SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Justices rule for bearded Muslim inmate By Mark Sherman Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a Muslim prison inmate in Arkansas can grow a short beard for religious reasons. The court's decision in a case about religious liberty stands in contrast to the Hobby Lobby case that bitterly divided the justices in June over whether family-owned corporations could mount religious objections to paying for women's contraceptives under the health care overhaul. The justices said that inmate Gregory Holt could maintain a half-inch beard because Arkansas prison officials could not substantiate claims that the beard posed a security risk. Holt claimed that he has a right to grow a beard under a federal law aimed at protecting prisoners' religious rights. The law is similar to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that the court said in a 5-4 outcome in late June could be invoked by business owners who object to paying for contraceptives. This time around, the Obama administration, religious groups and atheists alike backed Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad. More than 40 states allow inmates to keep beards. Justice Samuel Alito said in his opinion for the court that Arkansas can satisfy its security concerns in some other way when "so many other prisons allow inmates to grow beards while ensuring prison safety and security." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the dissent in the Hobby Lobby case, remarked on her view of the differences between the two cases in a brief separate opinion Tuesday. Unlike the exception the court approved in June for Hobby Lobby, "accommodating petitioner's religious belief in this case would not detrimentally affect others who do not share petitioner's belief," Ginsburg wrote. Judd P. Deere, a spokesman for Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, expressed disappointment with the ruling, but said the court "emphasized that prisons are dangerous places" and that judges must take security into account when analyzing religious freedom claims. Holt is serving a life sentence for a brutal assault on his girlfriend and is being held at a maximum security prison 80 miles southeast of Little Rock. His case first came to the court's attention when he filed a handwritten plea to the court asking it to block enforcement of Arkansas' no-beard rule. Holt argued in court papers that his obligation to grow a beard comes from hadiths, accounts of the acts or statements of the Prophet Muhammad. In one statement attributed to the prophet, Muslims are commanded to "cut the mustaches short and leave the beard." Holt said he understands that statement to mean he should grow a full beard, but offered a half-inch beard as a compromise because California allows Muslim inmates to wear beards of that length. The case is Holt v. Hobbs, 13-6827. -------- Associated Press writer Nomaan Merchant contributed to this report from Dallas. Dispute over debit card fees rejected By Sam Hananel Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a challenge from retailers who claim the Federal Reserve allows banks to charge businesses too much for handling debit card transactions. The justices let stand a federal appeals court ruling that upheld the Fed's cap of about 24 cents per transaction on so-called "swipe fees." That ruling was a setback for merchants who pay the fees to banks every time a customer uses a debit card to make a payment. The case was a battle between two powerful and politically influential industries with billions of dollars at stake. Retailers pay the fees to banks every time a customer uses a debit card to make a payment. Swipe fees are supposed to cover the banks' costs for providing the service. The fee cap set by the Fed in 2011 currently averages about 24 cents per transaction. Before the cap was imposed, fees averaged 44 cents per swipe. A federal judge struck down the cap last year, agreeing with merchants that the Fed improperly including data that made the cap too high. But the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia overturned that decision in a win for the banks. That decision will stand now that the high court declined to intervene. Congress mandated a ceiling on debit-card swipe fees as part of 2010 legislation passed in response to the financial crisis. The Fed had initially proposed a 12-cent fee limit, but retailers argued that the Fed was influenced to double that level under pressure from bank lobbyists. Retailers said the Fed deviated from the 2010 law's intent by having the cap include bank expenses that the law doesn't allow. The appeals court rejected that argument, deferring to the Fed's "reasonable interpretation" of the law. The Fed rule doesn't apply to credit cards, government-issued debit cards, prepaid cards or cards issued by banks and credit unions with assets under $10 billion. Richard Hunt, president and CEO of the Consumer Bankers Association, praised the high court for refusing to hear the case and said consumers should come first, "not the bottom line of retailers." But Mallory Duncan, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Retail Federation, said retailers would continue to press the issue in the courts over the "anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices of the card industry." Court sides with Teva in drug dispute By Sam Hananel Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. in the company's high-profile patent dispute with rival firms over the top-selling multiple sclerosis drug. The justices ruled 7-2 that a federal appeals court wrongly overturned five of Teva's patents for the drug Copaxone. The high court's decision gives the Israel-based company another chance to keep its exclusive rights to the drug until September 2015. Copaxone generates about $4 billion in annual sales for Teva. Teva had argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should not have second-guessed factual findings made by a federal district court that had earlier ruled in Teva's favor. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said all appeals courts must generally defer to findings of fact made by lower courts. He said there is no exception to this rule for patent cases, in which a judge has carefully considered the entire case and has a better chance to gain "familiarity with specific scientific problems and principles." The high court's ruling is a loss for generic companies Mylan Inc., Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc., Natco Pharma Ltd. and Sandoz, Inc. Those companies had failed to convince a federal judge in New York that Teva's patent claim based on the drug's molecular weight was too ambiguous. But they convinced the Federal Circuit to reverse that decision and find Teva's patent invalid. The Supreme Court's ruling sends the case back to lower courts for further proceedings. In dissent, Justices Clarence Thomas said that reviewing patents is not simply a factual question, but falls more on the side of a legal determination. He said a judge's resolution of a patent claim is similar to interpreting a law, and should therefore merit a fresh review by the appeals court. Thomas was joined in dissent by Justice Samuel Alito. Justices turn down priest's appeal of ruling reviving lawsuit WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Supreme Court is allowing a lawsuit to proceed against a Roman Catholic church and a priest over allegations that a teen was kissed and fondled by an adult church parishioner. The justices did not comment Tuesday in rejecting an appeal from the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the priest of a state Supreme Court decision. That earlier ruling revived the lawsuit that contends the teen told the priest what had happened to her and that the priest should have reported the allegations. The church and the priest argued that allowing the lawsuit to go forward could lead to the priest being called to testify about information that was disclosed during private confessions. Three military contractors appeals denied WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away three appeals from military contractor KBR Inc. that seek to shut down lawsuits over a soldier's electrocution in Iraq and open-air burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. The justices offered no comment in allowing the lawsuits to proceed. One lawsuit was filed by the parents of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, who was electrocuted in his barracks shower at an Army base in Iraq in 2008. The suit claims KBR unit Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. was legally responsible for the shoddy electrical work that was common in Iraqi-built structures taken over by the U.S. military. KBR disputes that claim. Dozens of lawsuits by soldiers and others assert they were harmed by improper waste disposal while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They seek to hold KBR and Halliburton Co. responsible for exposing soldiers to toxic emissions and contaminated water when they burned waste in open pits without proper safety controls. The contractors say they cannot be sued because they essentially were operating in war zones as an extension of the military. The Obama administration agreed with the contractors that lower courts should have dismissed the lawsuits, but said the Supreme Court should not get involved now because lower courts still could dismiss or narrow the claims. Court says death row inmate deserves hearing WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that lower courts should take another look at an appeal from a Missouri man on death row for killing a woman and her two children 16 years ago. The justices said inmate Mark Christeson should get a chance to argue that his court-appointed attorneys were ineffective because they missed a 2005 deadline to appeal his conviction in federal court. It is uncommon for someone to be executed without a federal appeals court hearing. Christeson would have been the 11th man executed in Missouri last year. But the Supreme Court put his execution on hold in October while it considered his appeal. A group of attorneys argued that Christeson's court-appointed lawyers, Phil Horwitz and Eric Butts, should be replaced due to a conflict of interest because they would not admit their own ineffectiveness. The outside attorneys who reviewed the case file said substituting lawyers could give Christeston another chance to win federal review. Horwitz and Butts missed the 2005 deadline to file a federal appeals petition by four months. But they declined to let outside counsel review documents that might show possible negligence in missing the deadline. Last year, a federal court declined to substitute Christeson's lawyers. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also refused the request, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court said lower courts should have acknowledged that Horwitz and Butts faced a conflict of interest. The justices said the lawyers could not be expected to make a legal argument "which threatens their professional reputation and livelihood." Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, saying they would not have reversed the appeals court's decision without full briefing and arguments from the parties. Christeson faces death for killing Susan Brouk, 36, and her children in 1998. According to court records, Christeson, then 18, and his 17-year-old cousin, Jesse Carter, had planned to run away from a home outside Vichy in central Missouri where they were living with a relative. They walked a half-mile away to Brouk's home to steal her Ford Bronco. Armed with shotguns, they tied her daughter and son's hands with shoelaces. Christeson forced Brouk into a bedroom and raped her. The pair then forced Brouk and the children into her Bronco and drove to a pond. Brouk and Kyle were stabbed and thrown into the pond to drown. Adrian suffocated when Christeson pressed on her throat while Carter held her. Published: Thu, Jan 22, 2015