Today at the Supreme Court | 4.30.08
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.
April 2008 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 109 items published in April 2008, most recent first.
New StatPack Available
With the conclusion of the April sitting, a new StatPack is available for download here. The cover page lists the remaining dates when the Court will sit publicly in order to release Orders and opinions between now and the conclusion of the Term; for convenience, that list is reproduced after the jump.
Petitions to Watch | Conference of 5.15.08
The latest edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference of May 15. As always, the list reflects the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.
Today at the Supreme Court | 4.29.08
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.
More on Crawford: The Court Steps Back From Electoral Refereeing
The following analysis was written by Richard Samp, Chief Counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation in Washington, DC. (Disclosure: the Washington Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief in this case in support of Respondents, urging the Court to uphold Indiana’s Voter ID Law.)
Upcoming Event: “The Dirty Dozen” at Cato
On Tuesday, May 6 at noon, the Cato Institute will hold a book forum entitled “The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom.” It will feature the book’s authors, Robert A. Levy, a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, and William Mellor, President and General Counsel of the Institute for Justice.
Today at the Supreme Court | 4.28.08
At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to release one or more opinions, as well as orders from the Justices’ private conference last Friday. We will provide links to both as soon as they are available.
Today’s Orders
A copy of today’s orders list is now available here.
Court rejects voter ID challenge; no new grants
The Supreme Court, voting 6-3, on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to Indiana’s law requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID before they may cast a ballot.
From Election Law Blog: Initial Thoughts on the Supreme Court’s Decision in Crawford
The following post by Loyola (Calif.) Law School Professor Rick Hasen originally appeared on on Election Law Blog, and is also available here. (Disclosure: Prof. Hasen filed this pro bono amicus brief on his own behalf supporting the challengers to the law in this case.)
Virginia execution method challenged
UPDATE Tuesday 12:05 p.m. The Supreme Court will consider this motion and the response at its Conference on Thursday, May 15, according to the Court’s electronic docket. ———————– Lawyers for Virginia death-row inmate Christopher Scott Emmett told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the state follows a “unique and uniquely dangerous” method of execution by lethal injection.
Argument recap: Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
Arguing for the petitioners, Kevin K. Russell told the justices that this case presents “a single important but narrow question” and argued that the ADEA unambiguously places the burden of proof for showing a reasonable factor other than age (RFOA) on the employer.
The Week Ahead
On Monday, the Court is scheduled to release one or more opinions, as well as orders from the Justices’ private conference last Friday. No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders are otherwise expected to be issued this week. No merits briefs are due at the Court this week.
Today at the Supreme Court | 4.25.08
The Justices are scheduled to hold a private conference at 10 a.m., orders from which are expected to be released the following Monday. If any orders are released this afternoon, we will post them promptly. Click here to view our list of petitions to watch at today’s conference.
Today at the Supreme Court | 4.24.08
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.
Virginia seeks to move on execution
In an early test of the Supreme Court’s willingness to let a number of states begin setting execution dates for death-row inmates, after an informal moratorium, Virginia officials on Wednesday asked permission to go forward with plans to use the lethal injection method in the case of Christopher Scott Emmett.
Argument Recap: MetLife v. Glenn
The MetLife v. Glenn (06-923) wiki page has been updated to include Stanford student Barbara Thomas’s recap of oral argument. MetLife was the first case argued yesterday.
Argument Recap: Sprint & AT&T v. APCC
The following argument recap is by Tobias Zimmerman, an attorney at Akin Gump in Washington, DC. Tobias participated in the case in the lower courts, and Akin Gump also served as co-counsel to the Petitioners in this case.
Today at the Supreme Court | 4.23.08
At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to hear argument in MetLife v. Glenn (06-923), involving conflicts of interest for ERISA plan administrators. Amy K. Posner of Ling Island City, N.Y., will argue for the petitioner, and E. Joshua Rosenkranz of New York and Nicole A. Saharasky of the Solicitor General’s office will argue for the respondent.
Court rules on police search
In the only decision of the day, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that police do not act unconstitutionally if they conduct a search following an arrest, even if the arrest violated a state law.
Petitions to Watch | Conference of 5.8.08
The latest edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference of May 8. As always, the list reflects the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.
Today’s Transcripts
The transcript of today’s argument in MetLife v. Glenn (06-923) is now available here. The transcript of today’s argument in Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (06-1505) is now available here.
Today at the Supreme Court | 4.22.08
At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Davis v. FEC (07-320), involving the constitutionality of the “Millionaire’s Amendment” to campaign finance laws.
Analysis: The Baze sequels — a single pattern
Analysis The Supreme Court, without a specific explanation of why it was doing so, chose a single path on Monday in dealing with the first group of death penalty cases to be considered since its ruling in Baze v. Rees (07-5439) on April 16, upholding execution by lethal drugs.
Analysis: “Millionaire’s Amendment” in trouble?
Analyis The Supreme Court on Tuesday had some difficulty mustering sympathy for candidates for Congress who are so wealthy that they can pay for their entire campaigns, but, perhaps more important, there was not much sympathy, either, for the way Congress has chosen to bolster the chances of those candidates’ opponents.
Today’s Transcripts
The transcript of today’s argument in Davis v. FEC (07-320) is now available here. The transcript of today’s argument in Giles v. California (07-6053) is now available here.
New SCOTUSwiki posts
Scott Novak’s preview of the argument tomorrow in No. 06-1505, Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, is now available here. Scott was part of the Stanford team who worked for petitioners.
Analysis: An old adage may not apply
Analysis As long ago as 1879, the Supreme Court made clear that an individual cannot benefit, in a criminal trial, from his own misconduct. That is an adage, the Court said then in Reynolds v. U.S., that dates back at least to 1666 in English history.
Argument preview: Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
When an employer engages in business practices that have a disproportionately harmful effect on older workers, and when equally effective but less discriminatory alternatives were available, an employer may nevertheless avoid liability for age discrimination if its practices were based on a “reasonable factor other than age” (RFOA).
Today at the Supreme Court | 4.21.08
At 10 a.m., the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Sprint Communications v. APCC Services (07-552), involving Article III standing in a dispute over pay phone fees.
Today’s Orders
A copy of today’s orders list — containing grants of certiorari in two cases — is now available here. All available certiorari-stage filings in the granted cases are now listed after the jump.
Court to hear anti-dumping, sentencing cases
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to rule on the government’s power to impose “anti-dumping” import fees on foreign goods that are re-manufactured from raw materials sent by U.S. firms and then and returned to the U.S. at a low price.
Baze Commentary: Protocol and Practice
Eric Berger, assistant professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, had the following thoughts on the Baze decision. Eric worked on the lethal injection cases Taylor v. Crawford and Hill v. McDonough while an associate at Jenner & Block.
Argument Preview: Giles v. California
Stanford Law student Ruthie Zemel offers this brief preview of Tuesday’s argument in Giles v. California. In No. 07-6053, Giles v. California, the Supreme Court will determine whether a criminal defendant forfeits his rights under the Confrontation Clause to cross-examine a witness by causing the witness’s death.
Today’s Transcripts
The transcript of today’s argument in in Sprint Communications v. APCC Services (07-552) is now available here. The transcript of today’s argument in Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture (07-474) is now available here.
Conference Call: Companies Want Apartheid Case Tossed
The following column, featuring a selected petition up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on April 25, appears in today’s edition of Legal Times (available to subscribers here). To see the full list of “petitions to watch” for Friday’s conference, click here.
NAM rebuffed on lobbying law
UPDATE Tuesday morning: The Chief Justice, in an order Monday evening, refused to block enforcement of the law in general or as applied to the NAM, and refused a stay while the NAM appeals a federal trial judge’s ruling upholding the law. The order denied relief without asking for a response.
Argument preview: Davis v. FEC
Returning to constitutional issues surrounding federal campaign money laws, the Supreme Court will be considering – in Davis v. Federal Election Commission (07-320) – a 2002 law that seeks to offset somewhat the advantage that candidates have when they are wealthy enough to pay for their own campaigns.
Argument preview: MetLife v. Glenn
Under the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), participants in employee benefit plans may bring suit in federal court to compel the payment of improperly withheld benefits.
The Week Ahead
On Monday, the Court is scheduled to hear argument in Sprint Communications v. APCC Services (07-552), involving Article III standing in a dispute over pay phone fees, and in Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture (07-474), involving equal protection claims by public employees.
Analysis: The Court and war crimes appeals
Analysis No one doubts that the Supreme Court would have the authority to review a verdict of guilt for war crimes, if the U.S. military commission system at Guantanamo Bay ever produces such a conviction.
Today at the Supreme Court | 4.18.08
The Justices are scheduled to hold a private conference at 10 a.m. If any orders are issued this afternoon, we will post them promptly. To view our list of petitions to watch at today’s conference, click here.
Baze Commentary: Going Forward
The following entry is by Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. He filed an amicus brief in support of respondents, on behalf of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
Argument preview: Taylor v. Sturgell
In Taylor v. Sturgell, No. 07-371, the Supreme Court will decide whether a non-party to a prior case can nevertheless be bound by the judgment in that case when there is no legal relationship between the two parties, but the court concludes, based on a fact-sensitive inquiry into the nature of the
Argument recap: Taylor v. Sturgell
Arguing for petitioner Brent Taylor, Adina Rosenbaum began with a restatement of the most forceful legal principle conveyed by the petitioner in his merits brief: the right of every person to have his day in court, and the corollary canon that “a lawsuit does not decide the rights of non-parties.”
Argument preview: Sprint communications v. APCC Services
The following preview is by Steven Wu, an associate at Akin Gump. On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear argument in No. 07-552, Sprint Communications Co. L.P. v. APCC Servs., Inc..
Argument preview: Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture
In No. 07-474, Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture, the Court will consider whether the Equal Protection Clause, and in particular the “class-of-one” doctrine, prohibits a government employer from intentionally treating an employee differently from similarly situated employees when it has no rational basis to do so.
Argument recap: Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture
Arguing for petitioner Anup Engquist, Prof. Neal Katyal emphasized in his opening that the Ninth Circuit had held below that the Equal Protection Clause has no application at all to “class-of-one” claims in the public employment context no matter how outrageous the government conduct might be.
Today at the Supreme Court | 4.17.08
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.
Commentary: Praise for Baze
The following post is by Professor Douglas A. Berman of Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University. Mr. Berman runs the blog Sentencing Law and Policy, where this entry is cross-posted.