US Supreme Court Cases Howes,

US Supreme Court Cases

Howes, Warden v. Fields - Docket No., 10-680

The Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that: No person shall be & #8230;..compelled in any criminal case to be witness against himself[.] For almost fifty years, the courts have avoided any broad approach for determining whether a suspect is "in custody" for purposes of a Miranda warning, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), instead applying a circumstance specific analysis. The question before the court now is whether the Court in Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1 (1968), impliedly got rid of that circumstance specific test for incarcerated people, such that prison officials must always give Miranda warnings, in spite of the situation, before questioning prisoners about potentially incriminating behavior.

Huber v. Wal-Mart Stores - Docket No. 07-480

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq.

(ADA), necessitates employers to "mak[e] reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A). The statute specifically lists "reassignment to a vacant position" as a "reasonable accommodation." Id. § 12111(9)(B). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has put forth regulations implementing that definition, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii), and it has construed those regulations to provide that "[t]he employee does not need to be the best qualified individual for the position in order to obtain it as a reassignment."

The questions before the court in this case are:

1. If a disability prevents a worker from performing the necessary functions of their current position, does the ADA require: (a) that the employer reassign the worker to an open, corresponding position for which they are qualified, as the Tenth and District of Columbia Circuits have held; or (b) that the employer simply permit the worker to apply and vie with other candidates for the open, corresponding position for which they are qualified, as the Seventh and Eighth Circuits have held?

2. Is the EEOC's understanding of its rule entitled to respect under Long

Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 127 S. Ct. 2339 (2007) -- a case decided twelve days after the Eighth Circuit delivered its decision in this case?

Martel v. Clair - Docket No., 10-1265