{"id":7404,"date":"2009-10-10T17:05:27","date_gmt":"2009-10-10T22:05:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/?p=7404"},"modified":"2009-10-10T17:05:27","modified_gmt":"2009-10-10T22:05:27","slug":"acs-presentation-on-2008-09-supreme-court-opinions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/2009\/10\/acs-presentation-on-2008-09-supreme-court-opinions\/","title":{"rendered":"ACS Presentation on 2008-09 Supreme Court Opinions"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"images\"<\/a>With the beginning of the 2009-2010 term of the Supreme Court, the Marquette Chapter of American Constitution Society for Law and Public Policy<\/a> (ACS) spent a lunch-hour discussing some of the more interesting cases of the past 2008-2009 term. Leading the lunch discussion were Marquette professors Blinka, McChrystal, and Secunda.<\/p>\n

Professor Blinka started the lunch discussion with Arizona v. Gant<\/a><\/span>, a 5-to-4 decision written by Justice Stevens and joined by Justices Scalia, Souter, Thomas, and Ginsburg (an odd confederation to say the least).\u00a0 In Gant<\/span>, the Court limited the scope of \u201csearch incident to arrest.\u201d\u00a0 The Court held that while police can conduct a warrantless vehicle search \u201cincident to an arrest,\u201d police can only search without a warrant and without consent if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the vehicle or if the officers have reasonable belief that \u201cevidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.\u201d Arizona v. Gant<\/span> 556 U. S. ____, 2 (2009).<\/p>\n

After the discussion of the case, Professor Blinka suggested that one ramification of Gant<\/span> is that law enforcement will likely put more emphasis on gaining consent to search vehicles, since arrest will no longer yield such access. Professor Blinka also left the lunch group with one question: why did the Court decide that it was appropriate to narrow the \u201csearch incident to arrest\u201d rule in 2009, especially since the broader search rule had been in effect for nearly thirty years?<\/p>\n

Professor McChrystal addressed the Court\u2019s decision in S<\/a><\/span>afford Unified School District v. Redding<\/a>, <\/span>557 U.S. ___ (2009), another Fourth\u00a0Amendment case. Unlike Gant<\/span>, which was based on a police search, this case addressed the ability of public school administrators to strip search a minor student for contraband. In reaching their decision that the school administrator\u2019s strip-search violated the student\u2019s Fourth\u00a0Amendment protection, the eight-member majority found that the intrusive nature of the search did not adequately correspond with a \u201csubstantial chance\u201d of finding contraband in her underwear.<\/p>\n

The 8-to-1 decision in Redding<\/span> left Justice Thomas alone in dissent. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas argued that the doctrine of in loco parentis<\/em> (literally meaning “in place of the parent,\u201d allows a third party to act with same authority that a parent would have) should be applied to allow school administrators to search a student\u2019s person without any Fourth\u00a0Amendment concerns whatsoever. Under this approach, not only would a strip search be constitutional, but so would a more drastic search of a student\u2019s body cavities.<\/p>\n

In Professor McChrystal\u2019s closing remarks, he cautioned future practitioners about a broader issue of privacy\u2014 that in an age of Google searches, clients might want to limit their names from public record.\u00a0 A Google search for the plaintiff in Redding<\/span> results in nearly four million hits. And while Ms. Redding\u2019s ordeal at school occurred six years ago this month, her name will always be attached to the school\u2019s invasion of her privacy. However, had her lawyer petitioned the court for a pseudonym for the minor plaintiff, something that most courts would be likely to grant under the circumstances, she might have maintained more of the privacy that she fought so hard to protect.<\/p>\n

The last case, C<\/a><\/span>rawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville<\/a><\/span>, discussed by Professor Secunda, reviewed the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII. This provision protects employees suffering from adverse employment actions (such as a demotion, change in pay, or termination) when the employee \u201cparticipates\u201d or \u201copposes\u201d an unlawful employment practice. At the heart of the matter in Crawford was what type of employee conduct constitutes \u201copposition\u201d to an unlawful employment practice. The Court, reversing the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, held that reporting sexual harassment was not needed for protection under the \u201copposition\u201d prong of the anti-retaliation provision. Furthermore, applying an ordinary definition of \u201copposition\u201d the Court held that the \u201copposition\u201d prong of Title VII protected an employee\u2019s cooperation with an internal investigation of sexual harassment when an employee gave a \u201cdisapproving account\u201d of a supervisor\u2019s conduct.<\/p>\n

Professor Secunda noted that while the unanimous decision is good for employees that seek retaliation protection, the Court may have better helped such workers by addressing employee protection under the more frequently used \u201cparticipation\u201d clause.<\/p>\n

MU-ACS sincerely appreciates the faculty members and students who gave their time for the event. All students are welcome to join MU-ACS events.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

With the beginning of the 2009-2010 term of the Supreme Court, the Marquette Chapter of American Constitution Society for Law and Public Policy (ACS) spent a lunch-hour discussing some of the more interesting cases of the past 2008-2009 term. Leading the lunch discussion were Marquette professors Blinka, McChrystal, and Secunda. Professor Blinka started the lunch […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":68,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,54,28,19,48,44,24,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7404","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-justice","category-federal-civil-litigation","category-criminal-law-process","category-federal-law-legal-system","category-marquette-law-school","category-political-processes-rhetoric","category-us-supreme-court","category-uncategorized","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7404","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/68"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7404"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7404\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7404"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7404"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7404"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}