instantly stirred, justice scalia said, i like to get out of the work to tell the truth. arguments often proceeds at a clipped rate, so rapid that it is sometimes hard to get a word in edgewise. justice kagen as the junior justice takes great care not to step on the questions of her senior colleagues, but one time, she tried to enter the fray, only to be silenced by louder voices. and at last, justice bryer instructed council, go back to justi justice kagin and don't forget her question. and many minutes lapsed and she said, i've forgotten my question. see what it means to be tjunior justice. the term has been more than usually taxing.

some have called it the term of the century. perhaps that explains why the funniest justice, called council's argument extraordinary, no fewer than ten times. some of us think that jaw city scalia is extraordinary is, perhaps, becoming rather ordinary. the argued case this is term numbered 80. that's a decrease of six from last term. but the decline was offset by per curiam decisions issued in cases decided without full briefing or any oral argument. some were dispositions of that kind already numbered ten, more than twice the number issued at this time last year. too many? i leave that for you to judge. to date, opinions have been

released in 58 of the 80 argued cases. one petition was dismissed post argument as drafted and 21 cases remain to be announced before the judges scatter for the summer. the court split 5-4 or 5-3, with one justice recused, in nine of the 58 cases so far handed down. in comparison to that close to 16% sharp disagreement record, we agreed unanimously on the bottom line judgment in 26 or 45% of the already-announced cases and in 20 of 26 opinions as well as judgments were unanimous. quite collegiate, would you not say? as one may expect, many of the most controversial cases remain

pending so it is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up hex week and the week after. i will now describe rather quickly, some of the most watched cases. first, united states against jones, which presented a 21st century 4th amendment question. if police attach a gps tracking device to your car and then use it to track the car's movements on public streets for several weeks, have you been searched within the meaning of the amendment? the court's you than house answer, yes. justice scalia with the majority observed that the framers would have been aghast at the thought of a constable hidden beneath a coach recording with quill and ink, every turn the horse made.

the tracking device physically invaded private property for the purpose of obtaining information. he explained, but he said attachment of the device caused a search within the meaning of the fourth amendment. physical invasion of private property justice scalia's main theme, was not the motive sounded in justice alito's concurrent opinion writing for four of the justices he said that the long term monitoring of jones' car tread on his reasonable expectation of privacy, at the circuit stage, the 9th circuit was on the losing side of the split, dissenting from the denial of rehearing of bank by that court, chief judge alex kosinski got to the heart of the matter. there's something creepy and

un-american about such behavior. he wrote -- to those of us who have lived under a total tear queen regame. there's a meaning of deja vu. again at issue in florence, burlington county. florence concerned the practice in new jersey county jails of subjecting all arrestees to strip searches before admitting them to a jail's general inmate quarters. florence was arrested for failure to pay a fine, wrongly as it turned out, he had, in fact, paid what was due. transferred from one jail to another. he was strip searched twice. and after all charges against him were dropped, florence sued the jails in which the searches youred. seeking damages under section

1983. by the time florence's case reached the supreme court, eight courts of appeals had already held strip searches of persons arrested for minor offenses were impermissible absent reason to suspect that the person arrested was concealing contraband. in florence, the third circuit disagreed and upheld the jail's routine practice. justice kennedy, writing for the court, affirmed that the third circuit's decision and the strip searches at issue, struck a reasonable balance, the majority held, between inmate privacy on the one hand, and prison safety and administration on the other. justice breyer dissented joined by justices soto maier and it is inherently harmful, humiliating

and degrading which a serious affront to human dignity and individual privacy. as there was no cause to suspect that florence was concealing drugs or otherwise presented a security risk, we judged that the searches to which he was exposed were unconstitutional. a third case, fcc against fox television stations. asked whether the fcc's current indecency policy violates the first or fifth amendment. the paris hilton's of this world, my law cloerks told me, eagerly await the decision. it is beyond my comprehension, i told my clerks, how the fcc can claim jurisdiction to ban words spoken in a hotel on french soil.

the case came to us on a return trip in fox 1, we held that the fcc did not violate the administrative procedure act act when it altered its long standsing decency policy to regulate the broadcast of fleeting expletives. the "we" did not include me, i dissented, with justices stevens suter and bryer. they court remanded the case to consider the constitutionality of the fcc's newly minted fleeting expletive policy. the court of appeals did so and struck down the fcc's broadcast indecency policy in its entirety, not simply as applied to fleeting expletives. the policy, this circuit panel majority concluded, was void for vagueness. we accepted the defendant's

petition for review. during the argument in what we call fox 1, speculation abounded where the council for fox television would speak the f and s words before the supreme court as he did before the second circuit. he did not. this time, in fox 2, council for abc television one-upped his colleague. abc's council first reported that there had been nine seasons of unsanctioned nypd blue episodes that had fleetingly displayed bear buttocks. he then pointed to all of the bare buttocks carved in the freezers that adorn the courtroom walls. a gesture, perhaps, worth a

thousand words. a fourth case on my select list, will be re-argued next term. royal dutch petroleum company and it originally presented this question. can corporations be sued under the alien tort statute? the second circuit held they cannot. and in case argued the same day as this, mohammed against pal palestinian authority, we held under a much newer and differently-worded law, the tort of victim protection act, corporations are not amenable to suit. respondent raised an alternative ground for affirmation. the alien tort statute should not apply at all to conduct occurring in a foreign nation, was the argument. some of the justices showed a

keen interest in pursuing that theory and soon after argument we ordered the parties to brief whether and under what circumstances the alien tort statute provides a claim for relief for violations of the law of nations occurring outside the united states. next, a pair of cases, both of these cases presented this question? does the sixth amendment right to effective assistance of council extend to the negotiation and consideration of plea offers that the defense rejected or allowed to lapse? justice kennedy writing for the majority held, the sixth amendment right does attach. gal atlantic frey had been charged with charging with

driving a revoked license. the prosecution offered two plea bargains. one, a recommended three-year suspended sentence, plus ten days in the county jail. the other, 90 days to be served on a lesser charge. but frey's attorney did not tell frey that the offers had been made by the prosecution. and so both of them lapsed. frey later pleaded guilty without any plea agreement and was sentenced to 3 years in prison. when ineffective assistance of council causes the failure to accept a plea offer, the majority held, and further proceedings then lead to an outcome less favorable than the proffered plea bargain a defendant may be entitled to a remedy. in dissent justice scalia pointed out that many countries forbid american-sometime may

bargaining, at least in serious cases. these foreign systems, justice scalia said, adhered to the belief that the law is the law and those who break it should pay the penalty provided. has anyone in our congress noticed that justice scalia is not allergic to foreign law -- next, a pair of cases, miller against alabama and jackson v hobbs prompted if opinion in grahamer have us is florida. graham held that the eighth amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment bars life without parole as a sentence for a jufrl convivenile skrikted of homicidal crime. miller and jackson present these

questions. does life without parole, kit be imposed on a 14-year-old who is convicted of homicide? and does that violate the eighth amendment? and if such a sentence can be imposed on a juvenile at all, does it violate the eighth amendment when the sentence is decreed under a mandatory sentencing scheme that allows no consideration of the child's age? finally, two cases that attracted the terms largest headlines and, also, knee-high briefs. i will mention first, the case argued on the terms very last day, arizona against the united states. in april, 2010, arizona enacted legislation titled "support our law enforcement and save neighborhoods act" or sb 1070.

its provisions are designed to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the united states. arizona described its policy as implementing attrition through enforcement. before the law took effect, the united states sued arizona alleging that the federal immigration and nationality act covered the field and pre-empts sb 1070. the district court finding that the united states was likely to succeed on the merits preliminarily enjoined enforcement of four provisions of the arizona act. the ninth circuit affirmed and the state petitioned for review,

urging that arizona's law compliments and does not conflict with federal law. one indication of the importance of the case, five states have passed similar legislation and bills modeled on the arizona scheme have been introduced in most other states. last but surely not least, the affordable health care cases. no contest since the court invited new briefs and arguments in citizen's united has attracted more attention in the press, the academy, the ticketline outside the supreme court. a line that formed three days before oral argument commenced. some say this was was unprecedented if they mean prior circles, protests, counter

protests, going on outside the court while oral argument was under way inside. arguments consumed more than six hours, spanning three days. remarkable in modern times, but recall that in one of the cases, prominently cited in the health care briefs, mccullough against maryland, oral argument in 1819, ran on for nine days over the course of two months. the three cases challenging the constitutionality of the health care act present four questions. first, first has two parts. does congress have the authority under article i of the tax clause under the power clause or the tex and spend of the welfare to enact the so-called individual mandate? and second, if the individual mandate requiring the purchase of insurance or the payment of a

penalty, if that is unconstitutional, must the entire act fall? or may the mandate be chopped, like a head of broccoli, from the rest of the act? and the third, does the medication expansion exceed congress's power and the fourth, the big question. do federal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain a preenforcement challenge to the individual mandate in light of the anti-injunction act of 1867. that act, prohibits any person from suing the federal government to restrain the assessment or collection of any tax. to accommodate an audience enormously larger than our courtroom will hold, we released

same-day audio recordings of the arguments and though our deliberations are private that has not dissuaded the media from publishing a steady stream of rumors and fifth-hand accounts. my favorite among press pieces, wisely observed at the supreme court, those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know. >> and nevertheless, rumor circulated that the opinion hand down session on may 24th would reveal the outcome of the health care cases. rumor followers attended the session and anticipating announcement of the momentous decisions. they got their just desserts and learned from the only decision announced from the bench that day, that section 8b of the real estate settlement procedures act does not prohibit all unearned

fees. it bars only unearned fees split between two i have spoken on more than one occasion about the utility of disseptembering opinions, no in particular that they can reach audiences outside the court and propel legislative or executive change and peter mentioned a most fit example, the dissent i summarized from the bench in 2007, in lily ledbetter against goodyear tire. and as he said and as most of you know, the case involved a woman who worked as an area manager at a good will plant in alabama. her starting salary in 1979 was in line with the salaries of men performing similar work, but in time her pay slipped so that in the end of 1997, there was a 15%

to 40% disparity between ledbetter's pay between her salary and her 15 male counterparts. she filed charges of discrimination with the eeoc and eventually the agency awarded her back pay and damage. the supreme court filed her claim too late. it was incumbent on her, the court said, to file reports of christmas nation. any annual pay decision not contested within 180 days, the court ruled became grand fathered beyond the title 7 of repair.

>> a case that can't be made when somebody has been on the job and ginobili good performance records for 20 years, but if you wait until your case is fully baked, when the disparity is steady and large enough to enable you to mount a winnable case, you will be cut off for suing too late. that situation i urged could not have been what congress intended. the ball is now back in congress's court with the bottom line, the legislature may act to collect the court's posthumous

reading of title vrk ii. the court's first opinion of the current term did not receive similar notice. it was title cavasso versus smith. shirley b smith, abysmally represented at her trial was convicted of shaking her 7 week old grandson to death. her sentence, 15 years to live. the ninth circuit on maybe

requestous review held there was no support that the infant died of so-called shaken baby syndrome. told the court of appeals not to tamper with the state courts conviction. justices briar and sotomayor summarized my opinion. what is now known about shaken baby syndrome is -- uncontradicted evidence showed she possessed no danger whatever

to her family or anyone else in society. in december of last year, smith filed an application for commutation of sentence with california governor jerry brown. justice at last prevailed, don't you agree? thank you. thank you.

>> ruth bader ginsberg talked about the helmut case. >> no case has attracted more attention than the academy, the ticket line outside the supreme court. a line that formed three days before oral argument commenced. some have described the controversy as unprecedented and they may be right if they mean the number of press conferences, prayer circles, protests,

counter protests going on outside the court while oral arguments was under way inside. >> she also spoke about press reports on the decision. >> and though our deliberations are private, that has not dissuaded the media from publishing a steady stream of rumors and fifth hand accounts. my favorite among press pieces at the court those who know don't talk and though who don't talk don't know. >> in a few moments on cspan 3, a senate financing -- stanford university and the federal ils society, a conversation on regulating technology.

jamie dimon is -- also at the hearing, the heads of the securities and exchange commission, the commodity futures exchange commission, the fdic and the comp froler of the currency. the show is live starting at 9:00:30 a.m. eastern. then at 4:00 eastern, tuesday afternoon. we're live here on cspan 3 from the state department.

the attorney general has failed to turn over cook documents. that gets underway at 10:00 a.m. eastern on wednesday and it's live on cspan 3. the committee heard from representatives of the private health care industry about ways they have made their payment systems more efficient.