Top decisions of the decade

Listen to this article

Presidential candidates and enemy combatants; eminent domain and evidence; gun laws; sentencing guidelines and civil rights all were reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the past decade.
Asked to name the most significant decisions of the decade, some Rochester attorneys and judges identified state court cases, but many began by citing decisions rendered by nation’s highest court.
1. Bush v. Gore, 531 US 98, 121 SCt 525 (2000)
The U.S. Supreme Court began the first decade of the new millennium with an unprecedented case that scandalized many court watchers.
In Bush v. Gore, the nation’s highest court decided for the first time who the President of the United States would be.
The Florida Supreme Court had ordered a recount of election ballots, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional.
Monroe County Bar Association President Harold Kurland said the decision has been criticized because it took a political position.
“Had it been decided a different way, history itself could have been very different,” attorney Carolyn Nussbaum at Nixon & Peabody LLP said.
Attorney Michael Wolford of The Wolford Law Firm LLP also said the court’s 5-4 was significant, and “judges that typically would have defended states’ rights said they should stop counting,” or recounting, the ballots.
2. Guantanamo cases
The Supreme Court has issued significant rulings on the rights of individuals being held as enemy combatants at a U.S. military base in Guantanamo, Cuba.
First, the Court determined that federal courts have jurisdiction over inmates in the Guantanamo prison, located outside of the territorial United States, in Rasul v. Bush, 542 US 466 (2004).
The Court went on to uphold detainees’ right to challenge their detention through a writ of habeus corpus in Boumediene v. Bush 533 US _; 128 SCt 2229 (2008).
“Both were cases that rejected the Bush administration’s claim that Guantanamo was outside the court’s jurisdiction,” Wolford said.
Attorney Jon Getz of Muldoon & Getz predicted the rulings will continue to be significant, in part because of the new ways by which warfare is conducted.
3. Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 US _; 129 SCt 2658 (2009)
Seventh Judicial District Administra-tive Judge Thomas Van Strydonck cited a recent decision on employment discrimination as one of the decade’s most significant.
In Ricci v. DeStefano, the Court overturned a Second Circuit opinion written by now-Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to uphold a promotional exam for firefighters in New Haven, Conn.
“The case will have an impact into the future on the rights of minorities to preferred treatment in hiring and promotion,” Judge Van Strydonck said.
Wolford also cited the decision in Ricci, which he wrote about in July 2009 column for The Daily Record.
Ricci “laid out a new standard for federal courts to follow in the review of Title VII claims,” Wolford wrote. “The high court concluded that a race-based action is impermissible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unless the employer: ‘[C]an demonstrate a strong basis in evidence that, had it not taken the action, it would have been liable under the disparate-impact statute.’ 2009 WL 1835138, *4 (June 29).”
4. Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 (2004)
Crawford v. Washington reached one of the most fundamental elements of a criminal matter: the Constitutional right of a defendant to confront his or her accuser.
Crawford basically reversed a longstanding precedent set by Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56, and reinvigorated the confrontation clause as part of the Bill of Rights, Judge Van Strydonck said.
Under Crawford, where testimonial statements are at issue, the defendant has a right to confrontation. The decision marked a significant change in the court’s reading of the confrontation clause, Getz said.
5. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 2009 WL 1361536 (2009)
The court’s recent decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal will have a significant impact on the way lawsuits can be commenced in federal court, Kurland said.
The Court dismissed the complaint in a federal case on the ground it did not allege a claim that was plausible on its face.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that a plaintiff provide “a short and plain statement of the claim” (FRCP Rule 8). The rule’s primary purpose is to give defendants fair notice of the claim, Kurland said. Plaintiffs typically have the opportunity to prove the claim through the discovery process.
That system “has been criticized for making court access too easy, and litigation too costly and burdensome. On the other side, [is the] argument that there must be fair access” to the courts, Kurland said.
Iqbal, a Pakistani who pleaded guilty to a terror-related act, claimed his civil rights were violated in jail. He sued under federal civil rights laws, naming then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft as a defendant. Iqbal’s claim required an allegation of intent, which the court said was not plausible on its face.
“Any case has the risk of being dismissed based on the judge’s hunch that the case is not plausible on its face, without any opportunity to develop the actual facts,” Kurland said. “It raises fundamental policy issues about the purposes of the courts.”
Both Kurland and Nussbaum noted there already have been attempts by Congress to overturn Iqbal.
Nussbaum said another recent decision, Bell Atlantic v. Twombley (2007), also addressed the pleading requirements for cases in federal court.
“Time will tell how the courts actually apply those cases, but they do have, I think, far-reaching consequences,” Nussbaum said.
6. D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. _ (2008)
In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court issued a ruling on the Second Amendment for the first time since 1939, Getz said.
“We don’t know what it means yet. … We still don’t know how far this reaches,” he said.
The right to own and bear arms has been treated differently than other civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, Getz said.
It is unclear whether the Second Amendment provides individuals with the right to keep guns in their homes for private use, or if it only allows states a collective right to form a militia.
In Heller, the court upheld an individual’s right to possess firearms.
7. U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)
Another decision with far-reaching impacts on criminal cases was U.S. v. Booker, Getz said.
The Supreme Court ruled federal judges may treat the federal sentencing guidelines as advisory, not as mandatory.
The decision gives judges the discretion to modify the sentencing guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and represented a shift in the balance of power from the executive to the judiciary branch, Getz said.
8. Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, 552 U.S. 148 (2008)
In a major securities fraud case, the Supreme Court ruled there is no private right of action against those who act in a secondary role to a securities fraud.
Stoneridge protects accountants, lawyers or other advisors who allegedly participate in a scheme to violate Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 from being sued by private investors.
9. Tellabs v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd., 551 US 308 (2007)
Tellabs v. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd. set the level of detail necessary to sustain a securities fraud complaint.
Specifically it addressed competing inferences and the strong inference of scienter, or intent, required by the federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
The decision “has led to a number of correctly decided decisions that have dismissed complaints that don’t meet that level,” Nussbaum said.
10. Kelo v. New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
Kelo v. New London drew significant media attention to the question of when a government may seize private property for public purpose.
The Court held that the government in an eminent domain situation can look at what it believes to be a financial improvement to an area for the purposes of seizing property.
“What it really does is give a significant amount of authority to town planning boards and other entities as to how that plays out,” Getz said.
Other significant legal developments include the significance of electronic evidence in criminal cases and increasing collaboration among federal, state and local law enforcement agencies.
The role of electronic data “is without a doubt the most significant change in the pursuit and prosecution of cases,” according to former U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York Terrance Flynn. The use of computers and cell phones to perpetrate — as well as reveal criminal activity — has transformed the field.
Judge Van Strydonck predicted that recent state legislation permitting the civil commitment of sex offenders under the Mental Hygiene Law will work its way through the courts, as well.
— [email protected]