Supreme Court Case of the Month: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals

Case

William Daubert, et ux., etc., et al., Petitioners v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc (1993)

Chief Justice
William Rehnquist

Background

A couple children were born with birth defects, which their parents claimed was due to use of the drug Bendectin (used to treat nausea & morning sickness). Merrell Dow's expert witness showed that there were no studies linking Bendectin to birth defects. The plaintiffs' witness showed that there was evidence of birth defects in in vitro and in vivo animal studies, pharmacological studies, and reanalysis of other published studies. However, these apparently were not generally accepted within the scientific community at that time.

Two previous standards come into play. The older precedent is the Frye law, a common law standard from 1923. The second is the 1975 Federal Rules of Evidence. The Frye law held that in order to be admissible as evidence, the techniques must be "generally accepted by a meaningful segment of the associated scientific community." The Federal Rules of Evidence are a broad set of rules that apply to pretty much every aspect of evidence, not just scientific. This is where it gets a little tricky. I'm not sure how exactly these differed from the Frye law. I think they just didn't clearly articulate how expert opinion would be allowed in court and what would qualify as expert opinion.

Synopsis

Both the district court and the Circuit court found for Merrell Dow, so it wasn't a surprise that the Supreme Court found for the defendant as well, but the case established a new precedent for how scientific evidence is allowed. Frye appears to be quite similar to the Daubert Standard, and I think the significance of Daubert is just that it essentially overruled the Federal Rules of Evidence and established a Supreme Court precedent. More specifically, I think the FRE didn't clearly articulate what was permissible for expert opinions, and this case essentially clarified what would be, and it's similar to the original Frye Standard.

Two things were mentioned about the plaintiffs' evidence that bears mentioning. First, the evidence they submitted appeared to have been prepared specifically for litigation, which apparently made the Circuit Court skeptical. Also, the plaintiff's expert witness was later found to have falsifed research on the teratogenic effects of Bendectin, but that appears to have been after the case was heard by the Supreme Court.

Vote & Dissenting Opinions

Majority: 7 Concur/Dissent: 2

Notable on this is that Chief Justice Rehnquist is one of the two dissenters.

Further Discussion

I stumbled onto this case when it was mentioned in my Epidemiology text book. One of the first quotes I read was that this is the most important Supreme Court case you've never heard of.

It reminded me a bit of the Thimerosal vaccine discussion we had recently. How might this apply to potential cases involving Thimerosal? I would guess at this juncture, any cases with that would get thrown out pretty quickly or be an easy ruling for the defendants if the only evidence is one questionable research study that was later retracted by the journal that published it, so it's not exactly a valid comparison.

References and Further Reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_v._Merrell_Dow_Pharmaceuticals

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~jus/0302/orofino.pdf

Federal Rules of Evidence as of 12/1/09:

http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/EV2009.pdf

Supreme Court Case of the Week: Gibbons v. Ogden

Case

Thomas Gibbons, Appellant v. Aaron Ogden, Respondent (1824)

Chief Justice

John Marshall

Background

Aaron Ogden had a license to operate a monopolistic steamboat service granted by the State of New York. Thomas Gibbons operated a competing steamboat service on interstate waterways adjacent to the state of New York. Ogden took him to court in the state of New York to prevent him from operating his business, and two levels of New York court agreed with him.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court agreed with Gibbons' lawyers argument that that the Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (the Commerce Clause) gave Congress the right to regulate commerce extended to "all aspects of it, overriding state laws to the contrary." (from wikipedia)

Vote & Dissenting Opinions

6-0 (with 1 abstaining)

Further Discussion

This case seems pretty straightforward and simple, really. It is an important case, but at least on first glance, appears to be an easy decision. Here's Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 & 3 of the Constitution:

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

References & Further Reading

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Constitution.html

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1792-1850/1824/1824_0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden

Supreme Court Case of the Week: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

Case

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Chief Justice
John Roberts

Background
Citizens United made a documentary titled "Hillary: The Movie" to be released before the Democratic primaries of 2008. Initially it was ruled that the company couldn't advertise the film before the primaries due to the restrictions set in place by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, more commonly known as the McCain-Feingold reform bill for its two sponsors. This was to restrict corporations from using their treasury funds to openly campaign for or against candidates in elections.

Synopsis

On the basis of the 1st Amendment, the court overruled two previous rulings (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)) and overturned the BCRA. The fact that they overruled other decisions was part of what made the decision a shock to many people. It seems laws on this topic go back nearly 100 years, starting when Theodore Roosevelt was president.

Vote & Dissenting Opinions

5-4

The conclusion of Justice Stevens, representing the dissenters (taken from the wikipedia page listed at the bottom of this post):

"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."

Further Discussion
Does this give more weight to corporations than to individual citizens (who are limited to ~$2300, if memory serves correctly)? Even if corporations are restricted from donating directly to candidates, it's not as if a candidate will be unaware of who's putting multiple campaign ads out for them, and remember that during their term. However, do corporations not also deserve freedom of speech? If laws are made in regards to how they can act, shouldn't they also have the ability to speak out about it? I know many would argue they'll fill the airwaves with misinformation and lies for their own benefit, but don't normal people do that also? We don't argue to take away freedom of speech from them.

What will be the role of foreign companies in this? President Obama mentioned in his State of the Union address that this may open the door to foreign companies to play a roll in our campaigns. I'm guessing the entire law was overturned, but could it still be applied to foreign companies? It's not as if they're covered in the Constitution.

Support for this seems to be based entirely on party lines (which obviously isn't surprising) with conservatives arguing it's a blow for free speech, and liberals saying it gives corporations too much power. While corporate power in many instances does give me pause, I think according to the letter of the law, this ruling is probably accurate and in the better long-term interests of American citizens. I don't think this can just be viewed as corporations buying TV commercials around election time, as the implications of it could be far more reaching.

References & Further Reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary:_The_Movie

www.court.gov/arguments/Term2008/08-205.pdf

origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/qp/08-00205qp.pdf

Supreme Court Case of the Week: McCulloch v Maryland

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution

"[The Congress shall have Power] . . . [t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Case (with year)

McCulloch v Maryland, 1819

Chief Justice (just to familiarize ourselves a bit with the historical figures on the court)

John Marshall (1801-1835), nominated by John Adams

With the Federalists soundly defeated and about to lose both the executive and legislative branches to Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, President Adams and the lame duck Congress passed what came to be known as the Midnight Judges Act, which made sweeping changes to the federal judiciary, including a reduction in the number of Justices from six to five so as to deny Jefferson an appointment until two vacancies occurred. (1)

Soon after becoming Chief Justice, Marshall revolutionized the manner in which the Supreme Court announced its decisions. Previously, each Justice would author a separate opinion (known as a seriatim opinion), as is still done in the 20th and 21st centuries in such jurisdictions as the United Kingdom and Australia. Under Marshall, however, the Supreme Court adopted the practice of handing down a single opinion of the Court. As Marshall was almost always the author of this opinion, he essentially became the Court's sole mouthpiece in important cases. His forceful personality allowed him to dominate his fellow Justices; only once did he find himself on the losing side (1827 Ogden v Saunders case).

Background

On April 10, 1816, the Congress of the United States passed an act entitled "An Act to Incorporate the Subscribers to the Bank of the United States" which provided for the incorporation of the Second Bank of the United States. The Bank first went into full operationin Philadelhpia. In 1817 the Bank opened a branch in Baltimore, Maryland and transacted and carried on business as a branch of the Bank of the United States by issuing bank notes, discounting promissory notes and performing other operations usual and customary for banks to do and perform. Both sides of the litigation admitted that the President, directors and company of the Bank had no authority to establish the Baltimore branch, or office of discount and deposit, other than the fact that Maryland had adopted the Constitution of the United States.

On February 11, 1818, the General Assembly of Maryland passed an act entitled, "an act to impose a tax on all banks, or branches thereof, in the State of Maryland, not chartered by the legislature".

James McCulloch, head of the Baltimore Branch of the Second Bank of the United States, refused to pay the tax. The lawsuit was filed by John James, an informer who sought to collect one half of the fine as provided for by the statute. The case was appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals where the state of Maryland argued that "the Constitution is silent on the subject of banks." It was Maryland's contention that because the Constitution did not specifically state that the Federal Government was authorized to charter a bank, the Bank of the United States was unconstitutional. The court upheld Maryland. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Synopsis

Supreme Court of the United States Reversed lower courts and overturned McCulloch's conviction, holding that establishing a national bank is within the constitutional powers of Congress under the "necessary and proper" clause and Maryland does not have authority to tax a federal institution. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Maryland Court of Appeals Upheld decision of lower court and affirmed McCulloch's conviction. McCulloch v. Maryland (1818)

County Court of Baltimore County Convicted McCulloch, the manager of the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, for failing to pay the $15,000 tax levied by the State of Maryland McCulloch fined $2,500 ($31,259.40 in 2008 dollars according to http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi) McCulloch v. Maryland (1818)

Consequences/Legacy

According to the necessary and proper clause, Congress generally may assume additional powers not specifically listed in the Constitution, sometimes called implied powers, if there is a link to a power that is listed in the Constitution. For example, Congress may allocate money to test a missile-defense system (something not specifically listed in the Constitution) because Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 gives Congress the power to "raise and support Armies".
While the above example may seem like an obvious extension of Congress's power, other powers that Congress has assumed over the years are not so obvious extensions of powers specifically listed in the Constitution.

I
Later History: McCulloch v. Maryland was cited in the first substantial constitutional case presented before the High Court of Australia in D'Emden v Pedder, which dealt with similar issues in the Australian Federation; while recognizing United States law as not binding on them, nevertheless determined that the McCulloch decision provided the best guideline for the relationship between the Commonwealth federal government and the Australian States owing to strong similarities between the American and Australian federations, and specifically cited Marshall's opinion in deciding the case.


Dissenting Opinions (what the argument against the majority opinion was)

"We are unanimously of opinion that the law passed by the Legislature of Maryland, imposing a tax on the Bank of the United States is unconstitutional and void."


Further Discussion

IMPLIED POWER: Congress gives licenses to broadcasters to play music on the radio.

ANSWER: Clause 3 may justify this activity. It gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Broadcasting is a business. Thus, it is commerce. Airwaves cross over state lines, so it involves interstate commerce.

1. Congress sets a federal minimum wage.
   
   
   
2. Congress establishes the United States Air Force.
   
   
   
3. Congress establishes national parks.
   
   
   
4. Congress creates federal laws against pollution.
   
   
   
5. Congress makes laws regarding discrimination in employment.
   
   
   
6. Congress decides that televisions should have V-chips that enable parents to block certain shows.
   
   
   
7. Congress passes the Gun-Free School Zones Act prohibiting anyone from possessing a firearm in a school zone.

1) Stites (1981), pp. 77-80.

2) Wikipedia: McCulloch v Maryland

3) http://www.landmarkcases.org/mcculloch/fedimpliedpowers.html

Supreme Court Case of the Week

Synopsis
"Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government."

Background
"This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional."

Consequences or Legacy
"There are three ways a case can be heard in the Supreme Court: (1) filing directly in the Supreme Court; (2) filing in a lower federal court, such as a district court, and appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court; (3) filing in a state court, appealing all the way up through the state's highest courts, and then appealing to the Supreme Court on an issue of federal law."

Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case, saying that if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."<sup>[22]


Discussion

I copy and pasted most of this from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison


Judicial Review apparently was not in the constitution. The last sentence in the criticisms section reads, "</sup>Despite such criticisms of Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been accepted in the American legal community."

Was judicial review inevitable? Do humans always break down into hiearchal structuring (think alpha male or pack leader with levels of subleadership and then all the way down to the workers)?


Aside

Also, do we have a day of the week for "Supreme Court Case of the Week"? And do we have a format for these? Just use Steve's?

Supreme Court Decision of the Week: Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

I watched a documentary last night called America: Freedom to Fascism, supposedly about the formation of the Federal Reserve. The documentary was not that great, as it briefly started on the formation of the federal reserve, then spent most of the time on whether or not income tax is actually legal, then had a bunch of random other stuff such as a national ID card, RFID, and one or two others. But it did make me think more about the Supreme Court, and so I read up a little on the decisions referenced in the documentary. And so, that, in combination with the memory of Sarah Palin not being able to name any other Supreme Court decisions outside of Roe v. Wade and knowing I'm not much better, I propose that we find an old Supreme Court decision once a week to read up on, so we can at least get a primer on old decisions. If you guys don't think this is a worthwhile posting, just let me know. But in addition to this, I've got another related one I'd like to do next week. After that, we'll rotate or something. Up first:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers%27_Loan_%26_Trust_Co.

Case: Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

Chief Justice: Melville Fuller

Summary of the case: Pollock (a shareholder) sued Farmers' Loan & Trust Company because they automatically paid an income tax for shareholders & reported the shareholders' names on whose behalf they were acting (ostensibly so the people wouldn't be taxed twice). The basis for the lawsuit was that the tax was a direct tax, which under the Constitution must be apportioned amongst the states.

Results: The 16th Amendment was passed in 1909, and ratified by the requisite number of states in 1913. It reads:
"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Interesting Points:
Two points from dissenting justices-
Justices John Marshall Harlan, Jackson, White and Brown dissented from the majority opinion.

Justice White argued:
It is, I submit, greatly to be deplored that after more than 100 years of our national existence, after the government has withstood the strain of foreign wars and the dread ordeal of civil strife, and its people have become united and powerful, this court should consider itself compelled to go back to a long repudiated and rejected theory of the constitution, by which the government is deprived of an inherent attribute of its being—a necessary power of taxation. [158 U.S. 638]

In his dissent, Justice Brown wrote:
The decision involves nothing less than the surrender of the taxing power to the moneyed class...Even the spectre of socialism is conjured up to frighten Congress from laying taxes upon the people in proportion to their ability to pay them.[2]

As for Justice White, what is the argument for saying that a theory of the constitution is long repudiated and rejected? Unless it's been overruled by an amendment, must that not be the utmost decider of what's legal or not?

As for Justice Brown, it's interesting to see that even in the late 1800's, people have been using socialism as a scare tactic to advance their own agendas.

Further Questions:
I'm still trying to get a grasp on what apportionment really meant. It seems like the definition I've seen implies that all taxes must be spent equally amongst the states, according to population. However, the case argued by Pollock seems to be that all taxes must be taken equally from the states, according to population. If this is the case, would the nation have been restricted to taxing per capita based on the state with the lowest per capita income? Or if one state earns more per capita than another, would the state have to find other ways to increase the taxes on the lesser state (possibly just doing a higher percentage of income, etc).