Apr 142010
 
 April 14, 2010  Court, Surveillance, Workplace

Orin Kerr writes:

Next Monday, the Court will hear oral argument in City of Ontario v. Quon, a Fourth Amendment case on employee rights in text messages. Notably, Quon is one of only two Fourth Amendment cases to be decided this Term.   And the other Fourth Amendment case, Michigan v. Fisher, was at best a minor footnote: Fisher was a per curiam summary reversal, meaning that the Court thought the case was so easy that it reversed without merits briefing or oral argument.  The presence of only two search and seizure cases is a bit surprising.  In the previous Term, for example, the Court handed down decisions in five such cases.  The dearth of cases raises a question: What happened to the Court’s Fourth Amendment docket?

If you look closely, some clues emerge.

Read more on SCOTUSblog.  Orin hypothesizes that what may be happening is that justices who are more inclined to rule for defendants are denying cert because they have some fear or uncertainty as to how the cases will turn out in light of the pro-government justices on the current court.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.