Statute is facially unconstitlutional because it fails to provide motel owners with an opportunity for pre-compliance review.
Sorry I know I spelled unconstitutional wrong.
this is not it; there are more opinions.
My internet is a little slow, so my computer can't keep up with my speedy fingers.
Yes, a good day for the Ninth Circuit.
The question in this case was whether a Los Angeles ordinance that required hotel owners to keep registries of guests, and allowed officers to search them without any suspicion is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The Court the ordinance facially unconstitutional.
G&R means Goldstein & Russell; Tom Goldstein, our publisher, argued on behalf of the hotel owners.
This is a strong decision for Fourth Amendment lovers.
Here's Lyle. THird opinion.
Breyer for the Court. The decision of the SEventh Circuit is vacated and remanded.
This is a pretrial detention case.
Vote is 5-4. Under Section 1883, a pretrial detainee must show only that the force purposely or knowingly used against him was objectively unreasonable to prevail on an excessive force claim.
Section 1983, not 1883, sorry.
Scalia dissents, joined by Chief and Thomas, and Alito dissents as well.
Could be from anyone from Breyer on up; nothing from Alito today.
At least one more. NOt clear how many.
This case arises out of an incident in a Wisconsin jail. Kingsley was waiting for trial on a drug charge when he got into a dispute with jail officers, who handcuffed him, forcibly removed him from his cell, and later used a taser on him. Kingsley then filed a lawsuit, alleging that jail officials had used excessive force. The question before the Court was what standard of review should apply to an excessive force claim by a pretrial detainee.
We have over 42K on the blog right now.
The Court ruled in favor of Kingsley, holding that courts should apply an objective test – the same Fourth Amendment excessive force test that applies to people who have not been arrested.
Back to Kimble: Justice Kagan notes that the Court would be much more swayed by economic arguments for overruling precedent in antitrust cases than others. Given the perceived connection between patent and antitrust, this might be surprising. But remember that the Sherman Act is a very old statute and the Supreme Court has been largely responsible for giving it content over the last 100+ years. In patent, Congress has been much more active.
We have the fourth and last opinion. Horne v. Department of Agriculture.
Decision of the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
Fifth Amendment requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes personal property, just as when it takes real property.
Any net proceeds the raisin growers receive from the sale of the reserve raisins goes to the amount of compensation they have received for that taking. It does not mean that the raisins have not been appropriated for government use, nor can the government make raisin growers relinquish their property without just compensation as a condition for selling in interstate commerce.
It is 5-4 as to at least some parts. Breyer, Ginsburg and Kagan partly concur, partly dissent. Sotomayor dissents in full.
This is a major blow to government's program of trying to boost prices by keeping crops off the market.
We heard this from Lyle, not through the grapevine.
We are now waiting to hear from Lyle what the Marshal says about when the Court will next sit. But that is indeed the last opinion.