Archive

Reuters blog archive

from Jack Shafer:

Cell phone search case is easy call for Supreme Court

Now appearing in the Supreme Court docket: Your cell phone.

Later this month, the court will doff their robes and don their scuba gear to dive to the bottomless depths of the Fourth Amendment and determine whether police can search your mobile phone without a warrant, upon arresting you.

As my Reuters colleague Lawrence Hurley reports, the law has permitted police searches of wallets, calendars, address books and diaries at the time of arrest, "primarily to ensure the defendant is not armed and to secure evidence that could otherwise be destroyed." But two defendants, David Riley in California and Brima Wurie in Massachusetts, maintain that police and prosecutors overstepped those powers when they searched the defendants’ cell phones, and used digital information gleaned, without warrant, to convict them.

The cases pose a question that would have never occurred to the Framers or to nearly all previous members of the Supreme Court, whose idea of evidence was analog. Consider, for example, the size of the personal library of Thomas Jefferson, the most ardent bibliophile of the period in which the Bill of Rights were written. In 1815, the Library of Congress purchased his library of 6,487 volumes after the British torched its collection. That may sound like a lot of books, but it's pitifully small by modern measures. The 64 gigabyte iPhone in my pocket could hold more than 60,000 text-only books (following Amazon's rough rule of thumb of 1,500 books per 1.4 gigabytes).

That's a lot of data, and it includes GPS trails of where I've come and gone, voluminous email correspondence, an audit of the websites I've visited, gobs of direct messages, photographs, an enormous address book, and hundreds of assorted document files. It also connects to my cloud accounts, where I store even more data.

from The Great Debate:

Opening the political money chutes

The headline about a new Supreme Court opinion rarely tells the whole story.  Rather, the detailed reasoning of the ruling often reveals whether a decision is a blockbuster or a dud.

When the court writes broadly, it can eventually remake entire industries, government practices or areas of the law. Lawyers and lower courts scrutinize an opinion’s every line and footnote, pouring over the legal reasoning and noting subtle changes from the court’s earlier decisions in the same area.

from The Great Debate:

Roberts Court: Easier to donate, harder to vote

Photo

Chief Justice John Roberts’ first sentence of his majority opinion in McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission, striking down important limits on campaign contributions, declares “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.”

A look at the Roberts Court’s record, however, shows that this may not be its guiding principle.

from The Great Debate:

McCutcheon: Should the rich speak louder?

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed down its most important decision on campaign finance reform since Citizens United. The decision, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, seemed to divide along familiar ideological lines, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion for five conservatives and Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the dissent for the four liberals.

What really divided the court, however, wasn’t partisan politics pitting Republicans against Democrats but two conflicting views of the First Amendment. Which view you embrace depends on whether you see the McCutcheon decision as a principled triumph for unpopular speech or a First Amendment disaster that will ensure that a handful of the richest Americans can use their vast resources to drown out the voices of everyone else.

from Alison Frankel:

U.S. stays out of Argentina pari passu case at SCOTUS – for now

France, Brazil and Mexico told the U.S. Supreme Court this week that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has endangered sovereign debt markets with its ruling last year against the Republic of Argentina. In amicus briefs supporting Argentina's petition for Supreme Court review, the foreign sovereigns argue that the 2nd Circuit gravely misinterpreted the so-called "pari passu" (or equal footing) clause of Argentina's sovereign debt contracts. By ruling that Argentina may not pay bondholders who exchanged defaulted bonds for restructured debt before it pays hedge fund creditors that refused to exchange their defaulted bonds, the amicus briefs argue, the 2nd Circuit has undermined international debt restructurings, permitting vulture investors to hold entire foreign economies hostage.

The United States made quite similar arguments, as you may recall, when Argentina's pari passu case was before the 2nd Circuit. But there's no filing from the Justice Department among the 10 new amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to take Argentina's appeal. Does that mean Argentina has lost its most influential friend in the U.S. court system?

from The Great Debate:

Why corporations don’t deserve religious freedom

Photo

On March 25 the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, whose outcomes will decide whether corporations can exempt themselves from provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), based on religious beliefs. The cases challenge a provision of the ACA that requires employer-provided insurance plans to include contraception coverage.

The rulings’ importance extends beyond the ACA, however. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, its companion case, are also about Citizens United -- which established that corporate personhood includes freedom of speech, exercised, in part, by giving money to political causes. Now the court will decide whether corporations have freedom of religion as well, and whether on the basis of those rights, corporations can deprive services to others.

from India Insight:

Investors fear for their deposits after Sahara chief’s arrest

Photo

The arrest of Sahara chief Subrata Roy last week and the court case over an outlawed bond scheme are raising fears among some investors who worry they will not get their money back.

One of them is Anil. The 30-year-old travel agent put his 200,000 rupees ($3,276) in another investment scheme offered by Sahara, which bills itself as "the world’s largest family." He fears that the case could hurt his investment.

from India Insight:

Scarred victims of acid attacks struggle to get their due

Photo

Sapna is a 21-year-old woman from a lower-middle class family in the Nand Nagri area of eastern Delhi. Her face is scarred by acid. Last August, her 32-year-old relative hired men to throw it in her face as she returned from her part-time job as a helper at an adhesives factory. The relative was angry because she rejected his marriage proposal.

She was supposed to receive 300,000 rupees (around $4,800) from the Delhi state government to help her with medical bills, according to a directive from India's Supreme Court. Of this amount, 100,000 rupees or $1,600 was to be given within 15 days of the attack. But it took six months for Sapna to get her due.

from Alison Frankel:

At Halliburton argument, justices show little appetite for killing Basic

After oral arguments Wednesday morning at the U.S. Supreme Court in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, I ran into a few securities class action plaintiffs lawyers in the court's lobby, at the statue of Chief Justice John Marshall. They were looking jaunty indeed. The consensus in their little group was that the justices showed little inclination to toss out the 1988 precedent that has been the foundation of the megabillion-dollar securities class action industry. They regarded Wednesday's argument as a hopeful portent that classwide securities fraud litigation is likely to survive the Supreme Court's re-examination of Basic v. Levinson.

I have to agree. From the questions posed to Halliburton counsel Aaron Streett of Baker Botts and EPJ Fund lawyer David Boies of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, the Supreme Court seems to be searching for a way to require investors to demonstrate the price impact of alleged corporate misrepresentations in order to win class certification. That would be a new and different burden for the securities class action bar, which, under Basic's fraud-on-the-market theory, simply had to show that shares traded in an efficient market in order to invoke the presumption that investors relied on corporate misstatements. To establish price impact, plaintiffs would have to hire experts to conduct event studies analyzing the market effect of particular misrepresentations. But such event studies are already common in securities class action litigation, as both sides acknowledged to the justices. So a new price impact requirement would leave the securities class action industry more or less intact. "We can live with that," one plaintiffs lawyer told me.

from Alison Frankel:

As Basic hangs in the balance, next SCOTUS securities case looms

On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, the most momentous securities case of the last quarter century. When this term ends in June, we'll know whether the fraud-on-the-market theory that the Supreme Court codified in the 1988 case Basic v. Levinson will remain intact as the foundation of the securities class action industry or whether shareholders will lose the leverage of classwide damages claims for supposed fraud under the Exchange Act of 1934. I've been saying it for months: Untold billions of dollars hang on the justices' determination in the Halliburton case.

The stakes are admittedly not quite as high in Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension, which the justices have just agreed to hear next term. Omnicare presents the question of whether plaintiffs asserting claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 must only show that defendants made objectively false statements in offering documents - as the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held in the Omnicare case - or must also show that defendants didn't believe the supposedly false statements at the time they were made, as at least two other federal circuits have concluded. Section 11 class actions, as you know, aren't historically as prevalent as Exchange Act fraud class actions. But if the Supreme Court overturns Basic v. Levinson, Securities Act claims will be one of the few remaining avenues for shareholders who want to sue through class actions. The justices' reasoning on the standard of proof will go a long way toward determining how big a threat these cases present to issuers - and to their underwriters, auditors and lawyers.

  •