Constitutional Law

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument: Week of January 14, 2008

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear argument in five cases this week. Video of ACS' Preview of the 2007-2008 Supreme Court Term is available in ACS' Multimedia Library. More information on the Term, including briefings, analysis, and videos, may be found here.

Monday, January 14

• Virginia v. Moore (06-1082) (lawfulness of search following an arrest that violates state law)
• Preston v. Ferrer (06-1463) (federal preemption of arbitration agreement on talent agent’s fees)                                                   

• U.S. v. Rodriguez (06-1646) (crimes that qualify for enhanced sentence under armed career criminal law; specific issue involves state drug crime conviction)
• Begay v. U.S. (06-11543) (whether felony drunk-driving is a violent felony for purposes of enhanced sentencing under armed career criminal law)

Wednesday, January 16

• Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics (06-937) (definition of exhaustion of patent rights when licensee sells products containing the patent)
• Meadwestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Department of Revenue (06-1413) (validity of state tax on sale of investment in LexisNexis)

Questions Presented are below the fold.

Virginia v. Moore

Does the Fourth Amendment require the suppression of evidence obtained incident to an arrest that is based upon probable cause, where the arrest violates a provision of state law?

Preston v. Ferrer

Whether the Federal Arbitration Act and Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S.Ct. 1204 (2006) preempt the holding in this case, voiding an interstate arbitration agreement under the California Talent Agencies Act?

U.S. v. Rodriguez

The Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e) (2000 & Supp. IV 2004), provides for an enhanced sentence for felons convicted of possession of a firearm, if the defendant has three prior convictions for, inter alia, a state-law controlled substance offense “for which a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law.” 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(A)(i). The question presented is: Whether a state drug-trafficking offense, for which state law authorized a ten-year sentence because the defendant was a recidivist, qualifies as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. 924(e) (2000 & Supp. IV 2004).

Begay v. U.S.

Is felony driving while intoxicated a “violent felony” for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act?

Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics

Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding, in conflict with decisions of this Court and other courts of appeals, that respondent’s patent rights were not exhausted by its license agreement with Intel Corporation, and Intel’s subsequent sale of product under the license to petitioners.

Meadwestvaco Corp. v. Illinois Department of Revenue

Is the attempt by Illinois to tax the approximately $1 billion gain realized by Petitioner when it sold its investment in Lexis/Nexis in 1994 (which it acquired in 1968 for $6 million and which functioned for 26 years as an independent, nonunitary business) in direct conflict with the decisions of the Court in Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 504 U.S. 768 (1992), FW. Woolworth Co. v. Taxation & Revenue Department of New Mexico, 458 U.S. 354 (1982) and ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Commission, 458 U.S. 307 (1982) and the Due Process and Commerce Clauses of the United States Constitution? 

Full post as published by ACS Blog on January 14, 2008 (boomark / email).