Wired - The U.S. Supreme Court ended its 2010-2011 term Monday, deciding a slew of technology and civil rights issues, some of which have far-reaching implications for the Freedom of Information Act, intellectual property, warrantless searches of private residences, the “state secrets” privilege and freedom of speech.
The cases we tracked from October involved regulation of videogame sales, the limits of the Copyright Act’s first-sale doctrine and the power of the government to collect sensitive data on employees. Another case asked whether convicted defendants have a right to sue under a civil-rights statute to obtain modern DNA testing in an attempt to prove their innocence.
Here is a summary of rulings in cases we followed:
Costco Wholesale v. Omega, 08-1423
Oral argument Nov. 8Decided 4-4 Dec. 13
Question presented: Does the first-sale doctrine apply to imported goods manufactured abroad?
Answer: No
The court answered the question in the negative, but voted 4-4 with Justice Elena Kagan recused. That means there’s no nationwide precedent, but the ruling stands for the case before it.
That case concerned Costco, which was selling the Omega Seamaster watch for about $1,300, well below the $2,000 recommended U.S. price. Omega, of Switzerland, had copyrighted the watch design in the United States by imprinting the company’s emblem on the underside of the timepiece. Omega sued Costco for copyright infringement, because it was obtaining the watches from unauthorized dealers in Europe, which sold them far cheaper than U.S. Omega distributors.
But under the U.S. Copyright Act, the first-sale doctrine generally allows the purchaser of a copyrighted work to resell the work without the copyright holder’s permission. That’s why we have used bookstores, record stores, GameStop and even eBay.
That didn’t stop the Supreme Court from upholding the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sided with Omega. The justices, in an unsigned opinion, ruled that the first-sale doctrine did not apply to Omega watches (.pdf) because they were made overseas. That meant Costco can be held liable for copyright infringement for the unauthorized resale of Omega’s watches because Costco purchased them via unauthorized channels.
Costco had appealed the 9th Circuit’s decision, pointing out that the ruling effectively urges U.S. manufacturers to flee (.pdf) the United States to acquire complete control over distribution of their goods in the American market. The Obama administration had taken Omega’s side, saying the Copyright Act “does not apply outside the United States.” (.pdf)
Skinner v. Switzer, 09-9000
Oral argument Oct. 13Decided 6-3 March 7
Question presented: Do convicts have a right to to sue under a federal civil rights for post-conviction DNA testing?
Answer: Yes
The case concerned condemned Texas inmate Henry Skinner, who was convicted of the 1995 murder of his girlfriend and her two sons. Skinner claimed breaches of his Fourth Amendment due process right and Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, because he hasn’t been allowed a test of the DNA found at the crime scene.
The Texas state and federal courts — hearing Skinner’s habeas corpus pleas — refused to allow post-conviction testing of biological evidence, including blood, hair, fingernail clippings and vaginal swabs. The lower courts held that, under Texas law, a convict must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he or she would not have been prosecuted or convicted had DNA testing been performed. To get DNA testing, a Texas inmate must also demonstrate that his failure to seek such testing at trial was not a strategic decision.
With nowhere else to turn, Skinner sued local prosecutors under a federal civil rights statute, and the Supreme Court halted his execution to determine whether he could gain DNA access via that legal avenue. The states claimed that such legal jockeying was a backdoor attempt to rewrite both state and federal death-penalty law.
At least 22 states told the justices that granting Skinner DNA testing through a civil rights suit would undermine their individual statutes, which spell out when an inmate is entitled to it.
“To allow this type of procedural legerdemain would both diminish the sovereign interests of the states and at the same time impose a significant burden on the states’ limited law enforcement resources,” attorneys general from the 22 states wrote.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, ruled only that inmates could sue under the civil rights statute to press a claim that they were unconstitutionally denied DNA testing in state court. Whether testing is actually granted is another story.
The justices, Ginsburg wrote, ruled in 2009 that inmates have no “freestanding right” to access genetic evidence. But Ginsburg said that decision “left slim room for the prisoner to show that the governing state law denies him procedural due process.” (.pdf)
Skinner’s civil right claim is pending. More
