Emily Bazelon at the New York Times (1/24/13): In October, the Fifth Circuit ruled in Amy’s favor, in a 10 to 5 decision. The court also accepted the theory of joint and several liability, finding that this means of allocating shared responsibility can ensure “that Amy receives the full amount of her losses, to the extent possible, while also ensuring that no defendant bears more responsibility than is required for full restitution.” . . . The Fifth Circuit’s decision creates a clear split among the appeals courts over how to interpret Congress’ provision of restitution for sex-crime victims — a split that only the Supreme Court can resolve. Cassell and Marsh have asked the justices to do that, and the court could hear a restitution case as early as next fall. | In re Amy Unknown, No. 09-41238 (5th Cir. March 22, 2011)
SCOTUS Blog has posted as their petition of the day: Butt v. Utah.
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, No. 10-1293
Held: Because the Commission failed to give Fox or ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent, the Commission’s standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague . . .
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguements in the FCC v. Fox Television Stations, No. 10-1293. The question considered: Whether the Federal Communications Commission’s current indecency-enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Sotomayor, J., recused). Court filings in the litigation can be found at SCOTUS Blog. Links to Related media reports discussing the litigation can be found here.
Federal courts have disagreed about how to enforce a law that requires people convicted of possessing child pornography to pay restitution to the victim, even if they didn’t know the victim. But the Supreme Court refused to take up the case Monday . . . The case was Amy v. Monzel (11-85).
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Los Angeles v. Alameda Books Nos. 11-245, 11-379. Document related to that litigation, the 9th Circuit opinion, and a summary of the issues involved can be found at SCOTUS Blog here.
Supreme Court asked to revisit City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. concerning regulation of sexually oriented businesses
SCOTUSblog reports that City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court again.