This case involved Playboy Entertainment Group challenging the constitutionality of Section 505 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which required cable operators to fully scramble or limit to safe-harbor hours (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) any channels primarily dedicated to sexually explicit adult programming in order to prevent signal bleed into non-subscribers' homes. Playboy sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the provision violated the First Amendment by restricting protected speech. After a trial, the three-judge district court held that Section 505 was unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it was not the least restrictive means of achieving the government's interest in shielding children from indecent material, as a less burdensome alternative existed in Section 504's requirement that operators provide blocking devices upon request. The court did not reach Playboy's additional claims that the provision was unconstitutionally vague or violated equal protection. The decision focused on findings that the scrambling mandate imposed significant burdens on adult channels and that voluntary lockbox distribution under Section 504 had proven inadequate in practice.
This case involved a constitutional challenge by adult cable programming providers to section 505 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which mandated that cable operators fully scramble or block channels primarily dedicated to sexually explicit content to prevent signal bleed into non-subscribers' homes, or else limit such programming to late-night hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. The three-judge district court considered claims that the provision violated the First Amendment as a content-based speech restriction and the Equal Protection Clause by targeting only exclusively adult networks. The court upheld the law's constitutionality, finding that it served a compelling government interest in shielding children from unintended exposure to sexually oriented material. It further reasoned that the measure was narrowly tailored through its focus on dedicated channels and alternative compliance options, was not unconstitutionally vague, and did not discriminate in a manner requiring heightened equal protection scrutiny beyond the First Amendment analysis.
The case involved a citizen suit by environmental groups against Texaco for alleged violations of its Clean Water Act permit regulating discharges from an oil refinery in Delaware. The court determined that the plaintiffs had standing and that it had jurisdiction over most but not all of the claimed violations. Based on evidence from the trial, including discharge monitoring reports, the court imposed a penalty of $1,680,000 on Texaco and issued a permanent injunction requiring compliance with the permit's terms.
Courtland C. Pitts filed a federal habeas corpus petition challenging his 1983 Delaware state court convictions on ten counts of felony theft and five counts of misdemeanor theft, for which he received a 25-year sentence. He raised thirteen claims, including denial of his right to self-representation, improper joinder of charges, ineffective assistance of counsel, and various trial errors such as shackling and publicity. The court adopted the magistrate's recommendation to dismiss the petition, finding that most claims lacked merit or were procedurally barred, and specifically concluding that Pitts' request to proceed pro se was untimely and not clearly asserted, thus not violating his constitutional rights.
In Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, an inmate at Delaware Correctional Center's Maximum Security Unit brought a Section 1983 action against prison officials, claiming that the legal resources and assistance available to MSU inmates failed to meet constitutional requirements under Bounds v. Smith for adequate law libraries or help from legally trained persons. The district court conducted a three-day bench trial, heard testimony from the plaintiff, other inmates, library staff, and corrections officials, and reviewed documentary evidence on the prison's facilities and materials. The court made detailed findings of fact about the MSU population, the books and forms provided in the library, access procedures, and the role of the Inmate Legal Services Administrator. These findings addressed whether the defendants had satisfied their obligations during the period of the plaintiff's confinement in MSU from 1987 to 1991.
In this patent infringement case, Applied Biosystems, Inc. sued two Scottish corporations, Cruachem Ltd. and Cruachem Holdings Ltd., alleging that their DNA synthesis products infringed two U.S. patents; the defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court granted the motion after discovery, holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the foreign defendants under both the Delaware long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause. The companies had almost no direct contacts with Delaware, and their corporate relationships with a related U.S. subsidiary—including shared officers, intercompany sales, and resource sharing—did not establish an agency sufficient to attribute the subsidiary's contacts or satisfy minimum contacts requirements. The court noted that the forum state's interest was minimal given the plaintiff's non-resident status and that jurisdiction might exist in other states but not Delaware.