SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Justices dismiss La. case over trial delays WASHINGTON (AP) -- A sharply divided Supreme Court dismissed an appeal Monday from a Louisiana man who claimed that most of a seven-year delay between his arrest and murder trial was the result of a breakdown in the state's system for paying defense lawyers in death penalty cases. The court's conservative justices prevailed in a 5-4 vote to say they should never have taken the case of Jonathan Edward Boyer, who eventually was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole. The outcome leaves his conviction and sentence in place. The case was argued in January to address whether a state's failure to pay lawyers for indigent defendants can violate the Constitution's guarantee of a speedy trial. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Boyer's case is illustrative of systemic problems in Louisiana and the court should have ruled in his favor. The justices occasionally agree to take up a case and then think better of it after the case is argued. When that happens, there is no decision from the high court and the lower court ruling that was appealed is allowed to remain in place. In rare instances, like Boyer's case, the court's internal disagreements erupt into public view. In addition to Sotomayor's opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote separately in support of the outcome. Alito said that the argument and the record in the case suggest that Boyer's lawyers were responsible for most of the delay, rather than the state. Boyer was arrested for the murder of a driver who authorities say picked up Boyer and his brother in Sulphur, in southwestern Louisiana. He was indicted for first-degree murder and prosecutors said they would seek the death penalty. For the next five years, the two sides fought over money to pay Boyer's lawyers. Finally, the state reduced the charge to take away the prospect of a death sentence, which also made the cost of Boyer's defense cheaper. Still, it took another two years for his murder trial to take place. One footnote to the case was that the jury that convicted Boyer was not unanimous, according to court papers. Louisiana and Oregon are the only two states that allow for divided juries for all but the most serious crimes. The Supreme Court has rejected several appeals challenging the constitutionality of non-unanimous verdicts. The case is Boyer v. Louisiana, 11-9953. Court rejects Ala. appeal over immigration law WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has rejected Alabama's appeal to revive portions of a state immigration law, including a section that made it a crime to harbor people who are living in the country illegally. The justices on Monday left in place a federal appeals court ruling that blocked parts of the law. Justice Antonin Scalia voted to hear the state's appeal. The law's purpose was to reduce the "number of illegal aliens" in Alabama The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said immigration law primarily is the responsibility of the federal government and that the state lacked the authority to enforce the challenged provisions. The appeals court ruling followed last year's Supreme Court ruling that blocked some parts of Arizona's immigration law. Breyer released from hospital after surgery WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has been released from a Washington hospital, two days after undergoing surgery for injuries suffered in a bicycle accident. Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said the 74-year-old Breyer will wear a sling for several weeks while he heals from shoulder replacement surgery on his right shoulder. Breyer fell from his bike last Friday as he was riding near the Lincoln Memorial. Arberg said the justice thinks he may have hit an exposed tree root. It was the third serious cycling accident for Breyer dating back to 1993, when he punctured a lung and broke ribs after being hit by a car in Harvard Square in Cambridge, Mass. He broke his right collarbone in 2011. Breyer was appointed to the court by President Bill Clinton in 1994. State can block out of state use of FOIA By Jesse J. Holland Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that it's legal for a state to limit use of its Freedom of Information Act to its own residents. The court unanimously upheld a federal appeals court decision validating Virginia's limitation of its FOIA law to state citizens and some media outlets. In the case before the court, Rhode Island resident Mark J. McBurney and California resident Roger W. Hurlbert were suing Virginia for blocking them from getting public documents in Virginia that in-state citizens could have easily obtained. Virginia's FOIA law limits access to state citizens and some media outlets. McBurney and Hurlbert, along with data and media companies, challenged the state FOIA law under the Constitution's Privileges and Immunities Clause -- which prohibits states from discriminating against out-of-staters in favor of its own citizens -- and the Commerce Clause, which prohibits discrimination against interstate commerce. Hurlbert owns Sage Information Services, which obtains public real estate assessments for private clients. McBurney, a former Virginia resident, wanted to get documents from a Virginia child welfare agency involving a child support petition from his divorce from his wife. The two men say it is unconstitutional to not allow everyone access to the protections of a state's FOIA law, especially considering the growing commerce potential of public records. Especially affected are data miners, who are disadvantaged by their inability to get information directly from Virginia on their own. "We hold, however, that petitioners' constitutional rights were not violated," Justice Samuel Alito said for the court. "By means other than the state FOIA, Virginia made available to petitioners most of the information they sought, and the Commonwealth's refusal to furnish the additional information did not abridge any constitutionally protected privilege or immunity. Nor did Virginia violate the dormant Commerce Clause." The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond had thrown the two men's case out before its appeal to the Supreme Court, but the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia struck down a similar citizens-only FOIA act in Delaware. Other states like Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, New Hampshire and New Jersey have some form of law limiting access to public records for noncitizens. The case is McBurney v. Young, 12-17. O'Connor voices regret over Bush v. Gore WASHINGTON (AP) -- Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is suggesting for the first time that the court should have stayed out of the 2000 presidential election dispute between George W. Bush and Al Gore. The 83-year-old O'Connor tells the Chicago Tribune editorial board that perhaps she and her colleagues should have turned down the Bush campaign's appeal of a Florida Supreme Court decision to allow a recount requested by the Gore campaign. O'Connor was in the majority in the high court's 5-4 decision that stopped the recount and sealed Bush's election. She has long lamented the controversy over the decision that she said gave the court a "less-than-perfect reputation." But in the past, O'Connor has said the court had no choice but to take on the case. She retired in 2006. Published: Wed, May 1, 2013