The Supreme Court today released its first slip opinion of the 2005 Term. The case, IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 03-1238 (2005) [PDF], was the first case John Roberts heard as Chief Justice. At issue was whether or not employers had to compensate employees for the time they spent putting on protective clothing. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 requires that employees be compensated for walking to and from the location of "principal activity." This also included activities that were "preliminary" or "postliminary" to the "principal activity." In this particular case, employees of IBP, Inc. (a meat-packing company) sought compensation for the time they spent putting on protecting clothing and walking to the production floor.

Now, if you were some anti-labor robber baron, you'd have voted against this. Curiously, however, this was a unanimous decision of the court. All nine justices agreed that the FLSA requires employers to compensate employees for the time employees spend putting on protective clothing.

The second case the court released today, United States v. Olson, 04-759 (2005) [PDF], is a tort case. "Tort," in addition to being a delicious dessert, is an Old French legal term meaning "wrong." (I imagine that Sam Waterston enjoys a tort that is filled with raspberry-flavored justice!) Two questions need to be asked in tort cases: (1) was someone wronged? and (2) who's responsible? These two questions are tricky. In the first case, there may be a question as to whether or not there was a wrong at all. In the second case, even if it has been determined that someone has been wronged, it's hard to tell who's responsible. If Little Timmy from next door toddles into your swimming pool and drowns, is there damage? And who's responsible? Clearly, there's damage: Little Timmy is dead. Who's responsible? That's why Little Timmy's mother took you to court. (Turns out that the court would probably say that it's your fault; a swimming pool is an "attractive nuisance," which means that you should take all the measures you can to ensure that no one drowns.)

In U.S. v. Olson, the court pondered whether or not the U.S. government could be liable in a case where workers in an Arizona mine were killed. The plaintiffs in the case asserted that federal mine regulators' negligence caused the mine accident, and such, they sued the United States. So, we have (1) a wrong -- two miners were killed -- but do we have (2) responsibility? The United States, of course, claimed that it was not responsible. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows tort suits against the government are permissible "under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred." A U.S. district court in Arizona dismissed the case, reasoning that Arizona law would not impose liability on a private person in similar circumstances. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that Arizona law would make a state or municipality liable for such actions, and therefore, the United States could also be held liable. The Supreme Court didn't much care for this opinion at all, and in another unanimous opinion, reversed the Ninth Circuit Court. Justice Breyer, taking time off from his duties as an ice cream magnate, wrote that the Ninth Circuit misinterpreted the Federal Tort Claims Act, as the act does not allow the U.S. to be liable in instances where a "state or municipality" would be liable -- only in cases where a "private person" would be liable. (The Ninth Circuit reasoned that, since there is no private job analagous to that of mine inspectors, the "private person" standard had to be altered. What a bunch of hippies.) The Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's decision and sent it back to the lower courts for further consideration.

Well, I guess torts went as boring as I thought they were! That case was awesome! And what's more, we had two unanimous opinions in the same day. I think the Court is turning over a new leaf.