Supreme Court Action Today: The Supremacy Clause, Rivers, and Qualified Immunity For Police

Yesterday’s four opinions from the Supreme Court are followed by three today.  The first case is Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern Cal., Inc. (09-958).  It is initially about whether an action can be brought under the Supremacy Clause to enforce federal Medicaid law over conflicting state statutes.  However, the initial certifying agency which denied certification for the state statutes has approved them as consistent with federal law.  Before the review was complete, however, Medicaid providers and beneficiaries brought suit against rate reduction provisions of the statute on the grounds that they were pre-empted by federal law.  Some of these issues remain despite the certification.

Since the change in circumstances, the Court returned the case to the Ninth Circuit to determine whether the case should proceed as a case for review of a final agency decision under the Administrative Procedure Act, or whether it should continue as a Supremacy Clause case.  The Court noted that the Ninth Circuit did not give any deference to the federal government’s interpretation of the federal statutory language, something that standards of review require.  Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.  Chief Justice Roberts dissented, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

The second case is PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana (10-218).  PPL Montana operates hydroelectric dams on Montana rivers, some on the three tallest waterfalls.  Some of these dams have existed for over a century.  PPL Montana pays rent to the federal government but not to Montana, though Montana has known about the projects and has not requested rent until recently.  Suit was brought to recover rents, and that case was dismissed.  PPL Montana brought suit against Montana seeking a declaration that Montana was barred from seeking rents.  Montana counterclaimed that it was entitled rents under the equal-footing doctrine.  The trial court granted summary judgment to Montana and ordered PPL Montana to pay $41 million in rents.  The Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

The Supreme Court held that the United States still holds titles to rivers and riverbeds vested before statehood.  The Equal-footing doctrine gives states the rights to truly navigable rivers subject to the federal government’s powers for interstate or foreign commerce. The Montana Supreme Court erred in applying the equal-footing doctrine as expressed in Court precedent by counting portages (land-based transport) against river navigation.  The Court held that commerce could not take place on these non-navigable portions of the rivers, even at the time of statehood, and that recreational watercraft could not count in determining the use of the rivers in commerce.  The case was returned to Montana to resolve other questions.  Justice Kennedy wrote for a unanimous Court. 

Today’s final case is Messerschmidt v. Millender (10-794).  The case involves a search conducted at the house of the parents of a known gang member who had committed an assault with a sawed-off shotgun against his ex-girlfriend and whether the officers involved were entitled to qualified immunity in a resulting federal civil rights suit.  The case revolves around the analysis of facts supporting a warrant being issued for specific items, given the nature of the crime.

One Jerry Ray Bowen attacked his girlfriend, Shelly Kelly, as she was moving out of her apartment.  She had feared Bowen because of his violent tendencies and requested police protection.  Police arrived and left shortly after to attend to an emergency.  Bowen attacked Kelly and yelled “I told you never to call the cops on me bitch!”  He tried throwing her over a second story balcony and shot at her with a pistol gripped sawed-off shotgun as she drove away.

Kelly related all of this to Detective Curt Messerschmidt and included details of past assaults, Bowen’s ties to specific gangs, and that he might be staying at the home of his former foster mother, Augusta Millender.  Messerschmidt investigated Bowen and using information in a police database, he corroborated Bowen’s gang ties and past arrests for violent activities.  This information was submitted in affidavits for a search warrant directed at the Millender residence seeking all firearms, ammunition, and gang related evidence.  The affidavits were reviewed by supervisors before presentment to a neutral magistrate who issued the warrant.

Upon the execution of the warrant, police found a shotgun owned by Augusta Millender, some ammunition, and a California Social Services letter addressed to Bowen.  Millender later filed a §1983 suit alleging the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights.  The District Court granted her summary judgment, holding that the list of items sought via the warrant were overbroad, that this should have been obvious to police.  Messerschmidt and his superiors were denied qualified immunity as a result.  The Ninth Circuit reversed initially, but upheld the District Court on an en banc rehearing.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the warrant was not overly broad.  Kelly informed the police about Bowen’s gang affiliation and his past violence against her.  His rap sheet was some 17 pages long.  The Court reasoned that having one gun makes it reasonable to suggest he might have more, illegal or otherwise.  His connection with Millender’s residence came from more than one source.  The Court said police deserve qualified immunity when the make reasonable though mistaken judgments. 

Other factors that contributed to the result is that, California law supported the breadth of the warrant; it was reviewed by multiple people before the magistrate issued it, and that it is the responsibility of the magistrate to review it for breadth.  The Court noted that while none of these factors were dispositive, collectively they enforce the reasonableness of the warrant.  The Ninth Circuit is reversed yet again.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the majority.  Justice Breyer wrote a concurring opinion.  Justice Kagan wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.  Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Ginsburg.  [MG]