Appellate Law NJ Blog
  • Home
  • Bruce Greenberg

An LDG Case is Argued in the United States Supreme Court

Posted by Bruce D. Greenberg on Jan 19, 2016 in Constitutional law, United States Supreme Court | 0 comments

Today, Heffernan v. City of Paterson was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States.  [Disclosure:  My partner Victor Afanador handled this matter on behalf of defendants in the District Court and the Third Circuit.  He was at counsel table today as Supreme Court counsel argued for defendants.].  The transcript of today’s oral argument can be found here.  The opinion of the Third Circuit being appealed from is here.

In a nutshell, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether plaintiff, a police officer who alleges that he was demoted after being seen picking up a campaign lawn sign for a Paterson mayoral candidate other than the incumbent, can assert First Amendment rights of freedom of speech or association when, in fact, he was picking up the sign for his mother and was not in fact exercising any First Amendment right of his own.  Indeed, plaintiff did not live in Paterson and could not even vote in that mayoral election.  The Third Circuit ruled for defendants, and the Supreme Court granted plaintiffs’ petition for certiorari.

The Court appeared divided during the oral argument.  Justice Kagan, who had written an article about this subject before joining the Court, appeared to be the strongest advocate for plaintiff, while Justice Scalia seemed most firmly in defendants’ camp.  Justice Alito and, seemingly, Chief Justice Roberts, may be votes for defendants, while Justices Breyer and Sotomayor appeared to lean in plaintiff’s favor.  Justice Ginsburg may be on plaintiff’s side as well, though she had questions of both sides.  So did Justice Kennedy, whose questioning opened the argument and who may be the deciding vote in the case.  Justice Thomas, following his usual custom, did not speak.

The oral argument transcript is well worth reading.  Defendants’ counsel comes across as having made the better presentation, as plaintiff’s counsel’s arguments  seemed to confuse even some of the Justices who may side with plaintiff.  An Assistant to the Solicitor General, who argued for the United States as an amicus curiae in support of plaintiff, was somewhat more effective.  Style points do not, however, determine the outcome, and it is not at all clear at this point that either side goes into the post-argument phase with a definite advantage.

 

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Author

Bruce D. Greenberg, a partner of Lite DePalma Greenberg & Afanador, LLC, has more than 35 years of appellate experience.  He has argued dozens of cases in New Jersey’s Appellate Division, and he has handled oral arguments in the Supreme Court of New Jersey and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as well.  Mr. Greenberg’s appellate cases have ranged from . . more

 

Subscribe

  • reader reader
  • Subscribe to Appellate Law NJ Blog by Email

Archives

Links

  • An Appeal to Reason – California Appellate blog
  • Class Action Blawg
  • De Novo- Virginia Appellate Law blog
  • Florida Appellate Review
  • How Appealing
  • Maine Appeals Blog
  • New York Appellate Law blog
  • NJ Judiciary
  • On Brief – Iowa Appellate Law Blog
  • Third Circuit Blog
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals

Categories

  • Administrative agency actions
  • Administrative matters
  • Appellate Division
  • Attorneys fees
  • Case management
  • Chancery issues
  • Class actions
  • Constitutional law
  • Consumer protection
  • Contract interpretation
  • Criminal law
  • Discovery
  • Effect of decisions by other courts
  • Judges
  • Jury issues
  • Municipal land use
  • Notable opinion writing
  • Pleadings
  • Practice Pointers
  • Standards of review
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Summary judgment
  • Supreme Court of New Jersey
  • Third Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Uncategorized
  • United States Supreme Court

Tags

Administrative agency actions Arbitration Briefs Chief Justice Stuart Rabner Court Rules Family Part interlocutory vs. final decisions Judge Allison Accurso Judge Anthony Parrillo Judge Carmen Alvarez Judge Carmen Messano Judge Clarkson Fisher Judge D. Brooks Smith Judge Douglas Fasciale Judge Ellen Koblitz Judge Heidi Willis Currier Judge Jack Sabatino Judge Jose Fuentes Judge Julio Fuentes Judge Kent Jordan Judge Marianne Espinosa Judge Marie Lihotz Judge Mary Catherine Cuff Judge Michael Haas Judge Mitchel Ostrer Judge Stephen Skillman Judge Susan Reisner Judge Thomas Ambro Judge Thomas Hardiman Judge Victor Ashrafi Justice Anne Patterson Justice Barry Albin Justice Fabiana Pierre-Louis Justice Faustino Fernandez-Vina Justice Helen Hoens Justice Jaynee LaVecchia Justice Lee Solomon Justice Walter Timpone Law of the case Makeup of court Notice of appeal Prerogative writ appeals Standing Statute of limitations Waiver

Designed by Elegant Themes | Powered by Wordpress