WARNER-LAMBERT CO., LLC, ET AL. v. KENT ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 06-1498.
Argued February 25, 2008
Decided March 3, 2008
Carter G. Phillips argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Daniel E. Troy, Rebecca K. Wood, Eamon P. Joyce, Quin M. Sorenson, David Klingsberg, and Steven Glickstein.
Daryl Joseffer argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Acting Assistant Attorney General Bucholtz, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler, Douglas N. Letter, Daniel Meron, Gerald F. Masoudi, and Eric M. Blumberg.
Allison M. Zieve argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were David R. Parker, Brian Wolf man, Scott L. Nelson, Theodore Goldberg, and David Bennet Rodes.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America by Kenneth S. Getter, David M. Gossett, Robin S. Conrad, and Amar D. Sarwal; for the Generic Pharmaceutical Association by Jay R Lefkowitz; for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America by Bert W. Rein; and for the Product Liability Advisory Council by Robert N. Weiner.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the State of Kansas et al. by Paul J. Morrison, Attorney General of Kansas, Stephen R. McAllister, Solicitor General, and Jared S. Maag, Deputy Solicitor General, and by the Attorneys General for their respective States as follows: Talis J. Colberg of Alaska, Terry Goddard of Arizona, Bill McCollum of Florida, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Tom Miller of Iowa, Jack Conway of Kentucky, Michael A. Cox of Michigan, Lori Swanson of Minnesota, Jim Hood of Mississippi, Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon of Missouri, Mike McGrath of Montana, Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada, Kelly A. Ayotte of New Hampshire, Anne Milgram of New Jersey, Gary K. King of New Mexico, Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, Wayne Stenehjem of North Dakota, Marc Dann of Ohio, W. A Drew Edmondson of Oklahoma, Hardy Myers of Oregon, Henry McMaster of South Carolina, Lawrence E. Long of South Dakota, Mark L. Shurtleff of Utah, William H. Sorrell of Vermont, Robert F. McDonnell of Virginia, Robert M. Mc-Kenna of Washington, and Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., of West Virginia; for AARP by David C. Vladeck and Bruce Vignery; for the American Association for Justice by Francine A Hochberg and Kathleen Flynn Peterson; for the National Conference of State Legislatures et al. by Richard Ruda and Steven H. Goldblatt; and for Public Justice, P. C., by Leslie A. Brueckner, David J. Arkush, and Arthur H. Bryant.
Eric G. Lasker, Daniel J. Popeo, and Richard A. Samp filed a brief for the Washington Legal Foundation as amicus curiae.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine whether the decision of the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed was itself liberal or conservative. 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. The lower court's decision direction is unspecifiable if the manner in which the Supreme Court took jurisdiction is original or certification; or if the direction of the Supreme Court's decision is unspecifiable and the main issue pertains to private law or interstate relations