Kirsten Small, Most Wonderful Time of the Year

Ah, June.

The sun is shining, the birds are singing, and Supreme Court lawclerks are showing signs of rickets. June is that magical time of theyear when a certain segment of the bar (we know who we are) spend Monday mornings glued toSCOTUSblog’s live feed of opinion announcements. The rest of the bar (you know who you are,too) shrug their collective shoulders in a startlingly accurateimitation of my preteen son and say, “Whatevs, lady. What’s it to me?”

Actually, quite a lot. This year’s Supreme Court term is packed withmajor social and pocketbook issues. You already know the biggies (DOMA,Prop 8, the Voting Rights Act), but there are a few others worth keeping your eye out for (links are to SCOTUSblog’s excellent coverage):

American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant,Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter: The Supreme Court sails once more into the murky waters of class-wide arbitration. We’re gonna need a bigger boat.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics: Are human genes patentable? That drip, drip, drip sound you hear is not a gentle spring shower. It is the sound of patent trolls salivating.

FTC v. Actavis: If a pharmaceutical company pays a generic drug maker not to make ageneric version of a patented drug–which would first require invalidation of the patent–is that settlement of a legitimate dispute,or an anti-competitive sham? I think this case is the most important ofthe term, because how the Court answers that question will affect howmuch each and every one of us pays for prescription medication.

Vance v. Ball State University: This one’s for the employment lawyers. A number of years ago, theSupreme Court held that employers can only be held liable fordiscrimination by supervisors (i.e., those with the power to hire, fire, demote,promote, etc.). The question in this case is whether a “supervisor” also includes a person with daily authority over an employee, even if thatperson lacks authority to make ultimate employment decisions.

Salinas v. Texas: I remember being outraged in law school upon learning that the FifthAmendment right against self-incrimination did not apply to pre-arrest,pre-Miranda silence (Doyle v. Ohio, but don’t be impressed–I had to look it up). Apparently Ididn’t read Doyle closely enough (which would explain my grade in thatcourse), because the Supreme Court actually left the question ofpre-arrest silence open. This case presents that question.

Last but not least, a couple for the South Carolinians out there …

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl: Does the Indian Child Welfare Act preempt state adoption law? This heartbreaking case arose out of the S.C. Supreme Court.

Maracich v. Spears: Plaintiffs’ lawyers, take note. This case (out of South Carolina viathe Fourth Circuit) asks whether the litigation exception to theDriver’s Privacy Protection Act applies to solicitation of plaintiffs based on a ”placeholdersuit.”

Stay tuned for further developments …