As the October 2010 term draws nearer to its close, Supreme Court opinions are getting wordier. At the same time, the justices appear to be parsing those words much more by making frequent uses of dictionaries in their analyses.

As USA Today’s Joan Biskupic points out, the later in the term, the longer opinions tend to be. That’s because the longer it takes for a case to be decided, the more likely it’s due to the fact that there are concurring and dissenting opinions involved, which take longer for the justices to write, review and revise.

But justices are not tossing about words willy-nilly. Instead they tend to scrutinize them, with the aids of the usual legal precedents and authorities, and also by using good ol’ dictionaries. In a recent case, notes The New York Times‘ Adam Liptak, Chief Justice John G. Roberts even consulted a dictionary for the definition of the word “of.” (It means what you think it means, he pointed out.)

Among the likely wordy and well-defined opinions we are still awaiting from the Court:

-A decision in the latest installment in the ongoing battle between the estates of the late pinup and reality star Anna Nicole Smith and her late husband and oil magnate J. Howard Marshall, which turns on the application of bankruptcy law (Stern v. Marshall);

-A ruling on whether defendants who are sentenced pursuant to a plea agreement can later seek a sentence reduction under amended U.S. Sentencing Guidelines (Freeman v. U.S.);

-A decision on whether a court may consider factors such as age in determining whether a youth is in police custody and therefore entitled to Miranda rights (J.D.B. v. North Carolina);

-A ruling deciding whether state law failure-to-warn suits against generic drug makers are preempted by federal law? (Pliva v. Mensing);

-And the much-anticipated decision of whether more than 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees may be certified as a class in what could be the nation’s largest class-action gender discrimination suit (Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes).

For more on yesterday’s decisions, check out Lawyers USA online.

Today the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Arizona state law imposing sanctions on employers who hire undocumented workers and mandating the use of the federal E-Verify database.

In the 5-3 ruling in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (Justice Elena Kagan recused), the Court held that the law was not preempted by federal immigration law.

The ruling is a defeat for the unusual coalition of groups that joined together to urge the Court to strike down the law on federal preemption grounds: U.S. Chamber of Commerce, labor organizations, civil rights groups, immigration advocates and the Obama administration.

Much more on this case and its implications – as well as the Court’s rulings in Camreta v. Greene, Fowler v. U.S., and U.S. v. Tinklenberg – to come on Lawyers USA Online.

DC Dicta is taking a short recess until Friday, May 13.

DC Dicta is taking a little break. But it will be back on Monday, covering arguments and other action at the U.S. Supreme Court as well as bringing you other blog-worthy Washington buzz.

The First Amendment shields protesters – who picketed military funerals shouting and displaying messages such as “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and “You’re Going to Hell” – from tort liability, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today.

The highly-anticipated ruling in Snyder v. Phelps ends a bid by the family of Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder to reinstate an award for damages against six members of the Westboro Baptist Church for intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy. The Snyders had been awarded millions in compensatory and punitive damages, but the 4th Circuit revered on First Amendment grounds.

Affirming the 4th Circuit, the 8-1 Supreme Court majority acknowledged the pain suffered by the plaintiffs in the case, but held that the Constitution precluded a verdict in their favor.

“Speech is powerful,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote for the majority. “It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and-as it did here-inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course-to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”

The lone dissenter, Justice Samuel Alito, took a strongly different view.

“Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case,” Alito wrote. “Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. … The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.”

In the second of two opinions issued today, the Court held in Pepper v. U.S. that when a defendant’s sentence has been set aside on appeal, a district court at resentencing may consider evidence of the defendant’s post-sentencing rehabilitation, and such evidence may, in appropriate cases, support a downward variance from the now-advisory Guidelines range.

More on the impact of Snyder to come on this blog and on Lawyers USA online.

Dozens of law professors have urged members of Congress to extend the ethics code that applies to most federal judges to the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the letter, sent to top members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees and posted on the website of Alliance for Justice yesterday, the law professors called for clear rules setting out when Supreme Court justices should recuse themselves from cases. Such “mandatory and enforceable rules” would “protect the integrity of the Supreme Court,” the professors wrote.

The professors cited recent media reports of justices engaging in activities that some say create at least the appearance of impartiality.

“Decisions of Supreme Court justices have the broadest impact, are frequently divisive, and often turn on the vote of a single justice,” the letter states. “Yet, while all other federal judges are required to abide by the Code of Conduct, and are subject to investigation and sanctions for failure to do so, Supreme Court justices look to the Code for mere ‘guidance,’ and are not obligated to follow the Code’s rules.”

The legal scholars cited the Court’s own reasoning in the decision in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal.

In that case the Court ruled “that the justice’s view of his own impartiality did not matter so much as whether the appearance of his impartiality was compromised,” the letter states. “Critically, the Court held that an independent inquiry was needed ‘where, as here, there is no procedure for judicial fact-finding and the sole trier of fact is the one accused of bias.’

“Unlike Caperton, where the Supreme Court reversed the self-judged view of a single state court judge, there is no review procedure for recusal decisions by Supreme Court justices.”

DC Dicta will return Monday. In the meantime, have a happy holiday season!

The U.S. Supreme Court returns to action Monday, where the justices are scheduled to issue orders and hear oral arguments. Monday is also when DC Dicta will return. In the meantime, enjoy the turkey, presidential turkey pardons, tryptophan-induced naps and football (go Lions!).

DC Dicta is having some technical difficulties with the comments section of the blog. If you’ve chimed in, but haven’t seen your remarks, we apologize. The issue should be resolved soon, and then the comments should appear.

“Why should the First Amendment tolerate exploiting this Marine’s family?”

That question, posed by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during yesterday’s oral arguments in Snyder v. Phelps, underscores the tough task before the U.S. Supreme Court: drawing the legal line between free speech rights and privacy rights in a case laden with emotion.

The case asks whether the First Amendment precludes a tort award against a fundamentalist Christian church whose members protested a military funeral while holding signs bearing messages such as “Thank God for dead soldiers.” The church, which subscribes to the belief that God is punishing the country and the military for tolerating gay people, also posted an message on its website, that the soldier’s parents “taught him that God was a liar.”

But the members also conducted the protest on public land, stayed 1,000 feet from the church where the funeral was held, and contacted local authorities in an effort to avoid violating any local laws.

So the justices must now decide, in essence, whether some speech, made in a lawful way, is offensively outrageous enough to be tortious, First Amendment notwithstanding.

The justices themselves seemed to know the job before them was a tough one.

“I don’t know what the rules ought to be there,” said Justice Stephen Breyer. “That is, do you think that a person can put anything on the Internet? Do you think that a person can put anything on television even if it attacks, say, the most private things of a private individual?”

Counsel for each party in the case argued from the standpoint of the little guy – each side urging the Court to protect its constitutional interest.

“Mr. [Albert] Snyder simply wanted to bury his son in a private, dignified manner,” said Sean E. Summers, representing the father of the fallen Marine. “When the [church members'] behavior made that impossible, Mr. Snyder was entitled to turn to the tort law of the state of Maryland.”

Margie J. Phelps, the attorney and daughter of church founder Fred Phelps, portrayed the church as the underdog, claiming it was punished for engaging in a public discussion Snyder himself joined when he criticized the war that claimed his son.

“When a plaintiff comes to your Court and says, ‘I want $11 million from a little church because they came forth with some preaching I didn’t like,’ I think it does make a difference for the Court to look closely at what role did that man have in that public discussion,” Phelps said.

More on oral arguments in the case here at Lawyers USA online.