By B John Burns
July 20, 2009

Upon my return to the office from my week and a half tour to the West Coast, and all points between, I had received an email from Steve Japuntich calling my attention to last Friday’s Supreme Court decision denying Angela Campbell’s rehearing petition in State v. Effler.  Steve views the revised opinion as vindicating the position I took in this blog on the date that Effler originally came down.  Actually, however, the argument that I felt to be Effler’s strongest was the one shot down on Friday.

Without going into the substance of the issue raised, Mr. Effler had lost at the district court level, but then won a 3-0 decision in the Court of Appeals.  Justice David Baker, still on the Court of Appeals at the time, was one of the three.  The case goes to the Supreme Court. which splits 3-3.  While Justice Baker’s vote would have thrown the case clearly to Effler, he recuses himself, and the decision is affirmed by operation of law.

But which decision?  The Supreme Court’s assumption is that they’re affirming the district court.  But what about the Court of Appeals?  Isn’t the Supreme Court engaging in further review of the Court of Appeals?  If anything is affirmed by operation of law, shouldn’t it be THAT Court’s decision?  The question seemed reasonable to me.

By B John Burns
June 29, 2009

David Hackett Souter ended his 19-year run as an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court today.  And he didn’t go out quietly.

In a brief statement read from the bench, Justice Souter accused the other justices on the Court of having “touched me more than I can say.”  He declined to be more specific than that.

Ouch!!

It’s been nine years since Clinton, and a week doesn’t go by without some senator or congressman getting caught up in some indiscretion.  But not the SUPREME COURT!!  Bob Woodward, I imagine, is already interviewing sources for a new book on the Court.

When I first heard that he had phrased it that way, I was a little put out, suspecting that Justice Souter had plagarized the line from my Catholic school valedictory address, without attribution.  Having graduated near the bottom of my class, however, I never had the opportunity to deliver the address.  So Justice Souter must have come up with it on his own.

So now I’ve beaten that one to death.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches when ordered Savana Redding to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear.

Redding was 13 when Safford Middle School officials in rural eastern Arizona conducted the search. They were looking for pills — the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

The school's search of Redding's backpack and outer clothes was permissible, the court said. But the justices said that officials went too far when they asked to search her underwear.

A 1985 Supreme Court decision that dealt with searching a student's purse has found that school officials need only reasonable suspicions, not probable cause. But the court also warned against a search that is "excessively intrusive."