Lawyers USA Your Business Partner

Each term, the U.S. Supreme Court decides the most significant and controversial cases in the country. But which one was the most important of all?

Lawyers USA picked its Top 10 rulings, but we also decided to ask the experts.

Our commentators include Les Weisbrod, president of the American Association for Justice; Tom Goldstein, a partner at Akin Gump in Washington, D.C. and founder of SCOTUSblog; Jeffrey Fisher, Associate Professor and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School; and Ross Runkel, professor emeritus of Willamette University College of Law in Salem, Ore. and founder of LawMemo.

But we also want to hear from you – what do you think was the most important opinion of the term, and why?

Lawyers USA: What was the most important opinion of the term?

Goldstein: It’s not even close – Ashcroft v. Iqbal .

People classified it as a terrorism case, but it had nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with the basic rules of stating a claim. The decision raises the bar for pleading a claim in federal court and it is absolutely path-breaking in the way it makes it harder to bring a federal lawsuit. The decision was a shocker and has gotten way too little attention. This case will be cited more than any case of the last 10 years or of the next 10 years. I would bet that in the two months since it has been decided, it’s already been cited in at least 1,000 motions, and within the next two years, it will be cited in 1,000 cases.

More on the Ashcroft ruling here .

Fisher: Ashcroft v. Iqbal threatens to give district courts, many of which feel overburdened by their dockets, license to dismiss numerous cases at the pleading stage that might well prove meritorious if allowed to proceed to discovery.

Lawyers USA: Fisher cheated and picked a second case.

Fisher: While I agree with those who say that it will likely be the rare case that will trigger a due process violation for failure to recuse, I see Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. as yet another case (like Minnesota Republican Party , dealing with free speech in judicial elections) that makes electing judges unappealing and problematic, if only because of the litigation and uncertainty it will cause.

If this line of cases ultimately persuades some states to abandon elections in favor of appointing truly independent judges, then the indirect effect of the case will be important and wide-ranging indeed.

More on the Caperton ruling here .

Les Weisbrod: No Supreme Court decision this term was more important to consumers than Wyeth v. Levine , where the Court turned back a concerted effort by big business and the Bush Administration to deny consumers of prescription drugs their rights to redress through the courts. The decision reaffirmed what more than 70 years’ experience had amply demonstrated: that tort liability is a critically important complement to regulation in assuring drug safety and that FDA approval of a warning on a drug label does not absolve the manufacturer of responsibility for foreseeable injuries when science uncovers previously undisclosed risks.

More on the Wyeth ruling here .

Ross Runkel: The biggest and most important case was Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County , where the Court held that an employee answering questions in an internal investigation was engaging in protected activity and the employer couldn’t retaliate against her. This decision is going to have an impact on a huge number of individuals because it happens on a daily basis, where an employer investigates a sexual harassment issue and interviews other employees.

More on the Crawford ruling here .

Lawyers USA: What about the Ricci case , another employment decision which has been getting tons of publicity?

Runkel: Ricci has political fire and the Sotomayor angle [Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion by the 2nd Circuit, which the Supreme Court reversed] and it’s theoretically important, but as a practical matter, it will rarely have an impact. The case involved a civil service test that will probably only arise in the public sector and in that case, the employer gave a test, saw the results had a significant impact against African-Americans and then threw out the test results. Hardly any employers do that – they validate the test before they give it, or they stick with the results after giving it. Crawford will have a much greater impact.

Lawyers USA: What if the case you chose had been decided by a different Court, with Justice David Souter retired and Sonia Sotomayor confirmed?

Weisbrod: The strength of the 6-3 majority opinion [in Wyeth ] means that the retirement of Justice Souter does not hold out the prospect for undermining the traditional presumption against preemption, which the Court reaffirmed as one of the cornerstones of preemption doctrine.

Runkel: Although Justice Souter wrote [the opinion in Crawford ], it was a 7-2 decision so it wouldn’t matter if the neighborhood dog decided the case.

Goldstein: Justice Souter wrote the lead dissent [in Ashcroft], so the result would be the same, assuming Sotomayor voted with the left to keep the courtroom doors open.

Questions or comments can be directed to the writer at: correy.stephenson@lawyersusaonline.com

Close this Window Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Print RSS Feed Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments

Connotea del.icio.us Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Feed Me Links Friendsite folkd.com

Furl Google Hugg Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo linkedin LinksMarker Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace

MyWeb Netvouz Newsvine oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Rojo Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot

Sphere Sphinn Spurl Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Tumblr Twitter Webride Windows Live Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

More »