Constitutional Interpretation – Page 30 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Best of the Blogs: One Lump or Two?

Post author:Edward A. Fallone
Post published:October 25, 2010
Post category:Business Regulation Constitutional Interpretation Federalism Health Care Political Processes & Rhetoric

November 2 is fast approaching, and the nation is awaiting the election results to see whether the Tea Party Movement will be revealed to be a force in American politics or an over-hyped media sensation. This week’s “Best of the Blogs” feature provides everything a political junkie needs to learn more about the Tea Party Movement.

The obvious starting point might be Butch Cassidy’s (or Paul Newman’s) famous question, “Who are those guys?” Amy Gardner at the Washington Post tries to answer that question here (hat tip to Steven Easley). Despite her best efforts, a definitive picture of the Movement remains elusive:

[A] new Washington Post canvass of hundreds of local tea party groups reveals a different sort of organization, one that is not so much a movement as a disparate band of vaguely connected gatherings that do surprisingly little to engage in the political process.

Certiorari Granted in Material Witness Detention Case That Concerns the Iqbal Pleading Standard

Post author:Jessica E. Slavin
Post published:October 19, 2010
Post category:Civil Procedure Constitutional Interpretation Federal Law & Legal System

Yesterday the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, the petition in which the United States Department of Justice seeks to establish, on behalf of former Attorney General John Ashcroft, that government officials have immunity from liability for claims that they used the material witness statute to detain a U.S. citizen, not, in reality, to ensure his availability as a witness in another case, but instead as a pretext for what was actually a preventative detention.

As the New York Times explains, the former detainee in question, Abdullah Al-Kidd, is a U.S. citizen born in Kansas as Lavoni A. Kidd; he was (I have read) a football star for the University of Idaho in the mid-90s. In rejecting Ashcroft’s argument for immunity, the Ninth Circuit (in a split three-judge panel decision) first held that, at best, qualified immunity might apply, explaining its reasoning this way:

Supreme Court Takes New First Amendment Public Employment Case

Post author:Paul M. Secunda
Post published:October 13, 2010
Post category:Constitutional Interpretation Labor & Employment Law U.S. Supreme Court

Not exactly Garcetti II, but the United State Supreme Court yeserday granted certiorari in a case involving a ruling affirming a jury verdict for a police chief claiming retaliation under the First Amendment’s Petition Clause. The case is Duryea v. Guarnieri (No. 09-1476). (Here is the Third Circuit opinion below and the petition for writ of certiorari).

Although the Borough argues that this case should be handled like other free speech cases and be dismissed because the dispute does not meet the Connick “matter of public concern” test, the police chief argues that there should be different standards applied for Petition Clause claims as opposed to free speech claims.

Interestingly, a similar argument arises over whether the Connick/Pickering/Garcetti framework should apply in association claim cases under the First Amendment.