By James Bowden

YLB proudly presents our top ten list of the most significant cases in the last decade, in no particular order. They have all been included because (a) they have added to or changed the practice of law in the United States; (b) they were culturally significant; (c) both; or (d) neither. Anyone wondering why Bush v. Gore didn’t make the list will unfortunately have to go wanting. Feel free to make suggestions for additions or to openly mock our choices in the comments. 

1. Gratz (and Grutter) v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) – Affirmative action programs which discriminate solely on the basis of race – not O.K. Giving applicants a bump based on their offering a diverse background to the benefit of all of the students and the overall curriculum – well, you’ve got some wiggle-room there.
2. Kelo v. New London Connecticut, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) – It ends up that now the government can invoke eminent domain to take property from one private citizen and give it to another to increase tax base. In fact, per Justice Stephens, the government always could.
3. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 548 U.S. 557 (2006) – Yes, Mr. President, we know that you’re calling them “Enemy Combatants.” But the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Convention, and the United States Constitution still apply. I know, being president is tough.
4. Gonzales v. Carhart 550 U.S. 124 (2007) – Despite its failure to use medical terms to define the procedures which it prohibits, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.) is constitutional. The smart money is that this won’t be the last time the abortion issue rears its ugly head in the chambers at One First Street.
5. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005)  – Sorry glaucoma patients; just because the state police won’t come a’knockin’ with cuffs when you “take your medicine” doesn’t mean the DEA can’t.
6. The Trial of Kenneth Lay – Pay attention, children: the punishment for massive securities fraud and embezzlement is to die of natural causes while on vacation in a ski chalet near Aspen, Colorado. Now, how many of you want to be the C.E.O. of a large energy conglomerate?
7. People v. Michael Jackson – Media Circus 101. That is all.
8. Bell Atlantic Corp. et al. v. Twombly et al., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) – In a shocking decision which has shaken the concept of notice pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to their foundation, the likelihood that facts supporting a plaintiffs’ complaint  will be adduced at trial must be plausible.  Note to you wacky pro se litigants: please, please do not take this ruling as an indication that you should cease to file the hilarious complaints that bring us so much joy.
9. Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific Atlanta, 552 U.S. 148 (2008) – In a decision closely followed closely by securities attorneys and other malcontents, the SCOTUS holds that there is no secondary liability for aiding and abetting under the anti-fraud provisions of federal securities law. Word to the wise for the ethically challenged - pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered; egregious behavior can still land you a trial as a primary violator.
10. District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. __ (2009) – SCOTUS looks closely at the Second Amendment, finds an individual right to bear arms where once there was only a collective right. You know the guy down the street that is stockpiling guns to defend himself when the government comes to take them all away because it is his right? Well,   he’s right. At least as long as he lives in the District of Columbia.

Brian Malcom 

"While judges cannot isolate themselves entirely from the real world and cannot be expected to avoid all friendships outside of their judicial responsibilities, some restrictions upon a judge’s conduct are inherent in the office." Florida Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, Opinion Number: 2009-20. 

Judges across America may notice their status in Web 2.0 slip a bit today.  The Florida Judicial Ethics and Advisory Committee ruled that it is inappropriate for judges to be social media "friends" with lawyers that could appear before them in court. The Committee based its decision on Canon 2(B) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct.  The Canon reads:  "A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge."     

The Committee determined "that listing lawyers who may appear before the judge as “friends” on a judge's social networking page reasonably conveys to others the impression that these lawyer “friends” are in a special position to influence the judge."  Accordingly, the Committee held that "that identifying lawyers who may appear before a judge as "friends" on a social networking site, if that relationship is disclosed to anyone other than the judge by virtue of the information being available for viewing on the internet, violates Canon 2(B)." 

In a bit of social media mercy, the Committee went on to clarify that judges can have "friends" on social media sites, but they cannot "friend" lawyers  who may appear before the judge.  Thus, the judge can friend non-lawyers and lawyers who do not appear before the judge, "either because they do not practice in the judge's area or court or because the judge has listed them on the judge’s recusal list so that their cases are not assigned to the judge." 

The Committee did clarify that its opinion applied to Facebook or "any social networking site which requires the member of the site to approve the listing of a “friend” or contact on the member's site, if (1) that person is a lawyer who appears before the judge, and (2) identification of the lawyer as the judge’s “friend” is thereafter displayed to the public or the judge's or lawyer's other “friends” on the judge's or the lawyer's page."  To name a few, this would encompass connections on LinkedIn, followers on Twitter, and friends on MySpace (do people still use MySpace?). 

Sorry, judges.