second oldest serving Justice, behind Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. He'll retire to his home in Ft. Lauderdale.

2. The Court issued its last 4 opinions today, including Bilski! Lots of interesting stuff that I'll post about soon.

3. As Stevens steps down, Elena Kagan starts her confirmation hearings. Noah Feldman discusses the current state of the Court and the lack of progressives in this weekend's NY Times magazine.

4. Justice Ginsburg's husband, Martin, passed away yesterday. AboveTheLaw has a nice story about him.

5. In other news, the CJA lawyers had their seminar this weekend; Lew Freeman's sentencing was continued until July 23; and no more CocoDorm.

Happy 50th...

... to SG Elena Kagan (soon to be Justice Kagan?). If you haven't been over to ScotusBlog recently, you should check it out. They have been doing incredible in-depth reports on the short-listers for Justice Stevens' seat. Here's one example -- an interesting post about how Stevens won a coin-flip to get his clerkship:

Art Seder and John Stevens, meanwhile, were both interested in the alleged Rutledge clerkship possibility. Dean Green and his colleagues gave the young men the impression that Northwestern could not or would not recommend one of them over the other. Seder and Stevens thus were told to decide between themselves, by flipping a coin, which of them would be the school’s nominee to Justice Rutledge. They did so, just the two of them, in private, at the law school and without particular drama. Stevens won the flip. And his friend Seder abided by that result—he did not ask, for instance, to change the contest to the best two out of three flips.

"My dear Mr. President"

That's how Justice John Paul Stevens, who turns 90 this month, addressed the letter to President Obama in his resignation letter of today. Here's the Washington Post article:

[H]e will leave the court at the conclusion of the current term at the end of June. Stevens said he was announcing now so that the president would have time to make a nomination and the Senate to confirm in time for the start of the court's new term next October.
It will be Obama's second Supreme Court appointment after Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was named last year to replace retiring Justice David Souter.
Stevens was appointed to the high court by President Gerald Ford, and joined the court on Dec. 19, 1975. His retirement is not a surprise and the White House has been preparing for the opening. Aides and Democrats close to the process name three people as likely frontrunners for the job: Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who Obama made the first woman to hold that post, and two appellate court judges, Diane Wood of Chicago and Merrick Garland of Washington.
Kagan and Wood were interviewed by Obama last spring before he nominated Sotomayor to the court.

"I am not going to testify, your honor"

That was Fitzroy Salesman to Judge Cohn yesterday as both sides rested. Today, closing arguments and the jury should have the case by lunchtime.

Everyone is starting to gear up for the Justice Stevens' retirement. The top three choices to fill his spot. from the AP:

Two of the three top contenders, Judge Diane Wood, 59, of the federal appeals court in Chicago and Solicitor General Elena Kagan, 49, were finalists last year when Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter.
Judge Merrick Garland, 57, of the federal appeals court in Washington, is a former high-ranking Justice Department official who is well respected and considered least likely to engender significant Republican opposition.
The three high court prospects have different strengths and weaknesses. But even conservative activists say any of the three would likely win confirmation in a Senate in which Democrats control 59 seats. Yet Republican Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said Sunday he would not rule out delaying tactics if Obama nominates "an overly ideological person."
A fight over a second Obama Supreme Court nominee could rev up both Democratic and Republican fundraising machines for the November election, even though Stevens' replacement by a liberal-leaning justice would not alter the court's ideological balance.

Still no Floridian.... (although Stevens does live in Ft. Lauderdale...)

Justice Stevens has a bad day

Yesterday was a big day in the Supreme Court with the campaign finance decision. But it was also noteworthy because those in the courtroom noted that Justice Stevens was having some trouble reading his dissent. Many have speculated that Justice Stevens is going to retire at the end of the Term, in part because he's hired only one clerk. From the BLT:

It's rare, and always dramatic to watch, when a Supreme Court justice reads from a dissent on the bench. On Thursday, when Justice John Paul Stevens read at length from his stinging 90-page dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it was also a little painful to watch.
For more than 20 minutes, Stevens spoke haltingly as he read from a summary of the dissent, a task he'd ordinarily breeze through. The 89-year-old justice seemed off his game, tripping on some words, getting stuck on others. At one point, he kept mispronouncing the word "corporation" as something like "corpo-russian," and he could not quite get it right.
As CBS News Court correspondent Jan Crawford noted on her blog with similar observations, "Maybe it was just a bad day, and Lord knows we’ve all had those." And the written product is more important than how it was read aloud. But with a justice who is said to be on the verge of retiring at the end of this term, and in a case of such high impact, it was hard not to notice Stevens' tough morning.

Justice Stevens to retire?

We're a little late on this story, but it's starting to get a lot of traction, so here goes... It looks like Justice Stevens might be on the retirement track as indicated by his lack of hiring law clerks. From the NY Times:

Justice David H. Souter’s failure to hire clerks this spring accurately signaled his decision to step down. On Wednesday, the court confirmed that Justice John Paul Stevens, who is 89, has hired only one clerk, instead of the usual four, for the term starting in October 2010. That ignited speculation that Justice Stevens may be planning to step down next summer.
Or it could merely mean that he is keeping his options open. There is, of course, nothing to prevent Justice Stevens from hiring additional clerks later on. The newest member of the court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, hired four clerks in short order after her confirmation last month.
The alternative is to hire clerks now for a job that might evaporate later, something Justice Stevens would not do lightly, people who know him said.
“Justice Stevens is a man who cares deeply about treating people with respect,” said Christopher L. Eisgruber, the provost of Princeton University, the author of “The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointment Process” and a former clerk to Justice Stevens.

If Stevens does retire, maybe we'll finally get a Floridian to the Supreme Court... Those will be huge shoes to fill.

In other news, the Padilla oral argument will take place on November 17 in Atlanta.

Have a nice long holiday weekend. Sorry for the short post today.

Justice Stevens and Judge Gonzalez

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and District Judge Jose Gonzalez spoke yesterday at the University of Florida. Here's the UF newspaper article about the event:

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Jose A. Gonzalez Jr., U.S. District Court Judge, agreed on a litany of legal issues at an on–campus discussion Monday.Stevens and Gonzalez gave advice and commented on the legal system to about 1,000 people at the Phillips Center for the Performing Arts in the inaugural event of the Marshall Criser Distinguished Lecture Series.Two UF law professors and a third–year law student asked the two men questions submitted by law students during the “conversation.”
Stevens and Gonzalez both agreed that legal opinions have gotten too long, and that it might be influenced by the introduction of computers.“It’s a lot easier to type something up than it is to write it out, especially if you have lousy handwriting,” Stevens said.When Stevens said he was a fan of footnotes, but thought they were optional reading, Larry Dougherty, the third–year law student, interjected.“Justice Stevens, some of our professors here have us under the impression that footnotes are required reading,” he said to laughter from the audience.Sharon E. Rush, one of the two law professors asking questions, assured the audience she still wants her students to read footnotes.Getting a little more serious, Gonzalez talked about the issue of judges’ salaries, saying they are not paid what they are worth.“We’re spending billions of dollars on the war in Iraq, and we can’t afford to compensate a handful of federal judges. That’s crazy,” he said, to perhaps the loudest applause of the conversation.Stevens agreed and complimented Gonzalez on his eloquence.When asked what advice they would give to the law students, Gonzalez joked he would give the same advice he’s given other people: “Don’t sue people that don’t have any money because there’s no future in it.”Stevens advised students to develop a reputation as a person of honor.“Nothing is more important to a lawyer than his word,” he said.In one of the last questions of the event, both judges agreed on which Supreme Court justice in the nation’s history they would speak to if they had the chance: Justice John Marshall.“He was a very interesting man who lived in very interesting times, and he had a very interesting personality,” Gonzalez said.