U.S. Supreme Court

SACRAMENTO --- Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the constitutionality of federal health care reform and urging the high court to uphold the landmark law.

“Though state governments and private actors have taken important and innovative steps to expand access to health care and to restrain the growth of health care costs, no remedy can be fully effective without action on a national level. The Commerce Clause empowers Congress to take such action, and Congress properly employed that power in addressing the nation’s healthcare crisis through the reforms enacted in the Affordable Care Act,” the amicus brief states.

In August 2011, a divided United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage provision, which requires that individuals maintain adequate health insurance, is unconstitutional. The United States government appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear oral arguments in the matter in March 2012.

Attorney General Harris, joined by 12 other attorneys general, argued in a brief filed today in the U.S. Supreme Court that the Constitution gives Congress broad powers to regulate interstate commerce, including individual conduct that substantially affects interstate commerce.

The failure of millions of Americans to purchase health insurance has a substantial negative impact on interstate commerce, as well as state economies and budgets. In 2009, the healthcare economy accounted for 17.6% of the nation’s gross domestic product. In 2008, the cost of uncompensated health care — health care provided to those who lacked insurance or some other ability pay — was $43 billion nationally. As a result, providers shift a significant portion of those costs onto insurance companies and other payers. Each American family, on average, pays $1,000 more than necessary in health insurance premiums as a result of the shifting of those costs.

“Health care is one of the fastest growing expenditures in the federal budget, California’s state budget, and the budgets of families across America,” Attorney General Harris said. “Federal health care reform is not only essential to improving access to quality health care in California, it also is central to the long-term health of our economy, as well as state and local budgets.”

The historic health care reform law will reduce the need to shift the cost of uncompensated care of the uninsured or underinsured and will reduce the expenses absorbed by the states and by individuals with health insurance. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is an indispensable aid to the states in their own efforts to tackle the healthcare problems their residents face.

Other states joining California in this brief are Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont. The brief is also joined by the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands.

A copy of the amicus is attached to the online version of this release at www.oag.ca.gov.

LOS ANGELES – California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case that seeks to end the “pay-for-delay” agreements in which a drug company pays competitors not to market generic versions of its brand-name drug.

Attorney General Harris is the lead on this amicus brief, signed by 31 other attorneys general, which urges the U.S. Supreme Court to review these agreements that cost consumers billions of dollars and violate state and federal antitrust laws.

“Keeping generic drugs off the market forces Californians to pay artificially high prices and denies many access to the medication they need,” Attorney General Harris said. “Our office is committed to putting an end to anticompetitive schemes like this that drive up drug prices in order to protect pharmaceutical companies’ profits.”

In the matter before the Supreme Court, Bayer Corporation allegedly paid its competitors $400 million in exchange for agreements not to market generic versions of the popular antibiotic, Cipro, which is used to prevent and treat a variety of bacterial infections.

In 1997, several generic companies sought FDA approval to market generic versions of Cipro. To avoid losing $1 billion in annual sales of Cipro, Bayer sued the rival companies for patent infringement – and then paid them $400 million under the cover of settling the patent litigation. As part of the settlement, the companies agreed not to market a generic version of Cipro for six years.

In 2000, class action lawsuits were filed in New York on behalf of consumers against Bayer, as well as the companies with which Bayer entered pay-for-delay agreements, including Barr Laboratories, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Hoechst Marion Roussel and the Rugby Group. The rulings in those suits allowed drug companies to pay one another not to compete if done in the context of settling patent litigation – even if the patents involved were not necessarily valid or infringed upon.

The brief filed today supports a private antitrust lawsuit filed by direct purchasers of Cipro, which include large drug wholesalers, pharmacies, unions and health care plans.

In the brief, the California Attorney General’s Office, along with the 31 other states, urges the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the case for review and allow proper antitrust scrutiny of these agreements.

The amicus brief is attached.

Saying that “disrupting a private funeral with vicious personal attacks goes too far,” California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has signed a friend-of-the-court brief filed today in a Supreme Court case that will test whether families grieving at a funeral have a right to be free of hate-filled attacks from fanatical protesters.

Brown is one of 48 state attorneys general who gave their support to Albert Snyder in his lawsuit against Fred W. Phelps, Sr. and the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas.

Near the 2006 Maryland funeral of Snyder’s son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, the vehemently anti-gay Phelps and his parishioners demonstrated and waved signs that said “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and some that employed even more offensive language. Matthew Snyder, 20, was killed in a Humvee accident a month after he arrived in Iraq.

“Free speech is a cherished American right,” Brown said, “but disrupting a private funeral with vicious personal attacks on the grieving family goes too far.”

Phelps believes that U.S. military deaths represent God’s judgment on the country’s tolerance of homosexuality. He and his church members have staged their hate-filled protests at some 200 military funerals across the country.

Albert Snyder filed a civil suit against Phelps for invading his family’s privacy and intentionally inflicting emotional distress on them. A U.S. district court awarded Snyder $10 million, but a federal appeals court overturned that verdict and ordered Snyder to pay Phelps’ legal costs.

Forty states have enacted “funeral picketing” or “funeral protest” laws regulating the time, place and conduct of demonstrations near funeral services.

The amicus brief, submitted by Kansas Attorney General Steve Six, argues that such laws are necessary to protect the traditional “sanctity and privacy” of funerals and to prevent mourning families of veterans from being “attacked viciously and personally.” The picketing, the brief says, “amounts to emotional terrorism” directed at a “captive audience.”

Freedom of speech does not permit hate groups to espouse hate-filled vitriol at a private funeral service for the purpose of intentionally inflicting emotional distress on mourners.

“All we wanted,” Albert Snyder told a reporter, “was a private funeral for my son. They turned it into a three-ring circus.”

The Supreme Court is expected to hear his case in October. A copy of the brief is attached.

LOS ANGELES – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of a Connecticut woman who seeks the return of a pair of 500-year-old paintings looted by the Nazis during World War II, kept for a time in the estate of Nazi leader Hermann Göring and purchased 40 years ago by the Norton Simon Museum of Art.

Brown’s friend of the court brief backs Marei Von Saher, who is suing the Pasadena museum over “Adam and Eve.” The two panels painted by the 16th century German artist Lucas Cranach the Elder are evocative of original sin, according to the museum’s website.

The works were confiscated by Nazi soldiers from an Amsterdam gallery owned by a relative of Von Saher’s during the war. From there, the panels were moved to Göring’s country estate near Berlin until May 1945, when they were discovered by American troops. The following year, they were returned to Amsterdam. From there, the artwork’s trail grows murkier, leading through Russia and to a sale in 1971 to the Norton Simon Museum, where the panels are on display on the main floor. The paintings were appraised last year at $24 million. A depiction similar to the “Eve” panel appears each week at the beginning of the TV show “Desperate Housewives.”

“It is only right that California be allowed to give victims additional time to untangle the historical record in cases linked to the darkest chapter in European history,” Brown said. “Despite the passage of so many years, justice will be served by finally permitting this matter to be heard in a court of law.”

At the end of World War II, American forces discovered hundreds of thousands of Nazi-looted artworks stashed in castles, banks, salt mines and caves. Most of those treasures were returned to their rightful owners following the war, but other precious works stolen by the Nazis eluded efforts to track them down. In recent years, a number of prominent museums have discovered their collections include art stolen during the war.

Brown’s amicus brief, submitted in support of Von Saher’s petition for a hearing before the Supreme Court, argues that California has the right to extend the statute of limitations for filing Nazi-era claims beyond the usual three-year limit. Last year, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the state extension would interfere with the federal government’s power to conduct foreign policy.

But, Brown argues, there is no conflict between federal authority and the state’s regulation of museums and galleries within its jurisdiction. That is “a traditional state responsibility,” Brown said. Von Saher’s claim doesn’t seek to “redress the wartime wrongs of foreign governments,” he said. It is made against a museum that no one alleges has any ties to “the Holocaust, the Nazi regime, or the conduct of World War II.”

A copy of the brief is attached. Images of the two paintings can be found at: http://www.nortonsimon.org/collections/browse_artist.php?name=Cranach%2C....

OAKLAND – Following nearly five years of court battles, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to grant the request of California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to review a state law prohibiting the sale or rental of violent video games to children.

Brown petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case last year after California’s ban was struck down in federal court. The case is expected to be heard by the high court later this year.

“It is time to allow California’s common-sense law to go into effect and help parents protect their children from violent video games,” Brown said.

California’s petition for a writ of certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2009 on behalf of the state of California. The case stems from a 2005 California law that requires violent video games to be labeled with an “18”, prohibits the sale or rental of these games to minors, and authorizes fines of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The Video Software Dealers Association (now part of the Entertainment Merchants Association) filed suit in federal court to block the law before it could go into effect.

On August 6, 2007, the U.S. District Court for Northern California invalidated California’s law. Brown immediately appealed the ruling. On February 20, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling.

Brown’s petition asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up this case and overturn the appellate court decision.

The petition argued that violent material in video games should be subject to the same flexible legal standard the courts have applied to limitations on sexually explicit material sold to children – that it is lawful for the state to determine that some content is harmful to children.

Currently, states may regulate the sale of sexually explicit magazines to children, but their authority to place similar limits on the sale of extremely violent video games is in dispute.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed the question of whether extremely violent material sold to children can be treated the same as sexually explicit material. Brown’s petition asked the Court to resolve this question and hold that states can place reasonable restrictions on the distribution of extremely violent material to children.

A copy of Brown’s petition, filed last May, is attached.

Los Angeles--Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. announced today that the California Supreme Court has granted the state's petition to review the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal’s ruling in the Saleem case, a decision last year that threw out a law banning convicted felons from possessing body armor. For more than ten years, the law served as a deterrent and arguably saved many lives. The Attorney General urges the Supreme Court to override the lower court’s ruling and restore this vital tool to the men and women who bravely protect our communities.

"This is a clear victory for police officers everywhere. Allowing criminals and gang members to arm themselves with body armor makes no sense, and I'm confident the Supreme Court will reverse this wrong-headed decision,' Brown said.

Brown filed a petition to the California Supreme Court on January 22, 2010 after the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal struck down the statute, ruling that the law was too vague.

Brown’s petition argued that the Court of Appeal’s Opinion:

• Failed to follow the test for determining whether a statute is vague;
• Contradicted the Legislature’s intent in enacting a body armor statute; and
• Needlessly abrogated the entire body armor statute.

In 1998, the California Legislature enacted the James Guelff Body Armor Act to prohibit felons convicted of a violent crime from possessing body armor.

Los Angeles – Today at 11:00 a.m. Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. will hold a media availability to discuss yesterday’s ruling by a federal three-judge panel ordering California to release more than 40,000 inmates from state prisons.

Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Time: 11:00 a.m.
Location: Los Angeles Office of the Attorney General
First Floor
300 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1230

Please call (510) 622-4500 with questions or to RSVP.

Oakland — Fighting to protect children from video games featuring “killing sprees, torture and sexual assault,” Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold California’s law prohibiting the sale or rental of such brutally violent games to children.

“California’s children are exposed everyday to video games that glamorize killing sprees, torture and sexual assault,” Brown said. “In the face of this brutal and extreme violence, I am petitioning the Supreme Court to allow the state to enforce its reasonable ban on the sale or rental of violent video game sales to children.”

Brown today filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the state of California. If at least four of the nine Supreme Court justices grant the petition, the Supreme Court will take up the case and review the decision to invalidate California’s violent video game law.

The case stems from a 2005 California law that requires violent video games to be labeled with an “18”, prohibits the sale or rental of these games to minors, and authorizes fines of up to $1,000 for each violation.

The Video Software Dealers Association (now part of the Entertainment Merchants Association), however, filed suit in federal court to block the law before it could go into effect.

On August 6, 2007, the U.S. District Court for Northern California invalidated California’s law. Brown immediately appealed the ruling. On February 20, 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling.

Today’s petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court to take up this case and overturn the appellate court decision.
Brown’s petition contends that the same flexible legal standard the courts have applied to limitations on sexually explicit material sold to children – whether it is rational for the state to determine the material is harmful to children -- should be applied to violent material in video games.

Currently, states may regulate the sale of sexually explicit magazines to children, but they cannot place similar limits on the sale of violent video games.

Multiple studies conducted by Dr. Craig Anderson and other social scientists have found direct correlation between children’s exposure to this brutal violence and increased aggressiveness, antisocial behavior, and desensitization to violence.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed the question of whether extremely violent material sold to children can be treated the same as sexually explicit material. Brown’s petition asks the Court to resolve this question and hold that states can place reasonable restrictions on the distribution of extremely violent material to children.

Self Regulation Ineffective

To date, video game industry self-regulation has proven ineffective. Children are still able to readily obtain violent video games, despite the voluntary rating system in place.

A 2005 Federal Trade Commission undercover investigation found that 42 percent of 13 to 16-year-old children were able to purchase M-rated games, and only half of cashiers asked the minor’s age.

Violent M-Rated games dominate industry marketing and sales. Last month, at least half of the top ten best selling games for both PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 were M-rated. These included titles such as:
• Resident Evil 5;
• Call of Duty: World at War;
• Halo 3;
• Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena; and
• Killzone 2.

In “Killzone 2,” the industry admits the extreme level of violence in the games they sell and market to children. Their rating description reads: “Red blood spray emits from enemy soldiers when shot, and weapons such as sniper rifles and shotguns can be used to decapitate them. Post-mortem damage can be inflicted on soldiers’ bodies, resulting in pools of blood on the ground. During one cutscene, a gravely wounded character retrieves a pistol and shoots himself in the head.”

Another recent M-Rated release available, “F.E.A.R 2: Project Origin,” includes the following rating description: “Blood spray often explodes out of wounded enemies, while a slow motion effect allows players to see blood emission in a jelly-like, hanging form. Blood is also smeared on walls, the ground, and in pooled stains near dead bodies, which are sometimes torn apart and beheaded…A sexual assault is vaguely depicted accompanied by images of a writhing body and moaning sounds.” Online, a 39-second trailer for the game is devoted to “blood improvements,” depicting in graphic detail how blood splattering graphics have been updated from a previous version of the game.

A copy of the petition is attached.

This order, the latest intrusion by the federal judiciary into California’s prison system, is a blunt instrument that does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals, many of whom are deeply disturbed.

There is no doubt that there is room for improvement. But significant progress has been made and is continuing to be made at a cost of billions.

The court’s tentative ruling is not constitutionally justified. Therefore, the state will appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court when the final order is issued.

Sacramento -- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today renewed his call for the California Supreme Court to invalidate Proposition 8 because it deprives people of the right to marry—an aspect of liberty that the Supreme Court has concluded is guaranteed by the California Constitution.

“The amendment process cannot be used by a bare majority to strip away the fundamental and inalienable rights of a protected minority without a compelling justification,” Attorney General Brown said. “Since there is no compelling justification, Proposition 8 must be stricken.”

Attorney General Brown today responded to the 63 “Friend of the Court” briefs that were filed last week with the California Supreme Court. Brown contends that the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights enshrined in article I, section 1 of the California Constitution without compelling justification. The court found in the In re Marriage Cases that no such compelling justification exists. Accordingly, Proposition 8 must be stricken.

Brown also takes on the arguments of supporters of Proposition 8 head on.

Brown argues that Proposition 8 supporters are wrong to suggest that the people’s right to amend the Constitution through the initiative process is unlimited and that the Court does not have the authority to invalidate Proposition 8. The Court, in fact, has exercised judicial review previously to invalidate a constitutional amendment that was deemed substantively improper.

He also argues Proposition 8 does not invalidate the same-sex marriages entered into between June 16 and November 4, 2008, as some Proposition 8 supporters contend. To invalidate those marriages, Brown argues, would violate the due process rights of those same-sex couples who entered into marriage based on the Court’s ruling in In re: Marriage Cases.