Political Aristocracy, Part the Third: Dick Armey is attempting to "send a signal" to a media company that stymied his son's Congressional bid by way of an amendment that would force Belo Corporation to sell off one of its three Dallas-area media properties. Belo owns the Dallas Morning News, WFAA-TV, and the small-market Denton Record-Chronicle; their primary story on Armey's son, Scott, is here (registration required). Armey lost to Republican Michael Burgess in the primary election.

Scott Armey's attempt to succeed his father in the Denton County seat was dogged by reports from the DMN that his friends had profited from Denton County contracts and rulings Armey, now a county judge, had made in his capacity as a county commissioner. (A partisan account of the incident by an Armey supporter is here.) Ironically, both Belo and the DMN are known for their conservative political orientations, with editorial support provided almost exclusively to the GOP in state and national elections, and both Republicans and conservative Democracts locally.

 
The Last Word: So much for the hopes of some folks that we would see another 60-page folio of screeds on election law; the GOP petition for a writ of cert was given the usual brusque sendoff from a Court obviously not interested in starting off the new session with a bang.

In related news, Dahlia Lithwick has her first dispatch from "the sizzling world of federal civil procedure" (the only thing more boring than the diversity statute case I mentioned below is an argument whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear a diversity statute case) here.

 
Passing on: Arts and Letters Daily, the online omnibus that served as companion to the much-lamented Lingua Franca, has wrapped up production, evidently due to ongoing bankruptcy proceedings for the magazine.

N.B.: Not dead yet, not at all! See PhilosophyAndLiterature.com.

 
Back on the Bench: First Monday's come 'round again, and the Justices are starting the session with some of the less toothsome morsels on their plate this year: an appeal from the Michigan Supreme Court that deals with the critical and high-profile issue of whether the effects of reciprocity agreements between states should be used to determine the amount of a state-imposed fee for the purposes of restricting current fees under 49 USC § 11506. (The state court's opinion, should you care, is here.)

The other case, Ford and Citibank v. McCauley, has to do with a 9th Circuit descision regarding removal to federal court of certain class actions under the diversity statute, a piece of legal arcana that has become a hot topic at the highest level over the past few years as companies try to get lawsuits moved out of state courts, where they fear they will be swamped by plaintiff-friendly juries and judges.

Under the diversity statute (28 USC § 1332), federal "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs" and is between, inter alia, citizens of different states. This requirement can be satisfied in the 9th Circuit if paid in damages to the plaintiff, or if paid out in the process of complying with an injunction (the so-called "either viewpoint"). Exciting stuff, neh? Okay, it's not exciting. But it's good for you, like tasteless but vitamin-packed tubers.

Under rules adopted by the Supreme Court in Zahn v. International Paper, the "amount in controversy" has to exceed $75,000 for every member of a class action. The 9th Circuit went even further, and decided that in class actions, the idea that either damages or cost of compliance could be used to satisfy diversity requirements conflicted with the Zahn holding. To break the perceived impasse, the court held that they would not accept fixed costs of compliance as satisfying diversity requirements in a class action. The question is whether the court erred in effectively reducing the ability of a defendant to remove to federal court a class action case vis a vis his ability to do so in a non-class action. (9th Circuit decision here.)

Tomorrow, the Court will hear orals on the Nextwave cases (discussed below), and Wednesday they'll dig into Eldred v. Ashcroft, the copyright-extension case. Interesting stuff ahead.