ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, COMMERCIAL LAW, CONTRACTS, PUBLIC UTILITIES, WHOLESALE
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish County, No. 06-1457
In a case involving wholesale-energy contracts and the Mobile-Sierra doctrine under which the FERC must presume that the rate set out in a freely negotiated wholesale-energy contract meets the "just and reasonable" requirement imposed by law, judgment granting petitions for review of FERC decisions upholding certain contracts is affirmed where: 1) contrary to the Ninth Circuit's view, the FERC was required to apply the Mobile-Sierra presumption in evaluating the contracts in this case and the FERC may abrogate a valid contract only if it harms the public interest; 2) the Ninth Circuit's "zone of reasonableness" test, used to evaluate a buyer's rate-challenge, fails to accord an adequate level of protection to contracts; but 3) nevertheless, two flaws in the FERC's analysis provided alternate grounds for affirmance.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE
Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290
The District of Columbia's prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, ELECTIONS, GOVERNMENT LAW
Davis v. Fed. Elec. Comm'n, No. 07-320
In the context of federal election law provisions that, under certain circumstances, impose different campaign contribution limits on candidates competing for the same congressional seat, the Court rules that sections 319(a) and (b) of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) violate the First Amendment.