How pro-business is this Supreme Court

Apparently, the most pro-business Supreme Court ever... From the NY Times:

But the business docket reflects something truly distinctive about the court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. While the current court’s decisions, over all, are only slightly more conservative than those from the courts led by Chief Justices Warren E. Burger and William H. Rehnquist, according to political scientists who study the court, its business rulings are another matter. They have been, a new study finds, far friendlier to business than those of any court since at least World War II.

In the eight years since Chief Justice Roberts joined the court, it has allowed corporations to spend freely in elections in the Citizens United case, has shielded them from class actions and human rights suits, and has made arbitration the favored way to resolve many disputes. Business groups say the Roberts court’s decisions have helped combat frivolous lawsuits, while plaintiffs’ lawyers say the rulings have destroyed legitimate claims for harm from faulty products, discriminatory practices and fraud.

Whether the Roberts court is unusually friendly to business has been the subject of repeated discussion, much of it based on anecdotes and studies based on small slices of empirical evidence. The new study, by contrast, takes a careful and comprehensive look at some 2,000 decisions from 1946 to 2011.

Published last month in The Minnesota Law Review, the study ranked the 36 justices who served on the court over those 65 years by the proportion of their pro-business votes; all five of the current court’s more conservative members were in the top 10. But the study’s most striking finding was that the two justices most likely to vote in favor of business interests since 1946 are the most recent conservative additions to the court, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., both appointed by President George W. Bush.

 

I wonder how district courts around the country as a whole rank now -- I would bet that like the Supreme Court, they are more pro-business now than ever. 

Cuban spy to give up citizenship and remain in Cuba

Curt Anderson has all of the details:

One of the convicted spies known as the "Cuban Five" will be able to permanently remain in Cuba in exchange for renouncing his U.S. citizenship, a federal judge ruled Friday after U.S. officials dropped their initial opposition.
Rene Gonzalez, 56, has been in Cuba since April 22 to attend memorial services for his father, who died earlier last month. Gonzalez was released from U.S. prison in October 2011 but was still serving three years' probation, which the Justice Department had previously insisted must be completed in the U.S.
This week, however, the Justice Department reversed its position, leading to U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard's ruling accepting Gonzalez's offer to give up U.S. citizenship.
Reached in Havana, Gonzalez told The Associated Press he was thrilled but wanted a chance to review the judge's decision.
"First I have to read the order," he said. "If the order is real, it will be a great relief to me."

Nominees for Florida Circuit Court

The blog generally doesn't cover state court appointments (that's Rumpole's domain), but that latest Circuit Court seat has some interesting applicants from the federal family.  The Governor will decide from the following five, three of which have federal court ties:

Jason Bloch
Donald J. Cannava
Wendell M. Graham
Ayana Harris
Robert Luck

Bloch is a county attorney.  Harris is a AFPD.  Luck is a AUSA.  Cannava and Graham are county judges.

Above the Law ranks law schools

It's a very interesting read and analysis:

The basic premise underlying the ATL approach to ranking schools: the economics of the legal job market are so out of balance that it is proper to consider some legal jobs as more equal than others. In other words, a position as an associate with a large firm is a “better” employment outcome than becoming a temp doc reviewer or even an associate with a small local firm. That might seem crassly elitist, but then again only the Biglaw associate has a plausible prospect of paying off his student loans.
In addition to placing a higher premium on “quality” (i.e., lucrative) job outcomes, we also acknowledge that “prestige” plays an out-sized role in the legal profession. We can all agree that Supreme Court clerkships and federal judgeships are among the most “prestigious” gigs to be had. Our methodology rewards schools for producing both.
Now more than ever, potential law students should prioritize their future job prospects over all other factors in deciding whether to attend law school. So the relative quality of law schools is best viewed through the prism of how they deliver on the promise of gainful legal employment. The bottom line is that we have a terrible legal job market. Of the 60,000 legal sector jobs lost in 2008-9, only 10,000 have come back. So the industry is down 50,000 jobs and there is no reason to believe they will ever reappear. If you ignore school-funded positions (5% of the total number of jobs), this market is worse than its previous low point of 1993-4. The time has come for a law school ranking that relies on nothing but employment outcomes.

Tuesday News & Notes

1.  Justice Breyer has been released from the hospital following shoulder surgery after his biking accident. (via AP)

2. Justice O'Connor regrets Bush v. Gore:

“It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue,” Justice O’Connor told the Chicago Tribune editorial board on Friday. “Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’”
She continued: “Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision. It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.”
The result, she allowed, “stirred up the public” and “gave the court a less than perfect reputation.”

3.  Is 100 years a life sentence under Graham (via NY Times)?:

The lower courts are split on how to interpret the Graham decision, and the Supreme Court seems to be in no hurry to answer the question. Last week, the justices turned away an appeal from Chaz Bunch of Ohio, who was convicted of kidnapping and raping a woman in a carjacking when he was 16. He was sentenced to 89 years. Even assuming he becomes eligible for early release, he will be 95 years old before he can leave prison.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, upheld the sentence, even as it acknowledged that there were two ways to approach the matter.

“Some courts have held that such a sentence is a de facto life without parole sentence and therefore violates the spirit, if not the letter, of Graham,” Judge John M. Rogers wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel. “Other courts, however, have rejected the de facto life sentence argument, holding that Graham only applies to juvenile non-homicide offenders expressly sentenced to ‘life without parole.’ ”

Until the Supreme Court speaks, Judge Rogers wrote, there is no “clearly established federal law” to assist Mr. Bunch, who was challenging his state conviction in federal court.

Applying the reasoning of the Graham decision to long fixed sentences, Judge Rogers added, “would lead to a lot of questions.” An appeals court in Florida last year listed some of them in upholding a 76-year sentence meted out to Leighdon Henry, who was 16 when he committed rape.

“At what number of years would the Eighth Amendment become implicated in the sentencing of a juvenile: 20, 30, 40, 50, some lesser or greater number?” Judge Jacqueline R. Griffin wrote for the court. 

4.  Judy Clarke has been appointed to assist the Boston Fed PD in the Marathon Bombing case. She also represented Jared Loughner.

5.  President Obama isn't getting his judicial nominees confirmed. Who is to blame? Via Huffington:

It's bad enough that there are 82 vacant federal judge slots around the country, a level so high that many observers have deemed it a crisis situation.

But perhaps even more startling is the fact that of those 82 vacant slots, 61 of them don't even have a nominee.
On its face, the absence of nominees would appear to be a sign that President Barack Obama is slacking. After all, he is responsible for nominating judges, and he did put forward fewer nominees at the end of his first term than his two predecessors. But a closer look at data on judicial nominees, and conversations with people involved in the nomination process, reveals the bigger problem is Republican senators quietly refusing to recommend potential judges in the first place.

Maybe it's time to stop riding the bike

Justice Breyer had a horrible biking accident this weekend, requiring reconstructive shoulder surgery.  It was his third bad biking accident.  From CNN:

In 1993, he had a nasty accident when a car stuck him in Harvard Square while he was on his two-wheeler. He suffered a punctured lung and broken ribs.

Then, over Memorial Day weekend in 2011, Breyer broke his right collarbone after falling off his two-wheeler in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he has a second home.

 

Man, that's rough.

 

Closer to home, Judge Jordan is explaining that prosecutors actually have to prove up guideline enhancements. From the Court's opinion in United States v. Washington:

 

Sometimes a number is just a number,* but when the number at issue triggers an enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines, that number matters. In this appeal we decide whether the government presented sufficient evidence that 250 or more persons or entities were victimized by the fraud scheme in which Gary Washington participated. Because the government failed to put on any evidence that there were 250 or more victims, we vacate Mr. Washington’s sentence and remand for the district court to resentence Mr. Washington with a 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A) rather than a 6-level enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C).
*See, e.g., J. Keefe, Dow 10,000: Sometimes a Number is Just a Number, CBS Moneywatch (Oct. 15, 2009).

This part of the decision was also interesting:

The government asks that it be allowed to prove on remand that there were 250 or more victims for whom Mr. Washington was responsible. We decline the government’s request. Nothing prevented the government -- which was aware of Mr. Washington’s objection -- from putting on evidence concerning the number of victims at the sentencing hearing, and a party who bears the burden on a contested sentencing issue will generally not get to try again on remand if its evidence is found to be insufficient on appeal. We have discretion to permit the government to present evidence at resentencing even though it amounts to giving the party a second bite at the apple. But often a remand for further findings is inappropriate when the issue was before the district court and the parties had an opportunity to introduce relevant evidence, and here the government failed to present any evidence concerning the number of victims.

Friday news and notes

1.  Judge Ryskamp sentenced an elderly woman to "5 seconds of probation"; she was charged with tax evasion in the Swiss bank crackdown where she inherited $43 million.  She was represented by Roy Black and Jackie Perczek.  Via the Palm Beach Post:

A 79-year-old Palm Beach woman on Thursday didn’t just avoid a prison term for evading taxes on $43 million in foreign accounts. A federal judge said Mary Estelle Curran deserves a presidential pardon.
Blasting the government for prosecuting the woman who had already paid a whopping $21.6 million penalty to the Internal Revenue Service, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp placed Curran on probation for one year. He then immediately revoked it.
“You were on probation for about five seconds,” he told her.
He then urged Curran’s attorney, Roy Black, to seek a presidential pardon.

Here is the transcript from the hearing.

 2.  Meantime, Judge Cohn sentenced a fraudster on the other end of the spectrum to 26 years.  From the Sun-Sentinel:

The ringleader of a brazen South Florida identity theft ring that sought $11.7 million worth of fraudulent income tax refunds was sentenced Thursday to more than 26 years in federal prison.
Federal prosecutors said the scheme was one of the biggest and most successful they've seen and a prime example of the "epidemic" that is more rampant in South Florida than anywhere else in the nation. The trial judge said the fraud was so convincing that the IRS approved some $4.5 million of the requested refunds.
"To put it bluntly, ma'am, you are a parasite and a blight on society," U.S. District Judge James Cohn told Alci Bonannee, 36, of Fort Lauderdale, after she tearfully apologized and asked for mercy while trying to cast blame on others. He sentenced her to 26 years and five months in prison and ordered her to pay more than $1.9 million in restitution.
The judge told Bonannee her "egregious crime" required a stern response from the criminal justice system to punish her sufficiently and to deter other people from doing what she did.
"You have created a mountain of work for [federal authorities] in order to clear up the mess that you have created," Cohn said. "Ensnared in that mess is the innocent taxpayer faced with the task of restoring his or her good name and credit rating. It is a hurtful crime that follows its victims for many years."

3.  It's furlough Friday again for the Federal Defenders, but not for the U.S. Attorney's Office.  Congress has ensured that AUSAs and FBI agents will not be furloughed.  But Defenders and Probation Officers are having no such luck.  Explain to me how that works.  From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Federal budget cuts have caused delays in at least one terror-related court case in New York and prompted a federal judge in Nebraska to say he is "seriously contemplating" dismissing some criminal cases.
The automatic cuts are also causing concerns about funding for the defense of the Boston Marathon bombing suspect, who is being represented by a public defender's office that's facing three weeks of unpaid furloughs and whose defense costs could run into millions of dollars.
Federal defenders' offices have been hit especially hard by the cuts, which amount to about 10 percent of their budgets for the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30. Some offices have laid off staffers. The head public defender in Southern Ohio even laid himself off as a way to save money.
Much of the reductions are due to automatic cuts known as the sequester, and public defenders warn they could face even more cuts next year.
Members of the Federal Bar Association, including federal lawyers and judges, were on Capitol Hill on Thursday, meeting with members of the House and Senate and their staffers and appealing to them for adequate funding, said Geoff Cheshire, an assistant federal public defender from Arizona, who was among them.
"The federal defenders are the front bumper of this fiscal crunch, getting hit first and hardest. But behind it is the third branch of government as a whole. The message is, this is having real effects on the federal courts and the rule of law," Cheshire said.
He and others are pushing for Congress to make an emergency appropriation for the judiciary that would mitigate some of the cuts to defenders and the court system. Cheshire said $61 million would be enough to eliminate the furloughs.
In New York, furloughs have caused delays in the case of Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, charged with conspiring to kill Americans in his role as al-Qaida's chief spokesman. A public defender told U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan this month that furloughs in his office were making it impossible to prepare for trial quickly, prompting the judge to say he found it "extremely troublesome" and "stunning" that sequestration was interfering with the case.
***
The Department of Justice told employees on Wednesday that despite budget cuts it would not furlough anyone, including FBI agents and prosecutors. While that's good news for prosecutors, it leaves an imbalance that affects cases, several defenders said. By law, prosecutors and defenders are supposed to be paid the same but effectively are not when some defenders have to take three weeks off, they said.
Boston federal defender Miriam Conrad is representing marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. She told The Associated Press on Wednesday that it was too early to tell what the impact of the furloughs would be on Tsarnaev's case.
Other public defenders warned of the imbalance when one side has the resources of the entire Department of Justice behind it and the other is trying to handle deep cuts that could affect its investigations, ability to pay experts, and the ability to show up in court five days a week.
"Imagine the imbalance now of having people working on the case losing two or three weeks of pay," said Michael Nachmanoff, a federal public defender in Virginia.
One month before the bombings happened, Conrad told the AP in an interview that she worried furloughs could cause delays, hurt the cause of justice, be devastating to her office and demoralize her staff. She noted at the time that the office can't require or even allow its lawyers to work on furlough days.

Where in the world is the Federal JNC?

Apparently the Florida Federal JNC has not been constituted yet, leaving Judge Seitz's opening just sitting there -- with no ability to even apply. 

Meantime, Judge William Thomas' nomination to the District bench hasn't moved forward yet. 

What's going on?