Short on time today, but Jeanie Shawl at Jurist has a great roundup of the three decisions announced by the court yesterday.
In brief, the court failed, in Rita v. U.S., to clarify what the Booker decision from 2005, regarding the constitutionality of sentencing guidelines, really means. There were so many concurrences and ifs and buts, it was hard to call the decision definitive (even though it came down 8-1). But basically, if “a prison sentence falls within the federal sentencing guidelines, [it] may be presumed to be a reasonable sentence on appeal, but the presumption of reasonableness is not binding.”
As usual SCOTUSblog has varying analyses and explanations.
In Tellabs v. Makor the court, 8-1, “dealt a blow to investors who want to sue companies and executives because of suspected fraud, setting a higher standard for class-action lawsuits to go forward.” According to the Times blurb, “the decision was the second one this week by the court that was a defeat for shareholders and a victory for the defendant companies. On Monday, the justices ruled that securities underwriters on Wall Street are generally immune from civil antitrust lawsuits.”
Cover your assets, in other words.
And in a free speech case (though I don’t see the relevance of it, frankly), the court ruled 9-0 in Tennessee v. Brentwood that high school football coaches cannot engage in recruiting violations and then claim a first amendment right to do so. Basically, some high school recruiters were violating the state athletic association’s rules by soliciting kids before they had chosen a school, and then claiming their “speech” was protected. But apparently not, in this 9-0 slap.
Next week will be huge. Nine big decisions to come down before next Friday.
Cross posted from AoF