Federal Judiciary

Today’s Opinions | 1.26.09

By Akin Gump Supreme Court Practice Group

The Court has released the opinion in Van de Kamp v. Goldstein (07-854), on whether supervising district attorneys possess absolute immunity against claims they failed to ensure line prosecutors disclosed constitutionally required information to criminal defendants. The ruling below, which held for the criminal defendant, is reversed and remanded. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court. The opinion is available here.

The Court has released the opinion in Arizona v. Johnson (07-1122), on whether, in the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, an officer may conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but had no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense. The ruling below, which held for the defendant, is reversed and remanded. Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court. The opinion is available here.

The Court has released the opinion in Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville (06-1595), involving the extent that Title VII?s anti-retaliation provision protects employees from being fired for cooperating with an employer?s internal sexual harassment investigation. The ruling below, which held for the government of Nashville, is reversed and remanded. Justice Souter wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court, with Justice Alito concurring only in the judgment joined by Justice Thomas. The opinion is available here.

The Court has released the opinion in Kennedy v. Plan Administrators for Dupont Savings (07-636), on whether ERISA?s Qualified Domestic Relations Order provision is the only valid way a divorcing spouse can waive her right to receive her ex-husband?s pension benefits under ERISA. The ruling below, which held for the pension plan, is affirmed. Justice Souter wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court. The opinion is available here.

The Court has released the opinion in US v. Eurodif (07-1059), on whether contracts for uranium enrichment services are subject to federal anti-dumping laws. The ruling below, which held for Eurodif, is reversed and remanded.  Justice Souter wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court. The opinion is available here.

Full post as published by SCOTUSBLOG on January 26, 2009 (boomark / email).