City and County of SF v. Sheehan.
This is the case involving a police use of force against a woman with a mental disability.
The Court first dismisses as improvidently granted a question whether federal law requires police officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody.
This was an issue under the Americans with Disabilitiies Act.
The Court next rules that the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for injuries suffered by the mentally disabled woman in this case.
The officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they opened the woman's door for the first time, and there is no doubt that they could have opened the door for a second time without violating her rights had she not been disabled.
Their use of force was reasonable. The only question therefore is whether they violated the Fourth Amendment when they decided to open her door rather than attempt to accommodate her disability.
Any such Fourth Amendment right, assuming it exists, was not clearly established at the time.
The vote appears to be six to two, with Scalia concurring and dissenting in part, joined by Kagan. Breyer was out.
Another one coming. This is so much fun.
But not from Sotomayor today, it would seem.
We have the next opinion: Tibble v. Edison International.
Justice Breyer for a unanimous Court.
The Court holds that the Ninth Circuit's decision is vacated; the Ninth Circuit erred by applying the statutory bar to a breach of fiduciary duty claim based on the initial selection of the investments without considering the contours of the alleged breach of fiduciary duty.
This case was argued in late February too.
Lyle reports we are into the third box now.
Ronald Mann covered Tibble for us, which means that we could have his write-up basically before the live blog is finished. He's that fast.
We could still get opinions from RGB, Kennedy, Scalia, or the Chief. Or another from Breyer.
In other words, in Tibble, the Court holds that when you file an ERISA suit involving investment decisions, the timeliness of that claim -- and so your obligation to sue -- doesn't always run from when the fiduciary first picked the investments.
Another Breyer opinion, with more to come from the Court.
Also a unanimous court. The Sixth Circuit is affirmed.
This involves a "three strikes" provision in federal law that bars a court from giving a prisoner pauper status if he has filed three or more cases that were dismissed as frivolous or failing to state a claim. The question was whether a dismissal on one of the statutorily enumerated grounds counts as one of those three strikes; the court rules that it does even if the dismissal is the subject of an ongoing appeal.
We have at least one more; not sure yet exactly how many more.
Harris v. Viegelahn is the last opinion of the day -- Ginsburg has the opinion for a unanimous court. Fifth Circuit is reversed and remanded.
The holding is as follows: a debtor who converts to Chapter 7 is entitled to the return of any post-petition wages not yet distributed by the Chapter 13 trustee.
Plenty of opinions today -- we will have full coverage of today's orders, followed by Lyle's reporting on Sheehan and coverage from Ronald Mann, Brad Joondeph, Richard Re, and Steve Vladeck. Talk about an all-star line-up! Stay tuned. And we will hopefully be back here again next Tuesday for more fun. Have a great week and holiday weekend; thanks so much for joining us today!