Notable and ignoble Supreme Court cases

[waltky]

"Supreme Court rules in favor of former Iowa drug addict"...

The Important Supreme Court Decision You Didn't Hear About Last Week
6 Mar.`11 - If you think Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church made out well last week before the U.S. Supreme Court consider the case of Jason Pepper. The confessed former methamphetamine dealer won his own case last week at the high court -- and may not have to go back to prison for his old crime (he was released pending the appeal).

The reason you probably haven't heard much about Pepper is because the decision in his case, Pepper v. United States, came out last Wednesday just a few minutes before the justices released their opinion in the high-profile case of Snyder v. Phelps, in which the court upheld the free speech rights of anti-gay funeral protesters. Virtually all of the coverage of the day's Supreme Court news, and the next day's for that matter, focused on the Phelps' First Amendment case, leaving Pepper's sentencing decision under reported, if not completely under appreciated. "Supreme Court rules in favor of former Iowa drug addict" is how the Des Moines Register put it.

The court, in a 6-2 vote (Justice Elena Kagan recused), held that Pepper's rights had been violated when a judge who was re-sentencing him refused to consider the significant "rehabilitation" Pepper had accomplished since first being sentenced years earlier. In so doing, the justices moved to finally end an eight-year-long case (a case far longer, by the way, than either of the sentences meted out to Pepper) and generated another round of judicial debate over the roles of the courts and the Congress when it comes to crime and punishment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion. She offered yet another interpretation of the vagaries of the sentencing guidelines, the congressionally sanctioned and judicially administered rules that help determine which convicted criminal gets which prison sentence and why. For the third time in six years, the court weighed the policies contained in those guidelines and rejected them. So that sound you heard late last week was the sound of federal prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys scrambling over their sentencing tactics in pending federal cases. Like its immediate predecessors, Pepper v. United States is required reading.

About those predecessors. In 2005, the Court in Booker v. United States stunned many people when it declared the guidelines "advisory" and not "mandatory" to give back some sentencing discretion to the federal judges who are asked to impose a sentence. In 2007, the court in Kimbrough v. United States, furthered refined the scope of the guidelines, again saying that they must yield to constitutional protections. And now Pepper, which is particularly relevant at a time when federal prisons in some jurisdictions (like California) are terribly overcrowded. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented (separately) and Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion.

MORE

 

[waltky]

Supreme Court rules against drug companies...

Court sides with investors on disclosing drug reactions
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with investors who seek to sue companies for failing to reveal adverse information about their products. Justices ruled 9-0 against a drug company that did not disclose its cold medicine was linked to a loss of smell.

The case, clarifying the evidence investors must show to get through the courthouse door, involved Matrixx Initiatives and its over-the-counter Zicam Cold Remedy, which had been sold as a nasal spray and gel. Investors said the product had accounted for about 70% of Matrixx's sales. A group of investors sued Matrixx for a "material" misrepresentation and omission under federal securities law because the company did not publicly report that medical researchers in the early 2000s had traced Zicam to the loss of smell, known as anosmia, and that related personal-injury lawsuits against the company had been filed. The company had instead issued a press release saying any statements alleging a problem were "completely unfounded and misleading." On Feb. 6, 2004, ABC's Good Morning America reported on the medical findings. That report said more than a dozen patients had suffered from anosmia after using Zicam and that four lawsuits had been filed against Matrixx. The price of Matrixx stock immediately plummeted. The nasal products are no longer sold.

Investors filed a securities fraud class action on behalf of those who bought stock in the months preceding the Good Morning America broadcast. Matrixx countered that the case should be dismissed because investors had not alleged that the company received and withheld "statistically significant evidence" that Zicam caused a loss of smell. A U.S. trial judge agreed and threw out the case. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed, saying such statistical evidence was not required. The Supreme Court affirmed. An opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor favoring shareholders said the absence of statistical data "does not mean that medical experts have no reliable basis for inferring a causal link between a drug and adverse events."

"This is not a case about a handful of anecdotal reports, as Matrixx suggests," Sotomayor wrote. "Matrixx received information that plausibly indicated a reliable causal link between Zicam and anosmia. That information included reports from three medical professionals and researchers about more than 10 patients who had lost their sense of smell after using Zicam." Sotomayor said lower court judges should look at several factors when deciding whether to allow such securities fraud cases to go forward. She cautioned that a few reports of adverse events are not enough. "Something more is needed, but that something more is not limited to statistical significance and can come from the source, content and context of the reports," she wrote. Sotomayor also noted that the Food and Drug Administration relies on a wide range of evidence, beyond statistics, in taking regulatory action and had in 2009 warned Matrixx that "a significant and growing body of evidence substantiates that the Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal products may pose a serious risk to consumers who use them."

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had entered the case of Matrixx Initiatives v. Siracusano, urging the high court not to adopt the strict test advocated by the pharmaceutical company. Josh Yount, a Chicago lawyer who specializes in securities cases, said businesses had been closely watching the dispute because of recent court trends requiring plaintiffs in some situations to show more evidence to get a case heard. "Over the past 10 to 20 years, the Supreme Court has definitely tightened the standards and brought a higher scrutiny to securities fraud cases," he said. When the justices agreed to review the 9th Circuit ruling against statistical evidence, it raised the question of whether it was going to institute that requirement. Yount said Tuesday's ruling, however, offered a "full throated affirmation" of prior court decisions on material misrepresentations or omissions.

Source

 

[waltky]

Gotta get a warrant Supreme Court says to do GPS tracking...

Warrant needed for GPS tracking, high court says
23 Jan.`12 WASHINGTON – In a rare defeat for law enforcement, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed on Monday to bar police from installing GPS technology to track suspects without first getting a judge's approval. The justices made clear it wouldn't be their final word on increasingly advanced high-tech surveillance of Americans.

Indicating they will be monitoring the growing use of such technology, five justices said they could see constitutional and privacy problems with police using many kinds of electronic surveillance for long-term tracking of citizens' movements without warrants. While the justices differed on legal rationales, their unanimous outcome was an unusual setback for government and police agencies grown accustomed to being given leeway in investigations in post-Sept. 11 America, including by the Supreme Court. The views of at least the five justices raised the possibility of new hurdles down the road for police who want to use high-tech surveillance of suspects, including various types of GPS technology. "The Supreme Court's decision is an important one because it sends a message that technological advances cannot outpace the American Constitution," said Donald Tibbs, a professor at the Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel University. "The people will retain certain rights even when technology changes how the police are able to conduct their investigations."

A GPS device installed by police on Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones' Jeep and tracked for four weeks helped link him to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before an appeals court overturned his conviction. It's not clear how much difficulty police agencies would have with warrant requirements in this area; historically they are rarely denied warrants they request. But the Obama administration argued that getting one could be cumbersome, perhaps impossible in the early stages of an investigation. In the Jones case, police got a warrant but did not install the GPS device until after the warrant had expired and then in a jurisdiction that wasn't covered by the document.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the government's installation of the device, and its use of the GPS to monitor the vehicle's movements, constituted a search, meaning a warrant was required. "Officers encroached on a protected area," Scalia wrote. Relying on a centuries-old legal principle, he concluded that the police action without a warrant was a trespass and therefore an illegal search. He was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. All nine justices agreed that the GPS monitoring on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, a decision the American Civil Liberties Union said was an "important victory for privacy."

But there was a major division between Scalia, the court's conservative leader, and Justice Samuel Alito, a former federal prosecutor and usually a Scalia ally, over how much further the court should go beyond just saying that police can't put a GPS device on something used by a suspect without a warrant. Alito wrote, in a concurring opinion, that the trespass was not as important as the suspect's expectation of privacy and the duration of the surveillance. "The use of longer-term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy," Alito wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor in her concurring opinion specifically said she agreed with Alito on this conclusion.

MORE

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"Supreme Court rules in favor of former Iowa drug addict"...

The Important Supreme Court Decision You Didn't Hear About Last Week
6 Mar.`11 - If you think Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church made out well last week before the U.S. Supreme Court consider the case of Jason Pepper. The confessed former methamphetamine dealer won his own case last week at the high court -- and may not have to go back to prison for his old crime (he was released pending the appeal).

The reason you probably haven't heard much about Pepper is because the decision in his case, Pepper v. United States, came out last Wednesday just a few minutes before the justices released their opinion in the high-profile case of Snyder v. Phelps, in which the court upheld the free speech rights of anti-gay funeral protesters. Virtually all of the coverage of the day's Supreme Court news, and the next day's for that matter, focused on the Phelps' First Amendment case, leaving Pepper's sentencing decision under reported, if not completely under appreciated. "Supreme Court rules in favor of former Iowa drug addict" is how the Des Moines Register put it.

The court, in a 6-2 vote (Justice Elena Kagan recused), held that Pepper's rights had been violated when a judge who was re-sentencing him refused to consider the significant "rehabilitation" Pepper had accomplished since first being sentenced years earlier. In so doing, the justices moved to finally end an eight-year-long case (a case far longer, by the way, than either of the sentences meted out to Pepper) and generated another round of judicial debate over the roles of the courts and the Congress when it comes to crime and punishment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion. She offered yet another interpretation of the vagaries of the sentencing guidelines, the congressionally sanctioned and judicially administered rules that help determine which convicted criminal gets which prison sentence and why. For the third time in six years, the court weighed the policies contained in those guidelines and rejected them. So that sound you heard late last week was the sound of federal prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys scrambling over their sentencing tactics in pending federal cases. Like its immediate predecessors, Pepper v. United States is required reading.

About those predecessors. In 2005, the Court in Booker v. United States stunned many people when it declared the guidelines "advisory" and not "mandatory" to give back some sentencing discretion to the federal judges who are asked to impose a sentence. In 2007, the court in Kimbrough v. United States, furthered refined the scope of the guidelines, again saying that they must yield to constitutional protections. And now Pepper, which is particularly relevant at a time when federal prisons in some jurisdictions (like California) are terribly overcrowded. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented (separately) and Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion.

MORE

I agree with this completely.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Gotta get a warrant Supreme Court says to do GPS tracking...

Warrant needed for GPS tracking, high court says
23 Jan.`12 WASHINGTON – In a rare defeat for law enforcement, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed on Monday to bar police from installing GPS technology to track suspects without first getting a judge's approval. The justices made clear it wouldn't be their final word on increasingly advanced high-tech surveillance of Americans.

Indicating they will be monitoring the growing use of such technology, five justices said they could see constitutional and privacy problems with police using many kinds of electronic surveillance for long-term tracking of citizens' movements without warrants. While the justices differed on legal rationales, their unanimous outcome was an unusual setback for government and police agencies grown accustomed to being given leeway in investigations in post-Sept. 11 America, including by the Supreme Court. The views of at least the five justices raised the possibility of new hurdles down the road for police who want to use high-tech surveillance of suspects, including various types of GPS technology. "The Supreme Court's decision is an important one because it sends a message that technological advances cannot outpace the American Constitution," said Donald Tibbs, a professor at the Earle Mack School of Law at Drexel University. "The people will retain certain rights even when technology changes how the police are able to conduct their investigations."

A GPS device installed by police on Washington, D.C., nightclub owner Antoine Jones' Jeep and tracked for four weeks helped link him to a suburban house used to stash money and drugs. He was sentenced to life in prison before an appeals court overturned his conviction. It's not clear how much difficulty police agencies would have with warrant requirements in this area; historically they are rarely denied warrants they request. But the Obama administration argued that getting one could be cumbersome, perhaps impossible in the early stages of an investigation. In the Jones case, police got a warrant but did not install the GPS device until after the warrant had expired and then in a jurisdiction that wasn't covered by the document.

Justice Antonin Scalia said the government's installation of the device, and its use of the GPS to monitor the vehicle's movements, constituted a search, meaning a warrant was required. "Officers encroached on a protected area," Scalia wrote. Relying on a centuries-old legal principle, he concluded that the police action without a warrant was a trespass and therefore an illegal search. He was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor. All nine justices agreed that the GPS monitoring on the Jeep violated the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search and seizure, a decision the American Civil Liberties Union said was an "important victory for privacy."

But there was a major division between Scalia, the court's conservative leader, and Justice Samuel Alito, a former federal prosecutor and usually a Scalia ally, over how much further the court should go beyond just saying that police can't put a GPS device on something used by a suspect without a warrant. Alito wrote, in a concurring opinion, that the trespass was not as important as the suspect's expectation of privacy and the duration of the surveillance. "The use of longer-term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses impinges on expectations of privacy," Alito wrote in an opinion joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan. Sotomayor in her concurring opinion specifically said she agreed with Alito on this conclusion.

MORE

This one too.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Supreme Court rules against drug companies...

Court sides with investors on disclosing drug reactions
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with investors who seek to sue companies for failing to reveal adverse information about their products. Justices ruled 9-0 against a drug company that did not disclose its cold medicine was linked to a loss of smell.

The case, clarifying the evidence investors must show to get through the courthouse door, involved Matrixx Initiatives and its over-the-counter Zicam Cold Remedy, which had been sold as a nasal spray and gel. Investors said the product had accounted for about 70% of Matrixx's sales. A group of investors sued Matrixx for a "material" misrepresentation and omission under federal securities law because the company did not publicly report that medical researchers in the early 2000s had traced Zicam to the loss of smell, known as anosmia, and that related personal-injury lawsuits against the company had been filed. The company had instead issued a press release saying any statements alleging a problem were "completely unfounded and misleading." On Feb. 6, 2004, ABC's Good Morning America reported on the medical findings. That report said more than a dozen patients had suffered from anosmia after using Zicam and that four lawsuits had been filed against Matrixx. The price of Matrixx stock immediately plummeted. The nasal products are no longer sold.

Investors filed a securities fraud class action on behalf of those who bought stock in the months preceding the Good Morning America broadcast. Matrixx countered that the case should be dismissed because investors had not alleged that the company received and withheld "statistically significant evidence" that Zicam caused a loss of smell. A U.S. trial judge agreed and threw out the case. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed, saying such statistical evidence was not required. The Supreme Court affirmed. An opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor favoring shareholders said the absence of statistical data "does not mean that medical experts have no reliable basis for inferring a causal link between a drug and adverse events."

"This is not a case about a handful of anecdotal reports, as Matrixx suggests," Sotomayor wrote. "Matrixx received information that plausibly indicated a reliable causal link between Zicam and anosmia. That information included reports from three medical professionals and researchers about more than 10 patients who had lost their sense of smell after using Zicam." Sotomayor said lower court judges should look at several factors when deciding whether to allow such securities fraud cases to go forward. She cautioned that a few reports of adverse events are not enough. "Something more is needed, but that something more is not limited to statistical significance and can come from the source, content and context of the reports," she wrote. Sotomayor also noted that the Food and Drug Administration relies on a wide range of evidence, beyond statistics, in taking regulatory action and had in 2009 warned Matrixx that "a significant and growing body of evidence substantiates that the Zicam Cold Remedy intranasal products may pose a serious risk to consumers who use them."

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had entered the case of Matrixx Initiatives v. Siracusano, urging the high court not to adopt the strict test advocated by the pharmaceutical company. Josh Yount, a Chicago lawyer who specializes in securities cases, said businesses had been closely watching the dispute because of recent court trends requiring plaintiffs in some situations to show more evidence to get a case heard. "Over the past 10 to 20 years, the Supreme Court has definitely tightened the standards and brought a higher scrutiny to securities fraud cases," he said. When the justices agreed to review the 9th Circuit ruling against statistical evidence, it raised the question of whether it was going to institute that requirement. Yount said Tuesday's ruling, however, offered a "full throated affirmation" of prior court decisions on material misrepresentations or omissions.

Source

Also this one.

3/3

 

[waltky]

Yea, dat's right - if dey gonna come up here an' take jobs away from Americans to make money an' den not pay taxes - deport their sorry butts...

Supreme Court: $10K tax fraud deportable offense
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday a tax fraud of $10,000 or more is an "aggravated offense" that triggers an alien's deportation.

A U.S. immigration judge ordered the removal of resident aliens Akio and Fusako Kawashima, saying the husband's conviction for willfully making and subscribing a false tax return and his wife's conviction for aiding and assisting him qualified as crimes involving fraud or deceit under federal law.

The Kawashimas were Japanese natives who started a successful restaurant in California. The immigration judge said the convictions involved losses to the government of more than $10,000, and were therefore "aggravated felonies," which triggered removal under federal law. The immigration board and a federal appeals court in San Francisco agreed.

The couple asked the U.S. Supreme Court for review. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said Congress meant to include fraud as an aggravated offense in the law.

Read more: World News - UPI.com

 

[waltky]

Plea deals become a whole new ballgame...

Supreme Court Makes Landmark Ruling On Plea Deals
Mar. 21, 2012 - WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled for the first time Wednesday that the guarantee of effective legal representation applies to plea-bargain agreements, significantly expanding the constitutional rights of defendants as they move through the criminal-justice system.

In a pair of cases decided by 5-4 votes, the court opened a new avenue for defendants to challenge their sentences on grounds that their attorneys gave them faulty advice, lawyers on both sides of the issue said. The vast majority of criminal cases end with a guilty plea rather than a trial, and the ruling could affect thousands of cases. "The reality is that plea bargains have become so central to the administration of the criminal-justice system that defense counsel have responsibilities ... that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment requires," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. He was joined by the court's liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

That is the case, the majority said, even if the defendant is unquestionably guilty or has received a fair trial after turning down a plea bargain. Since more than nine in 10 cases involve a plea rather than trial, the decision will mean greater constitutional scrutiny of the negotiations central to almost every prosecution. "It seems to me the court has created a new body of constitutional law," said Connecticut Assistant State's Attorney Michael Proto, who wrote a brief for 27 states urging the court not to extend the constitutional guarantee to plea bargains. "There are a lot of unanswered questions, and it is going to spawn a lot of litigation."

Margaret Colgate Love, who helped write an American Bar Association brief that advocated for the court's action, agreed about its impact. "What makes these cases so important is the Supreme Court's full-on recognition of the centrality of plea bargaining in the modern criminal-justice system and its extension of constitutional discipline to the outcome of the plea process," she said. The decisions prompted a scathing rebuttal from Justice Antonin Scalia, delivered from the bench to signal his displeasure.

Scalia called the rulings "absurd" and said the majority had twisted the constitutional right to assure defendants get a fair trial into one in which they have a chance "to escape a fair trial and get less punishment than they deserve." He added in a written dissent, "Today, however, the Supreme Court of the United States elevates plea bargaining from a necessary evil to a constitutional entitlement."

MORE

See also:

The David vs. Goliath couple trump the EPA...

Supreme Court sides with Idaho property owners over EPA
March 21, 2012 | WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court has come forcefully down on the side of an Idaho couple in its fight against the Environmental Protection Agency, unanimously ruling Wednesday that the couple can challenge an EPA order to stop construction of their home on property designated a wetland.

Mike and Chantell Sackett bought their land near a scenic lake for $25,000, but when they decided to build a property there in 2007, the EPA ordered a halt, saying the Clean Water Act requires that wetlands not be disturbed without a permit. They've been fighting for the right to challenge the decision in court for several years, and facing millions of dollars in fines over the land. The couple complained there was no reasonable way to challenge the order, and noted they don't know why the EPA concluded there are wetlands on their lot, which is surrounded by a residential neighborhood with sewer lines and homes.

In an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the court ruled the EPA cannot impose fines that could be as much as $75,000 a day without giving property owners the ability to challenge its actions. The ruling allows the couple to challenge the EPA head-on in court, but the real battle begins now. The case has brought attention to the EPA's reach. While the court only allowed a challenge to be brought, in a concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito noted that the law allowing EPA to demand compliance is overly broad. "The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the act, and according to the federal government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency's mercy," Alito wrote.

"The court's decision provides a modest measure of relief," he added. "But the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA's tune. Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act." The couple, which termed the battle "David versus Goliath," has earned support from several lawmakers who want to reduce the grasp of the EPA on private property. Reps. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Idaho Republican Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, all joined the Chantells and other couples in a forum last fall about limiting EPA authority.

Labrador congratulated the Sacketts after the ruling. "The federal government is an intimidating force against ordinary citizens, and standing up to its bureaucracy requires extraordinary bravery. Thanks to the unwavering courage and selfless sacrifice of the Sacketts, Americans everywhere will be guaranteed the right to appeal a decision imposed by a government agency. Their victory also safeguards individual property rights against the encroachment of the federal government, a fundamental assurance of our Constitution," he said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...wners-over-epa/?test=latestnews#ixzz1puRwT3yG

 

[George Costanza]

Plea deals become a whole new ballgame...

Supreme Court Makes Landmark Ruling On Plea Deals
Mar. 21, 2012 - WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled for the first time Wednesday that the guarantee of effective legal representation applies to plea-bargain agreements, significantly expanding the constitutional rights of defendants as they move through the criminal-justice system.

In a pair of cases decided by 5-4 votes, the court opened a new avenue for defendants to challenge their sentences on grounds that their attorneys gave them faulty advice, lawyers on both sides of the issue said. The vast majority of criminal cases end with a guilty plea rather than a trial, and the ruling could affect thousands of cases. "The reality is that plea bargains have become so central to the administration of the criminal-justice system that defense counsel have responsibilities ... that must be met to render the adequate assistance of counsel that the Sixth Amendment requires," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. He was joined by the court's liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

That is the case, the majority said, even if the defendant is unquestionably guilty or has received a fair trial after turning down a plea bargain. Since more than nine in 10 cases involve a plea rather than trial, the decision will mean greater constitutional scrutiny of the negotiations central to almost every prosecution. "It seems to me the court has created a new body of constitutional law," said Connecticut Assistant State's Attorney Michael Proto, who wrote a brief for 27 states urging the court not to extend the constitutional guarantee to plea bargains. "There are a lot of unanswered questions, and it is going to spawn a lot of litigation."

Margaret Colgate Love, who helped write an American Bar Association brief that advocated for the court's action, agreed about its impact. "What makes these cases so important is the Supreme Court's full-on recognition of the centrality of plea bargaining in the modern criminal-justice system and its extension of constitutional discipline to the outcome of the plea process," she said. The decisions prompted a scathing rebuttal from Justice Antonin Scalia, delivered from the bench to signal his displeasure.

Scalia called the rulings "absurd" and said the majority had twisted the constitutional right to assure defendants get a fair trial into one in which they have a chance "to escape a fair trial and get less punishment than they deserve." He added in a written dissent, "Today, however, the Supreme Court of the United States elevates plea bargaining from a necessary evil to a constitutional entitlement."

MORE

What do these decisions (there were two of them in companion cases) really say? Do they say that a criminal defendant is entitled to counsel whenever a plea bargain is offered to him? Or do they merely say that if he happens to have counsel during a plea bargain, the attorney had better give him competent advice?

In our courthouse (and in many other across the land, I suspect), this is a very important distinction. Our judges want to move cases as rapidly as possible. In order to do that, they will offer a plea bargain to a pro per (unrepresented) defendant without appointing the public defender unless the defendant either asks for the PD or says he/she does not want to plead guilty and take the offered plea bargain.

Our office has long felt that this type of practice is violative of the Sixth Amendment, because uninformed and unadvised defendants are pleading guilty when they may have a perfectly good defense of which they are not aware.

Sadly, I think these two cases say only that defendants who are fortunate enough to have counsel at arraignment, are entitled to competent plea bargaining advice - not that they are entitled to counsel when confronted with a plea bargain offer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What do these decisions (there were two of them in companion cases) really say? Do they say that a criminal defendant is entitled to counsel whenever a plea bargain is offered to him? Or do they merely say that if he happens to have counsel during a plea bargain, the attorney had better give him competent advice?

It would seem a blend of both:

On Wednesday a sharply divided Court issued companion decisions that will have significant systemic implications for the criminal plea-bargaining process. In Missouri v. Frye and Lafler v. Cooper, the Court held that criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations, including when they miss out on, or reject, plea bargains because of bad legal advice. Writing for a five-four majority in each case, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy reasoned that the right to counsel extends to the plea-bargaining process because of the “simple reality” that plea bargaining is so pervasive in our system such that the negotiation of a plea “is almost always the critical point for a defendant.”

Opinion analysis: Expanding the right to effective counsel during the plea-bargaining process : SCOTUSblog

The Court also rejected the ‘fair trial’ argument, where “[a] fair trial wipes clean any deficient performance by defense counsel during plea bargaining. “

Link to the ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-209.pdf

 

[FA_Q2]

What do these decisions (there were two of them in companion cases) really say? Do they say that a criminal defendant is entitled to counsel whenever a plea bargain is offered to him? Or do they merely say that if he happens to have counsel during a plea bargain, the attorney had better give him competent advice?

In our courthouse (and in many other across the land, I suspect), this is a very important distinction. Our judges want to move cases as rapidly as possible. In order to do that, they will offer a plea bargain to a pro per (unrepresented) defendant without appointing the public defender unless the defendant either asks for the PD or says he/she does not want to plead guilty and take the offered plea bargain.

Our office has long felt that this type of practice is violative of the Sixth Amendment, because uninformed and unadvised defendants are pleading guilty when they may have a perfectly good defense of which they are not aware.

Sadly, I think these two cases say only that defendants who are fortunate enough to have counsel at arraignment, are entitled to competent plea bargaining advice - not that they are entitled to counsel when confronted with a plea bargain offer.

This is interesting because I have never thought of such an event (and I guess that this is actually quite common) actually ever happened. I would not think for one second of ever capitulating to a plea bargain without a lawyer present and have little idea why anyone else would either. That is somewhat late in the game. I guess that most people are convicted though because they don't know what rights they have, not because they do know.

I believe that we need to start looking at inherent rights differently. Currently (and for quite some time now) we have looked at rights as something that you need to request in order to obtain. We should be looking at rights as something you already have until you wave them. That would cause some headaches for police but also solve a lot of bullshit that people go through because of them.

 

[waltky]

Say what?? They never heard of fraud or misrepresentation???...

Justices dismiss law making lying about military honors a crime
June 28th, 2012 - The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a federal law making it a crime to falsely claim military medals earned.

The 6-3 ruling was a free speech victory but perhaps in name only - for a onetime California public official who publicly lied about winning the prestigious Medal of Honor. At issue is the constitutional value of false statements of fact, and whether Congress went too far when passing the Stolen Valor Act in 2006.

The ACLU's deputy legal director, Jameel Jaffer, said the ruling was “right to reject”. “Perfectly respectable people sometimes lie to protect their privacy, avoid hurt feelings, make others feel better, duck minor obligations, or protect themselves and others from prejudice. If the court had endorsed the government’s sweeping argument, the government could regulate these false statements, and even criminalize them. The First Amendment reserves to individual citizens, not the government, the right to separate what is true from what is false, and to decide what ideas to introduce into private conversation and public debate. Today’s decision is an important reaffirmation of those crucial rights.”

Veteran organizations are disappointed with the decision. Here are some of the statements: “The Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is greatly disappointed in today’s Supreme Court decision that overturns the Stolen Valor Act of 2005. Despite the ruling, the VFW will continue to challenge far-fetched stories, and to publicize these false heroes to the broadest extent possible as a deterrent to others.”
-Richard Denoyer, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States Commander in Chief

"While we are obviously saddened and aggrieved by the overall decision in this case, we felt good about the portions of the decision which suggest that a more narrowly tailored bill which incorporates traditional fraud elements would be upheld. Since the vast bulk of the more notorious valor thieves engage in this to gain something of value as a result, they will not be able to claim legal immunity once a new bill is passed."
-Fang Wong, American Legion National Commander

Source

 

[waltky]

Scotus okays stem cell research...

Supreme Court won't stop embryonic stem cell research
January 7, 2013 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won't stop the government's funding of embryonic stem cell research, despite some researchers' complaints that the work relies on destroyed human embryos.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from two scientists who have been challenging the funding for the work.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia earlier this year threw out their lawsuit challenging federal funding for the research, which is used in pursuit of cures to deadly diseases. Opponents claimed the National Institutes of Health was violating the 1996 Dickey-Wicker law that prohibits taxpayer financing for work that harms an embryo.

Researchers hope one day to use stem cells in ways that cure spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease and other ailments.

Supreme Court won't stop embryonic stem cell research | CNS News

See also:

High court rejects Medicare challenge
January 7, 2013 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has turned away a challenge from former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and other Social Security recipients who say they have the right to reject Medicare in favor of continuing health coverage from private insurers.

The justices did not comment Monday in letting stand a federal appeals court ruling that held that there is no way for people who receive Social Security to reject Medicare benefits.

Armey, a Texas Republican, and two other former federal employees say private insurance covers more than Medicare. Two other plaintiffs are wealthy individuals who have high deductible private insurance and prefer to pay for their health care.

The case was funded by a group called The Fund For Personal Liberty, which says its purpose is to take on burdensome government regulations.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/high-court-rejects-medicare-challenge

 

[George Costanza]

Scotus okays stem cell research...

Supreme Court won't stop embryonic stem cell research
January 7, 2013 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court won't stop the government's funding of embryonic stem cell research, despite some researchers' complaints that the work relies on destroyed human embryos.

The high court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from two scientists who have been challenging the funding for the work.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia earlier this year threw out their lawsuit challenging federal funding for the research, which is used in pursuit of cures to deadly diseases. Opponents claimed the National Institutes of Health was violating the 1996 Dickey-Wicker law that prohibits taxpayer financing for work that harms an embryo.

Researchers hope one day to use stem cells in ways that cure spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's disease and other ailments.

How anyone could be so stupid/evil/uncaring about their fellow man, as to oppose federal funding for stemcell research always was beyond me. Kudos to The Supremes on this one!

 

[waltky]

Searches limited to immediate vicinity when suspect not home...

High court limits detention powers in searches
19 Feb.`13 WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has limited the power of police to detain people who are not at home when their residence is to be searched.

By a 6-3 vote Tuesday, the justices sided with a Long Island, N.Y., man who was picked up about three-quarters of a mile away from his apartment as police searched it for a gun. Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court's majority that the authority of police to detain people found at home during a search authorized by a warrant is limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises. He said that concern for officer safety diminishes the farther away from the home the detention occurs.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said he would have upheld lower court rulings in favor of the police "in light of the risks of flight, of evidence destruction, and of human injury present in this and similar cases." Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined Breyer's dissent. The Fourth Amendment usually requires police to strongly suspect an individual has committed a crime before he can be detained. But the court in 1981 ruled in Michigan v. Summers that police could detain people without suspicion during a search to keep them from doing harm to officers, keep them from fleeing and allowing them to, for example, open a door instead of having the police bash it in.

In this case, Chunon Bailey, also known by the alias of Polo, left his basement apartment in Wyandanch, N.Y., shortly before police began their search. Unaware of the impending search, Bailey and another man got into Bailey's black Lexus and drove away, apparently to get the friend home by 10 p.m. to comply with a condition of his parole. Officers followed in an unmarked car and stopped the Lexus a few minutes later. Bailey and his friend were handcuffed and taken back to the apartment where, by then, police had found a gun and drugs. Bailey tried and failed to get courts to throw out anything he said to police when he was stopped and also a key to the apartment police found when they patted him down. He was found guilty of cocaine possession and other crimes and sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Kennedy said none of the concerns present in the court's 1981 case justified Bailey's detention. "The categorical authority to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant must be limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched," he said. To do otherwise gives the police too much discretion, Kennedy said. But the ruling may not let Bailey off the hook entirely. Kennedy said the government still can argue that another rationale made the decision to stop and detain Bailey legal. The justices ordered the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to take a new look at Bailey's case. The case is Bailey v. U.S., 11-770.

High court limits detention powers in searches

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Supreme Court rules in favor of former Iowa drug addict"...

MORE

[/QUOTE]

No. The court ruled on the legal arguments made on behalf of the Iowa drug addict's appeal, and they did not side with drug addicts and their drug use as your imbecilic post implies.

Sotomayor was hired out of law school as an assistant district attorney under New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau starting in 1979. She said at the time that she did so with conflicted emotions: "There was a tremendous amount of pressure from my community, from the third world community, at Yale. They could not understand why I was taking this job. I'm not sure I've ever resolved that problem." It was a time of crisis-level crime rates and drug problems in New York, Morgenthau's staff was overburdened with cases, and like other rookie prosecutors, Sotomayor was initially fearful of appearing before judges in court. Working in the trial division, she handled heavy caseloads as she prosecuted everything from shoplifting and prostitution to robberies, assaults, and murders. She also worked on cases involving police brutality. She was not afraid to venture into tough neighborhoods or endure squalid conditions in order to interview witnesses. In the courtroom, she was effective at cross examination and at simplifying a case in ways to which a jury could relate. She helped convict the "Tarzan Murderer" (who acrobatically entered apartments, robbed them, and shot residents for no reason) in 1983 in her highest-profile case. - Wikipedia

 

[waltky]

Court pondering if allowing DNA on those not convicted is a violation of the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination...

Court takes up question of arrestee DNA sampling
Feb 26,`13 WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled with what one of the justices called its most important criminal procedure case in decades, whether to let police take DNA from those arrested, but not convicted, in hopes of using it to solve old cases.

Justices seemed conflicted over whether police have a right to take genetic information from people who have only been arrested but not yet convicted of a crime without getting a judge's approval first, or if the government's interest in solving cold cases trumped the immediate privacy rights of those under police suspicion of other crimes. One justice seemed to make clear what he thought, with Justice Samuel Alito, a former prosecutor calling the arguments the court's "most important criminal procedure case" in decades.

Alito compared DNA swabbing to fingerprinting, saying police can use the genetic information of suspects in the same way they do the inked impression of suspects' fingers - to identify the person and match that person to older crimes that haven't yet been solved. "Why isn't this fingerprinting of the 21st century?" he said. Getting DNA swabs from criminals is common. All 50 states and the federal government take cheek swabs from convicted criminals to check against federal and state databanks, with the court's blessing. But now 28 states and the federal government now also take samples from people who have been arrested for various crimes, long before their guilt or innocence has been proven.

According to court documents, the FBI's Combined DNA Index System or CODIS - a coordinated system of federal, state and local databases of DNA profiles - contains more than 10 million criminal profiles and 1.1 million arrestee profiles. In the case before the court, a 53-year-old woman was raped and robbed but no one was arrested. Almost six years later, Alonzo King was arrested and charged with felony second-degree assault. Taking advantage of a Maryland law that allowed DNA tests following some felony arrests, police took a cheek swab of King's DNA which matched a sample from the 2003 Salisbury rape. King was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison.

King eventually pled guilty to a lesser charge of misdemeanor assault, a crime for which Maryland cannot take DNA samples. The state courts said it violated King's rights for the state to take his DNA based on an arrest alone. The state Court of Appeals said King had "a sufficiently weighty and reasonable expectation of privacy against warrantless, suspicionless searches." The Supreme Court is reviewing that decision.

MORE

See also:

Justices block lawsuit over foreign intelligence surveillance
February 26th, 2013 - The Supreme Court rejected an effort by a group of attorneys, journalists and others to proceed with a lawsuit over the federal government's sweeping electronic monitoring of foreigners suspected of terrorism or spying.

The 5-4 conservative majority on Tuesday concluded that the plaintiffs lacked "standing" or jurisdiction to proceed, without a specific showing they have been monitored. The National Security Agency has in turn refused to disclose monitoring specifics, which detractors call "Catch-22" logic. Justice Samuel Alito said plaintiffs "cannot demonstrate that the future injury they purportedly fear is certainly impending." The justices did not address the larger questions of the program's constitutionality, and this ruling will make it harder for future lawsuits to proceed. At issue: Can these American plaintiffs who deal with overseas clients and co-workers file suit if they reasonably suspect - but cannot know for sure - that the government was reading and hearing their sensitive communications? The personal liberty versus national security case is one of the biggest the high court is addressing this term.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was revised by Congress in 2008 to give the attorney general and the director of national intelligence greater authority to order "mass acquisition" of electronic traffic from suspected foreign terrorists or spies. The law previously required the government to justify a national security interest before any monitoring of phone calls and e-mails originating in another country. A federal judge had to sign any search warrant. The larger issue involves the constitutionality of the federal government's electronic monitoring of targeted foreigners. A federal appeals court in New York ruled against the Obama administration, prompting the current appeal. After such "warrantless wiretapping" was exposed, President George W. Bush and his congressional allies moved to amend the existing law, which supporters say is designed to target only foreigners living outside the United States.

Alito said that there were enough legal safeguards to ensure that any information gathered by the NSA would be used properly in court, and that a judicial FISA panel could review any particular surveillance. "If the government were to prosecute one of the (plaintiffs') foreign clients using authorized surveillance, the government would be required to make a disclosure," Alito said. He was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the harm claimed by the plaintiffs "is not speculative. Indeed it is as likely to take place as are most future events that commonsense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen." He was backed by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International told the court that little is known about the FISA Amendments Act, such as who has been targeted, how often it has been used and whether any problems or abuses have occurred. A key point of contention was whether those amendments would stifle free speech of the work of lawyers, journalists and activists by forcing them to do their jobs less diligently, for fear of being monitored and perhaps prosecuted. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, speaking for the Justice Department, said that to the contrary, if the lawyer "took precautions, it would be because of a belief that (he or she) had to comply with an ethics rule, and the ethics rule would be the cause of (him or her) taking those precautions." Either way, he said, there was no "concrete application" of the law permitting someone to come into court and make a claim based on "speculation." The case is Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (11-1025).

Source

 

[waltky]

Supremes takin' another look at Section 5 of Voting Rights Act of `65...

US Supreme Court Reviews Key Civil Rights Law
February 27, 2013 WASHINGTON — A key civil rights law from the 1960’s that helped ensure minorities could vote is now under review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the midst of the struggle for civil rights, particularly in the states of the Deep South where racial discrimination was widespread. At that time, local officials were known for making it difficult for African-Americans to vote. A key part of the law known as Section 5 gives the federal government the power to pre-approve or block changes in voting procedures put forward by states and local governments in areas where African-Americans historically faced enormous difficulties in voting. Under the U.S. Constitution, states have most of the power when it comes to running elections.

The law has been re-authorized by Congress several times, most recently in 2006. But now some conservative groups and officials from some of the states affected by the law say the statute is outdated and no longer necessary. Butch Ellis is county attorney for Shelby County, Alabama, which is challenging a key part of the Voting Rights Act. He spoke to reporters outside the high court. “They have made great strides over the last 48 years," said Ellis. "I have been the county attorney since 1964. I was 24-years old when we came under Section 5 [of the law]. I am 73 (as of) last weekend and we are still under the same formula, none of which has applied to us in many, many, many years.”

Some of the more conservative justices on the Supreme Court seemed to express skepticism about the law during oral arguments on Wednesday. They question whether the remedy Congress agreed to in 1965 is still warranted nearly 50 years later. The Voting Rights Act was a product of the bloody struggle for civil rights in the southern U.S. in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. Civil rights groups and the Obama administration defended the law in oral arguments before the high court. They acknowledge some progress on race relations has been made in the states covered by the law in the past several decades. But they also argue the law is still a useful tool to ensure that states and local jurisdictions protect the right of all Americans to vote, regardless of race.

MORE

See also:

Justices Turn Back Challenge to Broader U.S. Eavesdropping
February 26, 2013 WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned back a challenge to a federal law that broadened the government’s power to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails.

The decision, by a 5-to-4 vote that divided along ideological lines, probably means the Supreme Court will never rule on the constitutionality of that 2008 law. More broadly, the ruling illustrated how hard it is to mount court challenges to a wide array of antiterrorism measures, including renditions of terrorism suspects to foreign countries and targeted killings using drones, in light of the combination of government secrecy and judicial doctrines limiting access to the courts. “Absent a radical sea change from the courts, or more likely intervention from the Congress, the coffin is slamming shut on the ability of private citizens and civil liberties groups to challenge government counterterrorism policies, with the possible exception of Guantánamo,” said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at American University.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that the journalists, lawyers and human rights advocates who challenged the constitutionality of the law could not show they had been harmed by it and so lacked standing to sue. The plaintiffs’ fear that they would be subject to surveillance in the future was too speculative to establish standing, he wrote. Justice Alito also rejected arguments based on the steps the plaintiffs had taken to escape surveillance, including traveling to meet sources and clients in person rather than talking to them over the phone or sending e-mails. “They cannot manufacture standing by incurring costs in anticipation of nonimminent harms,” he wrote of the plaintiffs.

It is of no moment, Justice Alito wrote, that only the government knows for sure whether the plaintiffs’ communications have been intercepted. It is the plaintiffs’ burden, he wrote, to prove they have standing “by pointing to specific facts, not the government’s burden to disprove standing by revealing details of its surveillance priorities.” In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that the harm claimed by the plaintiffs was not speculative. “Indeed,” he wrote, “it is as likely to take place as are most future events that common-sense inference and ordinary knowledge of human nature tell us will happen.”

Under the system of warrantless surveillance that was put in place by the Bush administration shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, aspects of which remain secret, the National Security Agency was authorized to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mails without a warrant. After The New York Times disclosed the program in 2005 and questions were raised about its constitutionality, Congress in 2008 amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, granting broad power to the executive branch to conduct surveillance aimed at persons overseas without an individual warrant. The Obama administration defended the law in court, and a Justice Department spokesman said the government was “obviously pleased with the ruling.”

MORE

 

[waltky]

Granny says ya s'posed to be a citizen to vote in our `lections...

Top US Court Weighs Voter Law Against Illegal Immigrants
March 18, 2013 WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Monday on whether the state of Arizona has the right to craft its own voting laws to prevent illegal immigrants from casting ballots, a process critics say opens the door to discrimination against legal voters.

Arizona, which shares a border with Mexico, has some of the strongest anti-immigration laws in the United States and the voting rights case is the latest in its efforts to deal with non-U.S. citizens illegally in the state. It is asking the Supreme Court to uphold a 2004 state law requiring local voting applicants to provide physical proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate, passport, tribal forms or a driver’s license. Opponents of Arizona’s voter-approved Proposition 200 say it violates the decade-old National Voter Registration Act, a federal law requiring voting applicants to state they are U.S. citizens without providing any proof. People caught lying can face perjury charges.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne argued the constitutionality of Proposition 200 before the Court Monday, saying an “honor system” is not strong enough to prevent voter fraud. Jesus Gonzalez is the lead plaintiff in the case. He tried to register to vote right after becoming a U.S. citizen but was rejected twice by state officials. Gonzalez used both his driver’s license and his naturalization certificate number, but officials said they still could not confirm his citizenship. Civil rights groups supporting Gonzalez say his story is not uncommon. In a legal brief submitted to the court, the groups say more than 31,000 voting applicants were rejected between January 2005 and September 2007. Of that number, 11,000 eventually succeeded in registering to vote after repeated attempts.

The groups say Proposition 200 violates the U.S. Constitution “because it requires naturalized citizens - predominantly Latinos and Asians - to surmount additional and unique hurdles to exercise their fundamental right to vote.” “The unique obstacles presented by the law effectively relegated this population to second-class citizenship,” they write in the brief. The Obama administration is on their side, although it is focusing on another aspect of the case. It has filed court documents supporting the ruling of a federal appeals court, which ruled against Proposition 200 because it said federal law overrides state law.

The outcome of the case could determine how other states approach the issue. If the Supreme Court upholds Arizona’s request to determine its own voting guidelines, other states could follow suit, opening the door for new sets of rules like Florida’s attempt in 2005 to require voter applicants to prove their mental capacity.

MORE

 

[waltky]

Granny says high drug prices is a bitter pill to swallow...

Supreme Court: Can Drug Companies Pay to Delay Generics?
March 25, 2013 WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal regulators are pressing the Supreme Court to stop big pharmaceutical corporations from paying generic drug competitors to delay releasing their cheaper versions of brand-name drugs. They argue these deals deny American consumers, usually for years, steep price declines that can top 90 percent.

The Obama administration, backed by consumer groups and the American Medical Association, says these so-called "pay for delay" deals profit the drug companies but harm consumers by adding 3.5 billion annually to their drug bills. But the pharmaceutical companies counter that they need to preserve longer the billions of dollars in revenue from their patented products in order to recover the billions they spend developing new drugs. And both the large companies and the generic makers say the marketing of generics often is hastened by these deals. The justices will hear the argument Monday.

Such pay-for-delay deals arise when generic companies file a challenge at the Food and Drug Administration to the patents that give brand-name drugs a 20-year monopoly. The generic drugmakers aim to prove the patent is flawed or otherwise invalid, so they can launch a generic version well before the patent ends. Brand-name drugmakers then usually sue the generic companies, which sets up what could be years of expensive litigation. When the two sides aren't certain who will win, they often reach a compromise deal that allows the generic company to sell its cheaper copycat drug in a few years — but years before the drug's patent would expire. Often, that settlement comes with a sizeable payment from the brand-name company to the generic drugmaker.

Numerous brand-name and generic drugmakers and their respective trade groups say the settlements protect their interests but also benefit consumers by bringing inexpensive copycat medicines to market years earlier than they would arrive in any case generic drugmakers took to trial and lost. But federal officials counter that such deals add billions to the drug bills of American patients and taxpayers, compared to what would happen if the generic companies won the lawsuits and could begin marketing right away. A study by RBC Capital Markets Corp. of 371 cases during 2000-2009 found brand-name companies won 89 at trial compared to 82 won by generic drugmakers. Another 175 ended in settlement deals, and 25 were dropped.

Generic drugs account for about 80 percent of all American prescriptions for medicines and vaccines, but a far smaller percentage of the $325 billion spent by U.S. consumers on drugs each year. Generics saved American patients, taxpayers and the healthcare system an estimated $193 billion in 2011 alone, according to health data firm IMS Health. But government officials believe the number of potentially anticompetitive patent settlements is increasing. Pay-for-delay deals increased from 28 to 40 in just the last two fiscal years and the deals in fiscal 2012 covered 31 brand-name pharmaceuticals, Federal Trade Commission officials said. Those had combined annual U.S. sales of more than $8.3 billion.

MORE