Constitutional Law: June 2008 Archives

Here is the Supreme Court’s Opinion in Exxon v. Baker. The Court held that a punitive damage award three times the amount of compensatory damages was excessive, even to punish one of the world’s largest corporations for one of the worst and most egregious environmental disasters in history.

Alan Milstein

Here is the Supreme Court’s misfire on the Second Amendment. The Court held that a municipality such as the nation’s capital with a murder rate that is a national embarrassment cannot prohibit the purchase of handguns. Talk about blind justice. This is a Court that cares more about the rights of gun owners than victims of gun violence.

Alan Milstein

As hundreds of gay couples headed to California to take advantage of  a state declared right to be lawfully wedded, its impact could be felt in a rather unusual forum. The self-confessed mastermind of  the September 11th attacks appeared before a military tribunal last week and asked to be given the death penalty so he could become a “martyr.” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told Col Ralph Kohlmann, a US military judge, that death was "my wish . . . I am looking to be martyred for a long time. I fought against the Russians [in Afghanistan] for a long time. Now it is maybe from you."

The Pakistan-born Kuwaiti also sang verses from the Koran, denounced the court at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an inquisition and said he would represent himself.

"I will not accept any lawyer if they swear allegiance to the American constitution,” he said.  Why is he so opposed to the Constitution? For this, he had an answer that should sit rather uncomfortably at places like Fox News and the Family Research Council. “I am considering the American constitution evil laws in allowing for same sex marriage and many things that are very bad," he said.

If he thinks it’s bad you know its good.

Alan Milstein

Here is the Supreme Court Opinion in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. In a 7 to 1 decision, the Supreme Court, whose ages range fom 53 to 87, made it easier for employees to prove they have suffered discrimination because of their age. The Court held that when older workers are disproportionately affected by an employment decision, the employer bears the burden of explaining why.

          The case involved two dozen workers at an upstate New York federal research laboratory. When the federal government ordered the contractor that runs the lab to reduce its force, the contractor had its managers rate their subordinates on “performance,” “flexibility,” and “critical skills.” The contractor then fired thirty-one employees, all but one over 40, the age at which the age-discrimination law begins to apply. Most of the affected employees joined a suit contending there was no justification for using an evaluation system that had a disparate impact on older workers.

Justice Souter wrote that the ruling might "make it harder and costlier to defend" age discrimination lawsuits, but, with respect to the federal Age Discrimination Act,  "We have to read it the way Congress wrote it."

Alan Milstein