|
 A somber mood is expected as the court hears oral arguments in two
cases, its first action since Scalia, 79, died on Feb. 13 at a Texas
hunting resort. Scalia was a conservative mainstay who was known for
posing tough questions to lawyers and for provoking laughter with
his observations during oral arguments.
His death left the court with four conservatives and four liberals
and triggered a furious fight between President Barack Obama, set to
name Scalia's successor, and Senate Republicans who have vowed to
block any nominee from the Democratic president, with the court's
balance of power at stake.
Court observers said Scalia could have represented the deciding vote
in one of the two cases to be argued on Monday, involving the rights
of criminal defendants.
With his absence, the court could end up splitting 4-4, meaning the
lower court ruling would stand and no nationwide precedent would be
set. The court also could order the case to be re-argued after the
Senate confirms Scalia's replacement.
 With the showdown between Obama and Senate Republicans raising the
possibility of a long wait before Scalia's successor is confirmed,
the court will remain shorthanded for an uncertain period of time.
The court could split 4-4 on several important cases during its
current term, which runs through the end of June. They include its
first abortion case since 2007, a presidential powers dispute
involving Obama's unilateral actions on immigration policy, and a
conservative challenge to organized labor's clout.
UTAH CASE
The court on Monday will hear an appeal filed by Utah officials of a
ruling by the state's top court in favor of Edward Strieff, who was
convicted on drug charges. The state Supreme Court ruled that
evidence presented by prosecutors against Strieff was inadmissible
because it violated his right to be free from unreasonable searches
and seizures under the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment.
Scalia was in the majority in two 5-4 rulings in recent years
backing police in similar cases.
[to top of second column] |
"Scalia's vote might have been critical," George Washington
University Law School professor Orin Kerr said of the Strieff case.
Strieff was convicted of methamphetamine possession and a related
drug charge after his vehicle was stopped by police.
His lawyers contend Strieff's Fourth Amendment rights were violated
because although there was a warrant issued for his arrest at the
time of the search, the police officer did not know that when he
stopped Strieff's vehicle.
Before hearing Strieff's case, the justices will consider a dispute
between a federal contractor and the U.S. government. The first
lawyer due to step up the lectern on Monday will be Thomas Saunders
of the Wilmer Hale law firm, representing the contractor.
"I expect the justices will be in a somber mood as they mourn the
passing of a valued colleague. My job is simply to stay focused and
go forward, with respect for the moment and the loss that has
occurred," Saunders said.
Carter Phillips of the firm Sidley Austin, arguing a patent case on
Tuesday, predicted the tone would be different than usual. "I think
there is some chance that there will be fewer questions and almost
certainly fewer laughs," said Phillips, who has argued previous
cases before the court.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 |
