Graham v. Fulton County Special Purpose Grand Jury, 143 S.Ct. 397 (decided November 1, 2022): According to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Sen. Linsey Graham leaned on him after the 2020 election to discard some absentee ballots. Does the Speech and Debate Clause (art. I, §6, cl. 1) prohibit questioning of Graham about this in front of a Georgia grand jury investigating Trump’s interference with the election results? The Court’s short order affirms that the Clause applies to Graham’s “informal investigation” (arguably a legislative activity), but does not mention the wider context, which was that Graham could still be questioned about his contacts with the Trump campaign. Graham testified as to those on November 22, 2022, his suit was dismissed as moot by the Eleventh Circuit on December 20, and Trump and eighteen others were indicted on August 14, 2023.
Manila Investment Co. v. Park Trammell, 239 U.S. 31 (decided November 1, 1915): suit alleging breach of trust as to property was mere contract dispute and not Equal Protection violation and so no federal court jurisdiction Anderson v. Harless, 459 U.S. 4 (decided November 1, 1982): another case holding that you can’t seek habeas in federal court until the issue (here, a faulty jury instruction on how to find malice) has been argued in state court and the appellate process there has been exhausted Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority v. Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. of Virginia, 464 U.S. 30 (decided November 1, 1983): telephone company forced to relocate lines due to street realignment wasn’t “displaced person” entitled to benefits under federal relocation assistance statute; statute did not displace common law rule that public utilities forced to relocate from right-of-way must do so at own expense (we all hated the telephone company, but couldn’t a Fifth Amendment “takings” argument have been made?)
Comments