Kosher Prisons

Curt Anderson is covering the kosher meal dispute in Florida jails.  Here's the latest twist and turn from the 11th Circuit:

Despite Florida's recent change of policy, a federal appeals court Tuesday reinstated a lawsuit filed by a Jewish prison inmate who claimed his rights were violated by the state Department of Corrections' previous refusal to serve kosher meals.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered a lower federal judge to reconsider the lawsuit filed in 2010 by Bruce Rich, an Orthodox Jew who is serving a life sentence at Union Correctional Institution. The judge previously dismissed the lawsuit at the state's request, citing lack of evidence.
Florida announced earlier this year it would resume offering kosher meals statewide by September to prisoners who qualify. The appeals judges, however, determined that Rich deserved a new hearing on his lawsuit despite the policy change.
"There is nothing to suggest that Florida will not simply end the new kosher meal program at some point in the future, just as it did in 2007," they wrote. The judges also noted that the policy was changed just two weeks before oral arguments were held in Rich's appeal and initially affected only his prison.
The ruling comes as a federal judge in Miami is considering a similar lawsuit filed by the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which contends that the new prisons diet program should be overseen by court order. U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz has scheduled a June 4 hearing in that case.
State officials "continue to argue that they may deny a kosher diet to prisoners at any time," the federal lawyers wrote.

Tuesday News & Notes

1.  Which group is more diverse?  The U.S. Supreme Court or the lawyers who argue before it? 

The Supreme Court by a long shot.  From the AP:

In roughly 75 hours of arguments at the Supreme Court since October, only one African-American lawyer appeared before the justices, and for just over 11 minutes.

The numbers were marginally better for Hispanic lawyers. Four of them argued for a total of 1 hour, 45 minutes.

Women were better represented, accounting for just over 17 percent of the arguments before the justices.

In an era when three women, a Hispanic and an African-American sit on the court and white men constitute a bare majority of the nine justices, the court is more diverse than the lawyers who argue before it.

***

The statistics from the court term, though, also reveal a lack of African-American and Hispanic lawyers in the elite Justice Department unit that represents the federal government at the Supreme Court.

The top supervisory positions in the Office of the Solicitor General all are held by men, though there are six women in the office who argued high court cases this term.

The office serves as a pipeline to the big firms that dominate the argument calendar at the court. Lawyers in the office make several arguments a term and acquire the experience and ease of standing before the justices that make them attractive to private firms.

2.   What does defalcation mean? Even though the Urban Dictionary doesn't define it, the High Court has finally decided:

After a century and a half of uncertainty, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday finally decided the meaning of "defalcation," a word in the bankruptcy code that can refer to embezzlement but also, more generally, misuse of funds.
Under federal bankruptcy law, anyone acting as a fiduciary who later seeks bankruptcy relief cannot discharge debts if there is evidence of "fraud or defalcation."
In a unanimous decision, the court said that for a court to make a defalcation finding about a trustee, the person in question must be acting with gross negligence or have some knowledge that what he or she is doing is improper.
In the past, the precise meaning of defalcation had not been determined by the Supreme Court. The term was first used in bankruptcy law in 1841 and in relation to discharge of debt in 1867.
In making its views known, the court handed a victory to Randy Bullock, an Illinois man who is filing for bankruptcy.
Bullock wanted to discharge debt concerning money he owes for his role overseeing his father's life insurance trust. He used money from the trust to make investments for himself and other family members. He eventually paid the money back with interest.
The question before the court was whether Bullock's actions, which did not deprive the trust of any money, fitted within the legal definition of defalcation.
The court did not make a final determination on that point, instead remanding the case back to the district court so that the new definition of defalcation can be applied.

3.  Sixty percent of the time the Supreme Court is unanimous.  I was surprised (via USA Today):

With three more 9-0 rulings issued Monday, the nine justices of the Supreme Court have now reached unanimous decisions in nearly 60% of the cases decided this term -- a loftier rate of agreement than in recent years.
That percentage is sure to drop as more controversial cases are decided between now and the end of June, when the 2012 term ends. Last term, the justices were unanimous 45% of the time. The recent high was 48% two years ago. From 2006-08, fewer than four in 10 rulings were unanimous.
For this time of year, however, the 60% mark is quite an achievement for a court narrowly divided between Republican and Democratic nominees. During the past three years, slightly more than half the decisions were unanimous at this time, according to detailed statistics kept by Scotusblog.com.
Chief Justice John Roberts puts a premium on reaching consensus. So he likely was pleased Monday when the three decisions announced by Democratic nominees Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan each garnered nine votes. None of the other justices even chose to write separate concurring opinions.

11th Circuit conference criticized

Seems like every judicial conference is under attack these days.  From Jaime Dupree of the AJC:

Even as automatic budget cuts force various federal agencies to cut spending, a group of federal judges from the Atlanta-based Eleventh Circuit went ahead with their 2013 Judicial Conference last week, spending several days - and maybe several hundred thousand dollars - at a golf resort and spa in Savannah, Georgia.
"The Eleventh Circuit did not cancel the 2013 conference because it is an infrequent and valuable meeting of judges and attorneys that improves the administration of justice within the circuit," said James Gerstenlauer, the Chief Executive of the Eleventh Circuit, as he defended the legal gathering.
"In addition, there were significant financial costs associated with cancelling the conference because of contractual guarantees made to the hotel and the conference center," Gerstenlauer added in an email.
The gathering of 167 federal judges from Georgia, Florida and Alabama came just weeks after the Chief Judge for the Eleventh Circuit was quoted on a legal web site as saying the $85 billion sequester was having a "devastating impact" on the federal judiciary.
The last judicial conference held by the Eleventh Circuit was in May of 2011 at the Swan Hotel in Orlando, Florida; Gerstenlauer said that gathering cost "about $211,000 in travel and lodging expenses" for 159 judges.
"The government travel costs for the 2013 conference are not yet compiled," Gerstenlauer said.
***
The theme of the conference was, "Justice, History, and Civil Liberties," and featured "historical presentations about Thomas Jefferson and the trial of the slave ship Wanderer."
"No taxpayer funds were spent for speakers for the conference or for the slave ship Wanderer presentation," Gerstenlauer said.

 The article also has a response from the 11th Circuit, which is interesting. Here's a portion of it:

No taxpayer funds were spent for speakers for the conference or for the slave ship Wanderer presentation.

Attendees received retractable pens, which cost approximately 58 cents each; no taxpayer funds were used to purchase the pens. No gifts were provided to conferees.

The Eleventh Circuit did not cancel the 2013 conference because it is an infrequent and valuable meeting of judges and attorneys that improves the administration of justice within the circuit.  In addition, there were significant financial costs associated with cancelling the conference because of contractual guarantees made to the hotel and the conference center.

The travel expenses for federal judges were paid with government funds pursuant to travel regulations.  No reimbursements were provided for either their spouses or family members.  Attorney attendees paid a $375 conference registration fee and paid their own travel expenses. The government travel costs for the 2013 conference are not yet compiled.  

What are your thoughts on judicial conferences?

Gen. William Suter

The Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the Federal Bar Association yesterday at the Hyatt.  It was a very entertaining speech.  Lots of good stories about the Court.

But Suter was also substantive.  For example, he predicted that the exclusionary rule would be abolished in the near term.  He reasoned that the exclusionary rule was not as necessary any longer because police are better trained than they used to be.

He also made predictions about the affirmative action case, and said that if the case was remanded for strict scrutiny analysis that it would have a hard time getting back before the Supreme Court because Justice Kagan was recused.

Judge Graham asked him about cameras in the courtroom and explained that no one had taken advantage of the pilot program here in his division the SDFLA.  Suter was not in favor of cameras, saying Congress should pass a budget first and that cameras would demean the Court.  He also said no one would watch.  Not a convincing argument for me, but that seems to be the feeling of the Court.

I asked him if he read SCOTUSBlog.  He said yes, he needed to find out what was going on in the Court every morning.  Good stuff.

U.S. Supreme Court Clerk William Suter to speak to the Federal Bar today

They call him "The General" and he'll be at the Hyatt at noon. 

He's retiring at the end of this Term after 20 years at the High Court.

Should be an entertaining talk.