Constitutional Law

High Court Resumes Term: Orders and Argument For Feb. 23 Session

The U.S. Supreme Court resumes its October 2008 term today with argument in two cases. The Court will also hear argument in two cases on Tuesday and Wednesday. The high court, SCOTUSblog reports, also granted certiorari in six cases, including a case involving a religious symbol on public property. The cases the high court will hear argument in this week include United States v. Navajo Nation, in which the justices will determine royalty rights for the Navajo Nation, and Burlington Northern v. U.S., where a federal appeals court ruled that the Superfund law required an oil company to help clean up a site in California that once was an agricultural chemical distribution facility. In Navajo Nation, the justices will consider a lower federal appeals court decision that concluded the federal government had mismanaged the royalty rights of the tribe. The federal government holds the tribe's lands in trust and in 1984 allowed a coal company to underpay the tribe for coal deposits it mined from the land. In an editorial, The New York Times urged the high court to "affirm" the lower federal court's ruling.

The court’s argument calendar for its Feb. 23 session is available here. The high court also issued its calendar for April argument. On April 27, the justices will hear argument in Al-Marri v. Spagone, involving the president’s power to hold a detainee indefinitely. SCOTUSblog provides the entire April argument calendar here.

The high court agreed to review Salazar v. Buono, which involves an ongoing legal dispute over a Christian cross located atop a rock in the middle of the Mojave National Preserve in southern California. Federal courts have ruled that the cross on government property is a violation of the First Amendment principle of the separation of church and state.

In 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the religious symbol on public land violated the separation of church and state, and that the government’s attempt to transfer the land on which the cross sits to a private entity would not cure the constitutional violation. “The government’s long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government’s purpose in the case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in the place,” Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for the 9th Circuit. “Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve – like a donut hole with the cross atop it – will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement.”

Full post as published by ACS Blog on February 23, 2009 (boomark / email).