LawyersUSA

The U.S. Supreme Court's recently concluded term was marked by a number of significant cases that boosted the rights of criminal defendants, gave employees greater options for seeking redress, buoyed businesses and made federal preemption the presumptive law of the land.

Rights of defendants upheld

Throughout the year the Court handed down a number of important criminal decisions.

In two rulings, the justices gave far greater discretion to trial judges to impose sentences outside the federal sentencing guidelines.

In Gall v. U.S., No. 06-799, the Court reaffirmed its 2005 decision in U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, that the federal sentencing guidelines are advisory only, and held that appellate courts cannot require a showing of "extraordinary circumstances" for sentences below the guidelines to be allowed to stand.

The same day, in Kimbrough v. U.S., No. 06-6330, the Court held that judges have the discretion to impose shorter sentences for crack cocaine offenses than required under the federal sentencing guidelines, which called for a sentence 100 times greater than for the same amount of powder cocaine.

In some experts' view, the rulings show that although the Court has in the past extolled the virtues of uniformity under the sentencing guidelines as a way to achieve fairness, it now realizes that trusting trial courts is the best way to ensure just sentences.

"What the court has consistently done [since Booker] is said: 'We trust district judges,'" said Thomas C. Goldstein, a partner in the Washington office of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld and one of the authors of SCOTUSBlog, at a recent panel discussion hosted by the American Constitution Society.

"It [has] said: 'We are going to accept some inconsistency in the name of more fundamental fairness,'" he added.

In another sentencing case – Greenlaw v. U.S., No. 07-330 – the Court held that the federal appellate courts cannot unilaterally increase the sentence of a criminal defendant in the absence of an appeal or cross-appeal by the government.

The justices sided with criminal defendants in a number of other cases, including Giles v. California, No. 07-6053, where it held that a murder defendant does not forfeit his right to keep the victim's prior testimonial statements out of evidence unless the defendant killed the victim for the purpose of preventing trial testimony. (See the accompanying story.)

In Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment prohibited the death penalty in child rape cases.

And, in a decision handed down on the second-to-last day of its term, the Court invalidated a Washington, D.C. ban on handguns in D.C. v. Heller, No. 07-290, finding that the desire to stem crime in the nation's capitol did not trump the right of citizens to own firearms.

But the defense didn't win in every significant criminal case this term. In U.S. v. Rodriquez, No. 06-1646, the Court ruled that a previous conviction under a state drug law that gives high sentences for recidivist drug offenders can trigger the federal Armed Career Criminal Act, which automatically boosts a sentence for gun possession.

The Act can apply even if the sentence for the underlying offense would not meet the threshold but for the state recidivism law.

It also upheld the constitutionality of the three-drug combination used for lethal injections in Baze v. Rees, No. 07-5439.

Preemption is the presumption

The Court continued its trend of finding that state law claims – including state-based tort claims – are preempted when federal law addresses the issue.

In Riegel v. Medtronic, No. 06-179, the Court held that state law tort claims over a premarket-approved medical device were preempted by the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, a section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which establishes the scheme for federal regulation of medical devices.

Miguel A. Estrada, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and a veteran Supreme Court litigator, said Riegel and other preemption cases this term signal a sea change in the Court's thinking.

"The Court for several years had been very much of a federalism mind that there is a presumption against preemption," Estrada said during a recent panel discussion hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's National Chamber Litigation Center. "One looks at the latest cases in vain for any mention of this presumption. That to me is a very important sign that they may be beginning to see there is a federal side to the federal–state balance."

Other pro-preemption cases this term included Preston v. Ferrer, No. 06-1463, in which the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act precluded television's "Judge Alex" Ferrer from going to state court to invalidate his contract with his former manager.

The court also ruled in favor of federal preemption in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, No. 06-457, holding that a state law requiring delivery companies to verify that the recipients of tobacco products are of legal age was preempted by a federal law forbidding states from regulating motor carriers.

Workers prevail in big employment cases

After a previous term marked by a number of pro-employer decisions, the Supreme Court gave a number of victories to employees, with the biggest boost coming in a pair of decisions expanding the scope of retaliation claims workers may bring.

In two opinions, the Court upheld retaliation causes of action under federal statutes. In Gomez-Perez v. Potter, No. 06-1037, the Court held 6-3 that federal employees who complain of age discrimination have the right to bring a retaliation claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, even in the absence of explicit retaliation language in the law.

And in CBOCS West v. Humphries, No. 06­1431, the Court held that an employee who lost his job after complaining about the racially discriminatory treatment of another employee can bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1981.

In another pro-worker ruling, the Court held in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, No. 06-1505, that in disparate impact claims under the ADEA the employer bears the burden proving that "reasonable factors other than age" were the basis for an adverse employment decision.

In Sprint/United Management Company v. Mendelsohn, No. 06-1221, the Court allowed the admission of "me too" evidence – evidence of discrimination against other employees by supervisors not involved in the plaintiff's suit – in employment discrimination claims in some circumstances.

But employees didn't win them all. In Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, No. 07-474, the Court held that a public employee cannot bring a "class of one" equal protection claim.

Businesses buoyed

In one of the biggest business cases of the year, the Court held that defrauded stockholders had not shown the reliance necessary to bring an action against third-party actors under the Securities Exchange Act in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta Inc., No. 06-43. The ruling dealt a defeat to Enron investors who sought redress from accountants, attorneys and others who worked with the company.

And in Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, No. 07-219, the Court vacated a punitive damages award against the oil company over the massive oil spill off Alaska's coast. The justices found the $2.5 billion punitive damages award to be excessive, holding that it should not exceed the compensatory award of $507.5 million. (Additional reporting on this case can be found in an article on page 1.)

Questions or comments can be directed to the writer at: kimberly.atkins@lawyersusaonline.com