 |
|
|
United States Supreme Court 5/26/2009 10:37:11 AM EST Opinions and Articles Written by Judge Sonia Sotomayor
President Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to fill the United States Supreme Court seat being vacated by retiring Justice David Souter.
Featured Opinions:
Excerpt:
According to the Second Circuit, a decision that a case is not prudentially ripe means that the case will be better decided later and that constitutional rights of the parties will not be undermined by the delay; it does not mean that the case is not a real or concrete dispute affecting cognizable current concerns of the parties within the meaning of Article III.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Excerpt:
The issue is not whether the precise relief originally sought when the application for an injunction was filed is still available. The question is whether the court can render any effective relief. For example, in an employment discrimination suit, the plaintiff's appeal of a denial of an injunction prohibiting the employer from intimidating her by firing her was not mooted by her firing, because the court could still offer effective relief. The court reasoned that an injunction requiring reinstatement of the plaintiff could negate or at least substantially mitigate the adverse effects of one of the "irreparable harms" the plaintiff feared--the intimidation of witnesses in her ongoing litigation against the defendants--by signaling to employees that the defendants may not legally fire them for offering to testify in a discrimination suit.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Excerpt:
Diversity jurisdiction may apply to all causes of action, whether created by state or federal law, unless Congress expresses a clear intent to the contrary. The Second Circuit considered diversity jurisdiction under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The court had earlier held that federal courts do not have federal question jurisdiction of actions under the Act, reasoning that the permissive authorization of actions in state courts and the lack of any specific grant of jurisdiction to federal courts trumped the more general grant of federal question jurisdiction in Section 1331. In contrast, the Second Circuit found nothing in the Act that expressly divested federal courts of diversity jurisdiction over private actions under the TCPA. Nor did the court find anything in Section 1332 that prevents its application to federally created causes of action. The court concluded that in the absence of a clear expression of Congressional intent to divest federal cour ts of diversity jurisdiction, it should be presumed to exist.
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Read commentary on these cases from the LexisNexis Tax Law Center (no subscription required):
Create an account or login to post comments.
|
|
|
|
|
 Our Communities Other Links 
Message has been sent.
|
|