Summary
Constitutional Law
Congressional Accountability ActSee the full content of this document
Extract
Federal Court Digests: June 11, 2007
BOTTOM LINE: The Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 412 because neither the dismissal denial nor the D. C. Circuit's affirmance can fairly be characterized as a ruling "upon the constitutionality" of any Act provision.
CASE: Office of Sen. Mark Dayton v. Hanson, No. 06-618 (decided May 21, 2007) (Justices STEVENS, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer & Alito).FACTS: After his discharge from employment with former Senator Dayton, appellee Hanson sued appellant, the Senator's office (Office), invoking the District Court's jurisdiction under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (Act). The court denied a motion to dismiss based on a claim of immunity under the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause, and the D. C. Circuit affirmed.The Office then sought to appeal under Section 412 of the Act, which authorizes review in this Court of "any judgment upon the constitutionality of any provision" of the Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and denied certiorari.LAW: The District Court's order does not state any grounds for decision, so it cannot be characterized as a constitutional holding. Moreover, neither the Court of Appeals' rejection of the Office's argument that forcing the Senator to defend against Hanson's allegations would necessarily contravene the Speech or Debate Clause, nor that court's leaving open the possibility that the Clause may limit the proceedings' scope in some respects, qualifies as a ruling on the Act's validity.The Office's argument that the appeals court's holding amounts to a ruling that the Act is constitutional "as applied" cannot be reconciled with Section 413's declaration that the Act's authorization to sue "shall not constitute a waiver of the privileges of any Senator under [the Clause.]" Nor do any special circumstances justify exercise of this Court's discretionary certiorari jurisdiction, the D. C. Circuit having abandoned an earlier decision that was in conflict with another Circuit on the Clause's application to suits challenging a congressional Member's personnel decisions.Criminal ProcedureJuror qualificationsBOTTOM LINE: Courts reviewing claims of error under Witherspoon and Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, especially federal habeas courts, owe deference to the trial court, which is in a superior position to determine a potential juror's demeanor and qualifications.CASE: Uttecht v. Brown, No. 06-413 (decided June 4, 2007) (Justices Roberts, Scalia, KENNEDY, Thomas Alito) (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg & Breyer, dissenting).FACTS: A Washington jury sentenced respondent Brown to death, and the state appellate courts affirmed. Subsequently, the Federal District Court denied Brown's habeas petition, but the 9th Circuit reversed, finding that under Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, and its progeny, ...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
