Photo Credit: LA Times

In a hotly contested 5-4 plurality decision that will surely go down as one of the more controversial cases of this decade, SCOTUS affirmed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in ordering the release of more than 45,000 California felons.  The decision will precipitate the largest release of prisoners in American history.

Brown v Plata began it's marathon crawl through the federal court system in 1990, when a case was filed challenging the poor status of mental health treatment in the California prisons.  Then in 2001, a companion case challenging the medical care of prisoners was initiated.

These consolidated cases have everything, from a procedural standpoint.  For example, a "special master" first was appointed by the federal court to make findings about the prison conditions.  The State of California stipulated to violations of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment and agreed to remedy the problem by reducing overcrowding in the prisons.  Next, when remedial measures fell short, or did not occur, the court appointed a receiver to oversee the California Department of Corrections.

The cases were even assigned to a special three-judge panel to oversee the CDC's progress; or lack thereof.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority's opinion, finding that prison conditions had gone too far for too long.  The opinion provides a few slices of life in the CDC like sharing a toilet with 55 of your good buddies, or doing your entire four-year bit in a sweaty gymnasium. 

The always-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia opined that the majority's decision was "absurd", noting that SCOTUS routinely overruled 9th Circuit decisions that called for the release of individual prisoners.  Justice Scalia sees grave problems that will come home to roost from the Plata ruling.

In a separate dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the majority's decision conflicts with a federal law which prohibits judges from releasing prisoners.

The one thing SCOTUS gave the State of California was time.  California has busied itself with transferring thousands of state prisoners to county jails across the state.  This will not amelioriate the entire problem, however, and some of California's "happy-go-lucky" [Scalia's characterization] felons will wind up on the streets.

This High Court decision brings into focus the inherent tension between our individual freedoms and enforcement of the laws.  There is a constant tension between the two concepts.  Sometimes, that tension cycles to the breaking point like in California, where too many law breakers are stuffed into concrete boxes that are ready to explode.

In Michigan, although we are far behind California in maxing-out our prison capacity, we have an awful lot of population encased in concrete and barbed wire.  In fact, we have the opposite problem.  Due to budget cuts, we have at least one brand new facility, in Lake County, sitting empty due to lack of funding.

http://www.clarkstonlegal.com/

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Money isn't everything, right.  Yet here is SCOTUS, taking a close second look at the money.

A case involving a Texas Billionaire's massive estate and a washed-up model turned stripper is on the SCOTUS docket for oral argument today, for the second time.  You recall this case.

The estate of former Guess Jeans model whose, er, "married" name was Vickie Lynn Marshall, and who worked under the name Anna Nicole Smith, has carried on the lawsuit she filed shortly after J. Howard's death in 1995 at age 90.

Plenty of eyebrows were raised and family feathers ruffled in 1994 when Mr. Marshall took Smith as his third wife.  Then he died and the lawsuits began.

And these lawsuits have just not stopped, despite (and perhaps because of) the fact that all the litigants have died.  Anna Nicole Smith died in a drug overdose in 2007, shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an unfavorable decision for Smith issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The case involves the scope of federal jurisdiction, eventually engulfing three separate court systems. At his death, Marshall had long established a trust estate plan leaving everything to his son, E. Pierce Marshall, who was also named trustee of the trusts.  Smith contested the trust plan, asserting that Marshall told her he would leave a portion of his estate to Smith.

What would have been a simple, although large, Texas county probate tussle went federal when Ms. Smith was hit with a default-judgment for, of all things, sexual harassment.  She filed for bankruptcy in California and her deceased husband's trustee-son claimed non-dischargability along with libel for statements Smith allegedly made against the decedent.  Smith counter claimed in the bankruptcy court for interference with her husband's estate plan.

Now hang with me on this....

The federal bankruptcy court not only dismissed the trustee's claim, it awarded Smith nearly half a billion dollars on her counter claim, finding that Marshall's son did interfere with his father's testamentary wishes.  This ruling was taken to the U.S. District Court where Smith's award was reduced to a paltry $88 million.

In the meantime, in an entirely separate proceeding, a Texas probate jury found that the decedent's estate plan was valid, ruling against Smith.  These decisions were then considered by the Ninth Circuit who invalidated the federal district court's award to Smith, holding that the Texas probate court had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters.

SCOTUS disagreed back in 2006, reversing the Ninth Circuit and holding that some issues tainted by state probate court could legitimately find their way into federal court via a properly raised bankruptcy-related issue; i.e. Smith's counterclaim.  The High Court then remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit for a determination on the merits of that claim.

On those said merits, the Ninth Circuit again ruled against the stripper.  Again, the stripper, this time through her estate because she had died, appealed to SCOTUS who once again granted certiorari.  Responding to her claims is the estate of E. Pierce Marshall, who died shortly after Smith.

And now, viola, oral argument, chapter two is here today.  Stay tuned for the result.

This time, the issue concerns the very nature of federal jurisdiction and the constitutional powers (under Article II of the Constitution) of the federal courts; delving even deeper into that subject than the first go around. For a more detailed analysis of this case, SCOTUS expert Lyle Denniston has put together an excellent oral argument "recap" published on the SCOTUSblog.

Regardless of how the High Court rules, the lesson we take away from this suit is that money drives the bulk of all litigation.  Sometimes justice is just roadkill in the process.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

As the holidays approach, college football fans once again work up their annual lather over how to end the season, and crown a national champion; or not.

Last year was controversial.  This year features two undefeated teams (Boise State and TCU) that have no chance of playing each other under the present Bowl Championship Series.  So now, our Congress is getting involved?

This week, Joe Barton, (R-Texas) introduced a bill that would proscribe the promotion, marketing, or advertising of any post-season Division I college football game as a "championship" unless it is the final game of a single-elimination tournament.  Good luck with that.

One criticism of the proposed legislation is that it may violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  While commercial speech may be closely scrutinized to prohibit untruthful or misleading messages, regular speech has the full protection of the First Amendment.

Some of you may be wondering, what is the government interest protected by this proposed bill?  Should Congress be discussing and debating college football?  Will President Obama sign it into law?

Perhaps we should simply put this down as another fine "slice of life" in the workings of our Democracy.  Besides, the annual debate among professional sports writers over who's best in football adds spice to the holiday season.