Reminder: The Supreme Court has not been a protector of underrepresented

Cotter’s Corner

By Daniel A. Cotter

Daniel A. Cotter is a partner at Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC and author of the book “The Chief Justices” (Twelve Tables Press). The views expressed here are solely those of the author. He can be reached at scotuslyyours@gmail.com.

Posted October 24, 2022 12:16 PM

With only a few exceptions in its long history, the Supreme Court has never been a protector of our nation’s underrepresented. Last week, that was evident again when justices rejected the petition for certiorari in the case of Fitisemanu v. United States.None of the justices dissented from the denial, per the order list. We might not ever know why the case did not garner four votes for the justices to hear the case, as we discuss in this column.The Insular CasesAt issue in Fitisemanu was this question: “Whether …

To Read the Full Story

Your source for legal news and information

Print & Digital Access

Stay in the know all year long with these benefits:

Delivery to your office in downtown Chicago or mailed outside our hand-delivery zone.
Unlimited access to chicagolawbulletin.com.
Access to our e-edition and mobile site.
Breaking news alerts, Morning Lineup and Afternoon Headlines.
Exclusive access to events, discounts and more.

Order now, or call 312-644-2394 or email Subscription@LawBulletinMedia.com for details.

Be in the know. These must-read insider briefings will keep you

informed of the latest legal developments in Chicago. Sign up today!

High court says judge erred in trying to ‘rehabilitate’ juror

Guided by the principle that the purpose of voir dire is “investigation, not persuasion” — and bolstered by scholarly commentary that included a 2023 Chicago-Kent Law Review article — the Oregon Supreme Court critiqued a judge’s efforts to “rehabilitate” a prospective juror.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Current proposal isn’t enough to stem mushrooming MDLs

Assigned a multidistrict litigation (MDL) that grew from a couple of dozen cases to nearly a thousand, and observing cases that were not properly investigated or attended to by counsel, a judge in the Middle District with Georgia expressed a famous frustration with a process that has only gotten worse in the eight years since.
By Patrick Eckler
Manufacturer claims immunity for rubber bullet injury

Claiming immunity under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act when Eduardo Santos sued for severe injuries allegedly caused by a police officer who shot him in the face with a rubber bullet, Defense Technology — the company that manufactured the “kinetic impact projectile” and KIP launcher — argued the statute’s product-liability exception didn’t apply.
By Steven P. Garmisa
A judge’s ethical imperative: Follow the law or face the JIB

“The law that applies to this case is stated in these instructions, and it is your duty to follow all of them.” So states Illinois Pattern Jury Instruction 1.01(2), which the judge reads to the jurors in every criminal case before the jury begins its deliberations. If we expect jurors to follow the law, we surely must expect judges to lead by example and do the same thing.
By David P. Sterba
Defendant challenges ‘judicial legislation’ in suit over insider trading

Accused of insider trading, Michael Shvartsman argued this offense is “criminal law made by judges” that violates Article I of the U.S. Constitution and the non-delegation doctrine.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Court assesses offsets against employee’s underinsured claim

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, construing Illinois law, recently held that an employee injured in an automobile accident was entitled to recover underinsured coverage from his employer’s automobile liability policy, subject to certain reductions.
By Don R. Sampen
Iowa Supreme Court blocks testimony about business records

In a case where prosecutors relied on the hearsay rule’s business-records exception to justify testimony about documents that weren’t admitted into evidence, the Iowa Supreme Court, citing decisions from across the country, reversed because “the rules of evidence create a ‘business records exception’ to the rule against hearsay and not a ‘testimony about business records exception.’”
By Steven P. Garmisa
Arizona high court rolls back clock to 1864 in abortion case

The Comstock Act of 1873 was referenced in the U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in the mifepristone case recently heard, and may play a factor in at least some of the justices’ decisions. Turns out, Arizona told a certain justice, we know you like beer, hold this beer.
By Daniel A. Cotter