Today in Supreme Court History: March 4

United States v. Tsarnaev, 595 U.S. 302 (decided March 4, 2022): upholding conviction of 2013 Boston Marathan bomber; trial judge had discretion at voir dire to ask only general questions about media exposure, and to exclude at sentencing mention of brother’s triple homicide to show that defendant was not the ringleader of bombing (according to Wikipedia, attorney is as of this writing cooking up arguments for another appeal) (opportunities for agreement with Tsarnaev are limited, but he was right about trying to eat cherry tomatoes with a fork)

FBI v. Fazaga, 595 U.S. 344 (decided March 4, 2022): in suit by Muslims alleging discriminatory surveillance, Court holds that government (which opposed disclosure of surveillance materials) does not have to follow procedure in 50 U.S.C. §1806(f) for in camera inspection even though on its terms it applies when (as in this case) government asserts “state secrets” privilege (unanimous decision, in which the Court cites the leading case on the privilege, Reynolds v. United States, 1953, a case alleging death due to faulty government plane, where the government claimed the state secrets privilege and wouldn’t even allow in camera inspection; the Court doesn’t tell us that years later the Reynolds documents were declassified and showed no state secret, just an engine fire, and it refused to hear that case again)

Lawson v. FMR, LLC, 571 U.S. 429 (decided March 4, 2014): protection of whistleblower statute, 18 U.S.C. §1514A(a), extends to employees of private contractors serving publicly traded companies (here, advising as to mutual funds) (the mutual fund itself, Fidelity, had no employees; Sotomayor, joining Kennedy and Alito in dissent, points out that the phrase in §1514A(a) is “employees of publicly traded companies”)

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (decided March 4, 1998): same-sex harassment is actionable under Title VII

United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65 (decided March 4, 1998): officer can break in, damaging property (e.g., smashing in window) if knocking would reasonably result in evidence being destroyed, witnesses disappearing, or danger (i.e., “no-knock warrant”)

Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (decided March 4, 1996): Wife owned car jointly with husband.  Husband convicted of sex with prostitute in car.  Wife didn’t know about it.  Car is still forfeited and she doesn’t get compensated for her share.  Does this sound fair?  The car was 11 years old and she had another car available, but still . . . 5 - 4 decision.

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312 (decided March 4, 1986): prisoner shot without warning during prison riot did not suffer “cruel and unusual punishment”; no showing that shooting was unnecessary or wanton

Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (decided March 4, 1985): prohibiting out-of-state lawyers from bar admission violated Privileges and Immunities Clause (though the state can still make it pretty damned inconvenient; try being a New York lawyer applying for admission in Connecticut or Vermont!)

Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (decided March 4, 1981): employer accused of sex discrimination must only give clear non-pretextual rationale for not hiring plaintiff; doesn’t have to be preponderance of evidence

Johnson v. Robinson, 415 U.S. 361 (decided March 4, 1974): not a Free Exercise violation to exclude conscientious objectors (who had completed required non-military service) from educational benefits available to veterans