The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions in three cases this morning:

Maples v. Thomas, No. 10-63: When a state trial court denied a death row inmate’s postconviction petition, notices of the court’s order were posted to the address of the two New York attorneys who had been representing him, at the law firm with which they had been associated. Because the two attorneys had since left that firm, those postings were returned, unopened, to the trial court clerk, who attempted no further mailing. The time to appeal ran out, and the inmate then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit rejected his petition, pointing to the
procedural default in state court. The Supreme Court today held that the inmate had shown “cause” for the default, in that he had been effectively abandoned by his attorneys, and remanded for a determination of “prejudice.”

The Court’s opinion is available here.

Golan v. Holder, No. 10-545: The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works governs international copyright relations. To perfect U. S. implementation of the Convention, Congress passed the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act, Section 514 of which granted copyright protection to certain pre-existing works which were protected in their country of origin but for certain reasons lacked protection in the United States. Petitioners (certain orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others) sued, asserting that Section 514 was invalid under both the Copyright and Patent Clause, Art. I, §8, cl. 8, and the First Amendment, because a work that has once entered the public domain, for whatever reason, must remain there. The Supreme Court today held that the protection granted by Section 514 did not exceed constitutional limitations on Congress’ authority.

The Court’s opinion is available here.

Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, No. 10-1195: In the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, Congress provided for civil actions by private parties seeking redress for violations of the Act’s provisions banning certain invasive practices. The question presented was whether language in Congress’ provision for private actions gave state courts exclusive jurisdiction of such actions. The Court today held that federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over private suits arising under the TCPA.

The Court’s opinion is available here.