Showing 1–50 of 102 items published in February 2008, most recent first.
The Justices are scheduled to hold a private conference at 10 a.m. If any orders are released this afternoon, we will post them promptly. Otherwise, orders are expected to be released Monday morning. To view our list of petitions to watch at today’s conference, click here.
A copy of today’s orders — directing the parties to submit briefing in Citizens United v. FEC (07-953) — is now available here.
The Supreme Court on Friday ordered both sides to file new briefs on whether the Court may hear an appeal challenging restrictions on broadcast of ads to promote a critical campaign film about presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders are expected to be issued from the Court today. If any orders are issued in pending cases, we will post them promptly.
According to media reports, Linda Greenhouse, the New York Times’ Supreme Court reporter for most of the last 30 years, has accepted a buyout offer from the newspaper.
On February 13, Akin Gump filed this Respondent’s brief in US v. Clintwood Elkhorn. Steven C. Wu, an associate in the firm’s DC office who worked extensively on the case, wrote the following summary of the case and the arguments in the merits brief.
The following is by Scott Stewart of Stanford Law School.
At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Exxon v. Baker (07-219), on the legality under federal maritime law of the $2.5 billion punitive damages award resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
UPDATED 2:14 p.m. The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday, by a 7-2 vote, that a worker claiming age bias in the workplace may start a case before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission only if he or she spells out more than a bare allegation of discrimination and the name of the employer.
Commentary If the Supreme Court voted immediately in the huge oil spill case heard on Wednesday, and voted the sentiments the Justices expressed throughout 90 minutes of oral argument, this might well be the outcome: Exxon Mobil Corp. and its shipping subsidiary may well have to pay some punitive damages, but not $2.5 billion.
The transcript of today’s argument in Exxon v. Baker (07-219) is now available here.
At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Allison Engine v. United States (07-214), on whether the False Claims Act covers claims submitted to a federal contractor, as opposed to the federal government itself.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday — in the only decision of the day — overturned a federal appeals court ruling on how courts are to treat “me too” evidence — workplace discrimination testimony by workers other than the one raising a job bias claim.
Yesterday, in conjunction with the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, Akin Gump filed this cert. petition in the case of Cone v. Bell (the appendix is here). The full Question Presented in this habeas case is reproduced after the jump.
The transcript of today’s argument in Allison Engine v. United States (07-214) is now available here.
At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Cuellar v. United States (06-1456), on whether the federal money laundering statute requires an attempt to create the appearance of legitimate wealth.
A copy of today’s orders list — containing grants of certiorari in three cases — is now available here.
The Supreme Court on Monday added three more cases for its decision docket in the next Term, including a new test of police authority to search a car or truck after arresting the individual and securing the scene. That issue arises in Arizona v. Gant (07-542).
The transcript of today’s argument in Cuellar v. United States (06-1456) is now available here. The transcript of today’s argument in Warner-Lambert v. Kent (06-1498) is now available here.
Exxon Shipping Co., et al., v. Baker, et al., is known – and will always be known popularly – as a case about one of history’s most destructive oil spills.
On Monday, the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Cuellar v. United States (06-1456), on whether the federal money laundering statute requires an attempt to create the appearance of legitimate wealth, and in Warner-Lambert v. Kent (06-1498), on whether federal law preempts state claims against drug makers alleged to have fraudulently obtained FDA approval.
Argument Preview On February 25, 2008, the Supreme Court will hear argument in No. 06-1456, Cuellar v. United States, which presents the question whether hiding funds without a plan to create the appearance of legitimate wealth is sufficient to support a conviction for money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(B)(i).
The Justices are scheduled to hold a private conference at 10 a.m. (Click here for our list of petitions to watch.) If any orders are released this afternoon, we will post them promptly.
A new StatPack is available for download here. It has three new inclusions from the last edition: Justice Agreement, Decisions by Final Vote, and a new chart we’re calling “Frequency in the Majority” (thanks go to Ben for this chart).
The Supreme Court on Friday set up a rapid schedule for completing the initial filings in the government’s new appeal on Guantanamo Bay detainees, accepting dates that the government had suggested in asking that the case of Gates v. Bismullah (07-1054) be expedited.
The following post is by Anna Neill, a student in the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders are expected to be issued from the Court today. If any orders are issued in pending cases, we will post them promptly.
With so much going on at the Court, here’s a quick guide to what we had on the blog yesterday, in case you missed any of it: The day began at 10 am with the release of opinions in five cases (see here).
When we updated the layout of SCOTUSblog at the beginning of this Term, one of our goals was to separate original content from the links to other sites by moving the Round-Up off the main scroll and on to a new sidebar.
The following analysis is by Rachel Lee, a student in the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. On February 20, 2008, the Court unanimously affirmed the First Circuit decision in Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy refused on Thursday afternoon to forbid the city and county of San Francisco to continue enforcing a local ordinance that sets minimum levels of spending by employers for their workers’ health care.
In a final plea to gain time for the federal government’s new appeal on detainee rights to be processed by the Supreme Court, the Justice Department on Thursday afternoon argued that it was seeking a delay that would only last months, not years, as detainees’ lawyers have contended.
A number of Supreme Court Justices — at least a strong nucleus of a potential majority — on Wednesday showed fairly strong attachment to an idea that definitely would reduce the chances that an old civil rights law could be used to protect workers against a modern form of punishment at work.
Argument Preview Six years ago, in Buckman v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, the Supreme Court held that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) impliedly preempted state-law claims alleging that the manufacturer of orthopedic bone screws made fraudulent representations to the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).
At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in CBOCS West v. Humphries (06-1431), on whether employees may bring race retaliation claims under 42 USC 1981.
The Supreme Court, in the first of several decisions Wednesday, ruled that federal law bars states from controlling the commercial delivery of tobacco or other products harmful to children. There were no dissents as the Court decided Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association (06-457).
Dividing 7-2, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that states, under their own laws or constitutions, may give state prisoners the retroactive benefit of Supreme Court criminal law decisions, even if the Court itself has ruled they are not retroactive under federal law.
Analysis Perhaps it is not enough to gladden the hearts of true “originalists,” but a clear majority of the Supreme Court has newly acknowledged that, when it comes to constitutional rights, they always existed and did not just emerge out of modern judicial creativity.
Lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees joined the federal government on Wednesday in urging the Supreme Court to act quickly on a new Justice Department appeal on the legal rights of the prisoners, but said the Court should then deny that appeal and refuse any further delay in lower court action.
The transcript of today’s argument in CBOCS West v. Humphries (06-1431) is now available here.
With apologies for the length of this post, I thought that developments in one of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic’s cert. petitions provided a useful practice pointer and illustration of the relationship between the Solicitor General’s Office, private counsel, and the Court.
Analysis A number of Supreme Court Justices — at least a strong nucleus of a potential majority — on Wednesday showed fairly strong attachment to an idea that definitely would reduce the chances that an old civil rights law could be used to protect workers against a modern form of punishment at work.
City and county officials in San Francisco on Wednesday urged Supreme Court Justices Anthony M. Kennedy to allow a federal appeals court to go forward with an expedited review of a local ordinance that specifies minimum spending by employers on workers’ health care.
This case was argued on February 19, 2008. Walter Dellinger appeared on behalf of the petitioners, and shared a divided argument with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler, who appeared for FERC as a respondent in support of the petitioners.
At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Gomez-Perez v. Potter (06-1321), on whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act bars retaliation by public employers for the filing of age discrimination complaints.
UPDATED to 11:40 a.m. The Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to further clarify when a labor union may charge non-union members for a share of the national union’s expenses — in this case, the cost of lawsuits that affect the union members’ rights generally, rather than the rights of local union members (Locke v. Karass, 07-610).
The Order List is available here. UPDATE: The cert. filings in all four granted cases can be found after the jump.
The transcript of today’s argument in Gomez-Perez v. Potter (06-1321) is now available here. The transcript of today’s argument in Morgan Stanley Capital Group v. Public Utility 1 (06-1457) is now available here.
The system of court review that Congress set up for examining continued detention of captives at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has no chance of working, especially in view of “the fractured nature” of the assigned court — the D.C. Circuit, lawyers for a group of detainees told the Supreme Court Tuesday in a newly filed brief.
Note: The following argument recap is by Paul Secunda of the University of Mississippi School of Law and Workplace Prof Blog, where this entry is cross-posted.