BRISCOE et al. v. VIRGINIA
No. 07-11191.
Argued January 11, 2010
Decided January 25, 2010
Richard D. Friedman argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Joseph D. King, Thomas B. Shuttleworth, and Charles B. Lustig.
Stephen R. McCullough, State Solicitor General of Virginia, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were William C. Mims, Attorney General, Martin L. Kent, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Eugene Murphy, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alice T. Armstrong, Assistant Attorney General II, and William E. Thro.
Leondra R. Kruger argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Kagan, Assistant Attorney General Breuer, Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben, and David E. Hollar.
Timothy P. O’Toole, Sandra K. Levick, Catharine F. Easterly, and Jeffrey L. Fisher filed a brief for the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
A brief of amici curiae urging affirmance was filed for the State of Indiana et al. by Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General, and Stephen R. Creason, Heather L. Hagan, and Ashley E. Taiman, Deputy Attorneys General, by Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts, and James J. Arguin and David S. Friedman, Assistant Attorneys General, by Kevin T. Kane, Chief State’s Attorney of Connecticut, and by the Attorneys General for their respective jurisdictions as follows: Troy King of Alabama, Terry Goddard of Arizona, John W. Suthers of Colorado, Joseph R. Biden III of Delaware, Peter J. Nickles of the District of Columbia, Bill McCollum of Florida, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Tom Miller of Iowa, Steve Six of Kansas, Douglas F. Gansler of Maryland, Michael A. Cox of Michigan, Lori Swanson of Minnesota, Anne Milgram of New Jersey, Gary K King of New Mexico, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Richard Cordray of Ohio, W. A Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Henry D. McMaster of South Carolina, Marty J. Jackley of South Dakota, Robert E. Cooper, Jr., of Tennessee, Mark L. Shurtleffoi Utah, Robert M. McKenna of Washington, J. B. Van Hollen of Wisconsin, and Bruce A Salzburg of Wyoming.
Per Curiam.
We vacate the judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U. S. 305 (2009).
It is so ordered.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the ideological "direction" of the decision ("liberal", "conservative", or "unspecifiable"). Use "unspecifiable" if the issue does not lend itself to a liberal or conservative description (e.g., a boundary dispute between two states, real property, wills and estates), or because no convention exists as to which is the liberal side and which is the conservative side (e.g., the legislative veto). Specification of the ideological direction comports with conventional usage. In the context of issues pertaining to criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, due process, privacy, and attorneys, consider liberal to be pro-person accused or convicted of crime, or denied a jury trial, pro-civil liberties or civil rights claimant, especially those exercising less protected civil rights (e.g., homosexuality), pro-child or juvenile, pro-indigent pro-Indian, pro-affirmative action, pro-neutrality in establishment clause cases, pro-female in abortion, pro-underdog, anti-slavery, incorporation of foreign territories anti-government in the context of due process, except for takings clause cases where a pro-government, anti-owner vote is considered liberal except in criminal forfeiture cases or those where the taking is pro-business violation of due process by exercising jurisdiction over nonresident, pro-attorney or governmental official in non-liability cases, pro-accountability and/or anti-corruption in campaign spending pro-privacy vis-a-vis the 1st Amendment where the privacy invaded is that of mental incompetents, pro-disclosure in Freedom of Information Act issues except for employment and student records. In the context of issues pertaining to unions and economic activity, consider liberal to be pro-union except in union antitrust where liberal = pro-competition, pro-government, anti-business anti-employer, pro-competition, pro-injured person, pro-indigent, pro-small business vis-a-vis large business pro-state/anti-business in state tax cases, pro-debtor, pro-bankrupt, pro-Indian, pro-environmental protection, pro-economic underdog pro-consumer, pro-accountability in governmental corruption, pro-original grantee, purchaser, or occupant in state and territorial land claims anti-union member or employee vis-a-vis union, anti-union in union antitrust, anti-union in union or closed shop, pro-trial in arbitration. In the context of issues pertaining to judicial power, consider liberal to be pro-exercise of judicial power, pro-judicial "activism", pro-judicial review of administrative action. In the context of issues pertaining to federalism, consider liberal to be pro-federal power, pro-executive power in executive/congressional disputes, anti-state. In the context of issues pertaining to federal taxation, consider liberal to be pro-United States and conservative pro-taxpayer. In miscellaneous, consider conservative the incorporation of foreign territories and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states or judcial authority vis-a-vis state or federal legislative authority, and consider liberal legislative veto. In interstate relations and private law issues, consider unspecifiable in all cases.