Tagged: Supreme Court

Prof. Bennett Gershman on Howes v. Fields 0

Prof. Bennett Gershman on Howes v. Fields

Pace Law School Professor Bennett Gershman, an expert on criminal procedure and ethics, is available to speak to the press about Howes v. Fields, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday.

“The Miranda decision once again is before the Court, this time in the context of an interrogation of a prison inmate by police deputies who did not first warn the defendant of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, and after which he confessed to having sex with a child. This confession was used to convict him, and he was sentenced to prison for up to fifteen years.

The Court in another case decided last term involving Miranda custody (JDB v. North Carolina) held that a minor’s age should properly be considered in determining whether he was in custody. The defendant in the present case — Howes v. Field — was isolated from the general prison population and questioned by police for 7 hours before he confessed. Although some lower courts have held that the mere fact that a person being questioned is a jailhouse inmate does not necessarily trigger Miranda warnings, as long as the confinement is de minimis, or there is some nexus between the questioning and his confinement. But in the present case, the very long duration of interrogation, the fact that the defendant was isolated from the prison population, and the fact that there was no nexus between his confinement and the subject matter of the interrogation suggest that the Court will find that the failure to advise him of his right to remain silent and his right to an attorney violates Miranda and will doom his conviction.”

Prof. Linda Fentiman on Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital 0

Prof. Linda Fentiman on Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital

Pace Law School Professor Linda Fentiman is available to speak to the media about Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, which will be argued before the Supreme Court on Monday.

“The case has important implications for states as they try to control spiraling health care costs under the federal-state partnership that is Medicaid. The case is also likely to have political ramifications for the Department of Health and Human Services as it is ramping up to implement the Affordable Care Act, which raises issues about whether the internal administrative remedies for resolving disputes about Medicaid payment should be exclusive, taking place outside of federal courts.
This case turns on who can challenge the adequacy of payments to healthcare providers under Medicaid. It began when a coalition of healthcare providers and patients who receive healthcare through Medicaid sued California to prevent it from implementing major budget cuts to Medicaid (called Medi-Cal in California) due to its financial crisis. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has said these suits can go forward, and has enjoined California from making the budget cuts. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari…”

Prof. John Humbach on SCOTUS decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 0

Prof. John Humbach on SCOTUS decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association

Pace Law School Professor John Humbach, an expert on First Amendment Law, especially as it relates to teenagers, is available to speak to the media about the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association.

“The central question in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association was the extent to which persons under age 18 have the normal constitutional rights of free speech and expression. Reduced to its basics, the issue was whether state government should be able to control what minors see, read, and hear. There is good reason to think that this sort of government control of teenage minds is a generally bad thing, but there are also many people who see value in such control.

Arguably, at least, government should not simply leave the development of teenagers’ personalities, tastes, attitudes, and values to their families, parents and the other people in their lives. Instead, one could say, government exists not just to serve its citizens but to shape them as well….”

Prof. Karl Coplan on SCOTUS decision in American Electric Power Co. v. Conn. 0

Prof. Karl Coplan on SCOTUS decision in American Electric Power Co. v. Conn.

Pace Law School Professor Karl Coplan, an expert on global warming, is available to speak to the media about the Supreme Court’s decision in American Electric Power Co. v. Conn.

“The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its finding in Massachusetts v EPA that the EPA has a primary role in determining the threats posed by greenhouse gas emissions and promulgating regulations at the federal level to impose appropriate limits on sources of these emissions. At the same time, the Court refused to dismiss the plaintiffs’ climate change claims, and left open the possibility that the plaintiffs could succeed in obtaining relief based on state common law theories. Most importantly, the Court (in a tie vote) left undisturbed the Second Circuit’s finding that the federal courts have jurisdiction over cases seeking relief from climate change injuries. Even though the decision takes the form of a reversal of the second circuit decision, this case is a victory for plaintiffs seeking judicial remedies for climate change.”

Professor Ann Bartow on the Supreme Court’s decision in Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership. 0

Professor Ann Bartow on the Supreme Court’s decision in Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership.

Pace Law School Professor Ann Bartow, an expert on patent law, is available to speak to the media today on the Supreme Court’s decision in Microsoft v. i4i Limited Partnership.
“The outcome in the Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership litigation was entirely predictable, given the Supreme Court’s almost unanimous affinity for establishing some certainty in the patent law arena. Over past decade the Court has criticized the Federal Circuit a number of times for attempting to implement substantive changes to what the Court views as settled doctrine. In this case the Federal Circuit followed what it viewed as important past precedent, and one can almost hear the Supreme Court Justices sighing with relief!

I hasten to add, however, that just because the Court’s decision in the case was predictable, doesn’t necessarily mean it was advisable. Mechanically vesting a patent with a strong presumption of validity is arguably a fairly poor policy choice. But in the Court’s view, at least as expressed here, that is a problem that Congress is best suited to deal with.”

Skip to toolbar