Today in Supreme Court History: February 21

Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, 583 U.S. 149 (decided February 21, 2018): whistleblower statute did not allow damages for retaliatory termination where employee had reported securities laws violations to senior management but not to the SEC

Class v. United States, 583 U.S. 174 (decided February 21, 2018): defendant pleading guilty can still appeal on grounds that statute under which he was charged is unconstitutional (carrying a gun on U.S. Capitol grounds, 40 U.S.C. §5104(e)(1), which he argued violated Second Amendment; the D.C. Circuit ended up rejecting this argument, 930 F.3d 460, but that was before Bruen, 2022, where the Court, disagreeing with both parties in front of it, held that cases such as Class applied too lax a standard of scrutiny, see Bruen fn.4)

Ministry of Defense of Iran v. Elahi, 546 U.S. 450 (decided February 21, 2006): Elahi, an Iranian citizen, sued the Islamic Republic of Iran (he claimed it murdered his brother) in federal court and got a default judgment. Meanwhile Iran’s Ministry of Defense won an arbitration award in Switzerland on an unrelated matter and went to federal court to confirm it, thus locating the award in the U.S.  Here Elahi moves to attach it so as to satisfy his judgment.  The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does not apply to commercial activities of an “agent or instrumentality” of a foreign state but the Court, relying on the opinion of the Solicitor General, holds that the Ministry of Defense is not an “agent or instrumentality” but part of the foreign state itself.  Therefore the Ministry of Defense has immunity and the petition for attachment is dismissed.

Gonzalez v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (decided February 21, 2006): Religious Freedom Restoration Act prevented prosecution of religious sect for using hallucinogenic tea in their services

Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87 (decided February 21, 1989): 40% (!!) contingency fee arrangement between plaintiff and his lawyer did not place ceiling on amount of fees recovered from losing side in §1983 action (I can personally testify to the ridiculous over-lawyering by plaintiff counsel in §1983 actions, knowing they can recover for it or at least use it as leverage for settlement)