On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court opted not to review a range of cases, including those resulting from the societal upheaval following George Floyd’s death, involving the family of baseball icon Roberto Clemente, and actor Randy Quaid, according to a report from SCOTUSblog. This decision was part of a larger order list resulting from the court’s Nov. 6 conference, and released that Monday.
The Minneapolis-based case revolved around allegations by businesses located at the intersection where George Floyd was killed. These businesses argued that city-imposed barricades and withdrawal of police protection post-Floyd’s death violated constitutional protections under the takings clause, causing economic detriment and heightened local crime. Similar to previous state court decisions, the Supreme Court dismissed their petition for review.
The legal skirmish involving Roberto Clemente’s family addressed Puerto Rico’s commercial use of Clemente’s image on license plates, which the family claims violated the takings clause. Despite generating substantial revenue for the region, the effort created negative perceptions toward the family for a levied fee during challenging economic times. The 1st Circuit Court previously halted the family’s claims, determining that the takings clause is intended for tangible assets. The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday leaves the 1st Circuit’s ruling intact.
Lastly, the issue involving Randy Quaid and the purported misuse of confidential law enforcement data did not receive Supreme Court scrutiny. The Quaids alleged illegal dissemination of sensitive data by Santa Barbara authorities, but both a federal district court and the 9th Circuit Court ruled the claims were legally impermissible under the litigation privilege. The dismissal of their request for review by the Supreme Court affirms the lower courts’ decisions.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s unwillingness to engage with these cases underscores a current reluctance to expand or redefine legal frameworks surrounding state actions under the takings clause and privacy expectations in legal settings. For a comprehensive list of the orders issued, see the order list from the Nov. 6 conference.