Showing 1–50 of 107 items published in March 2007, most recent first.
UPDATE 8:30 p.m. Because the Court closed for the day some hours ago, it became apparent that there were no immediate orders out of the Friday Conference. All results will emerge at 10 a.m. Monday. The Court is holding a private Conference today to discuss new and pending cases.
In Brief, the online magazine of the Virginia Law Review, has this essay by Judge William Fletcher of the Ninth Circuit analyzing the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, as well as responses to Judge Fletcher’s essay from Professors Ernest Young, John Harrison, and Anthony Bellia.
In today’s New York Times, Linda Greenhouse reports here on the Supreme Court’s consideration of appeals from Guantánamo detainees at today’s Conference.
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders or opinions are expected to be issued today.
In connection with a possible news appearance, I have been asked to identify the most important cases for this Term. The obvious candidates, of course, are the school diversity and partial birth abortion cases.
UPDATE 8 p.m. The government’s brief in opposition has now been filed. It can be found here. It urges the Court to deny the Hamdan/Khadr petition or, as an alternative, to hold it until the other detainee appeals have been resolved.
In today’s Washington Post, Robert Barnes and Carrie Johnson report here on Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights; Bloomberg News has this story. Barnes also has this article on the verbal sparring between Arthur Miller and Justice Scalia during yesterday’s oral arguments; AP writer Mark Sherman has this report.
The following argument preview was written by Anitha Reddy of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. Tomorrow in Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. (No. 06-484), the Court will consider how strictly courts should interpret the heightened pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) when ruling on a motion to dismiss a securities fraud complaint.
Beginning at 10 AM eastern, the Court will hear one hour of oral argument in Tellabs v. Makor Issues and Rights (preview here). A transcript should be available sometime this afternoon. No opinions on the merits are expected to be released.
The transcript in Telllabs v. Makor is now available here.
In the Wall Street Journal, Mark H. Anderson reports here (subscription req’d) on today’s argument regarding standards for securities class-action lawsuits; AP writer Marcy Gordon has this article.
The following argument preview is by Brian Walker of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.
Beginning at 10 AM eastern, the Court is expected to release at least one opinion on the merits; we will bring you coverage as they are released. Immediately following that, the Court will hear one hour of oral argument in Credit Suisse v. Billing (preview here).
The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, by a vote of 6-2, that a person bringing a lawsuit to recover misspent federal funds must have direct and independent knowledge of the facts behind the claim in order to be eligible to sue.
The Supreme Court has now made available the written transcript of today’s oral argument in the case of Credit Suisse v. Billing (No. 05-1157). It can be found here.
At Market Watch, Mark H. Anderson has this article on today’s argument in Credit Suisse v. Billing; Christopher S. Rugaber of the Associated Press reports here.
Amgen Inc. has recently filed this new cert. petition in the case of Amgen v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., et al. On appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the petition, docketed as 06-1291, raises two issues pertaining to patent law (full question presented after the jump).
UPDATE 2: 6:05 PM: Texas’s brief opposing Supreme Court review can now be found here. The post below now includes some discussion of the arguments Texas makes. UPDATE: 2:45 PM: The Solicitor General’s amicus brief discussed in this post can now be found here.
At 10 AM eastern, the Court will release an Orders List relating to its Conference of 3/23; we will bring you coverage of that as soon as it is released.
UPDATE 2:05 p.m. Monday’s orders indicated no action by the Supreme Court on two new appeals by Guantanamo Bay detainees (Boumedine v. Bush, 06-1195, and Al Odah v. U.S., 06-1196).
The Supreme Court has now made available the written transcript of Monday’s oral argument in the case of Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS Inc. (06-480). It can be found here. The transcript for the hearing in Bowles v. Russell (06-5306) is here.
The Supreme Court found itself drawn deeply on Monday into the economics of modern retailing, and confronted a complex yet very simply stated question: do consumers really benefit the most from low prices, or is something else more imporant for them — like service or a selection of brands?
In the USA Today, Joan Biskupic has this preview of Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS Inc. At the ACS Blog, Pete Barile of Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP, who filed an amicus brief in support of the respondents, previews the case here.
In April 1911, Associate Justice Charles Evans Hughes stated a simple economic proposition: “The argument appears to be that, as the manufacturer can make and sell, or not, as he chooses, he may affix conditions as to the use of the article or as to the prices at which purchasers may dispose of
(NOTE: As of 10 p.m. Friday, the Supreme Court has issued no orders on any matters considered in the Conference earlier in the day, and thus none now are expected until Monday morning. Only insiders at the Court know what the Justices have decided and will announce after the weekend.
The Court is holding a private Conference today to discuss new and pending cases. Our list of “Petitions to Watch” for this Conference can be found here.
The following argument recap was written by Erika Myers of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. Her preview of this case can be found here.
The latest edition of “Conference Call” in Legal Times (column archive here; subscription req’d) featured petitions to watch for both the Justices’ Conferences of 3/23 and 3/30 (our list for today’s Conference is here.
UPDATE 5:15 p.m.: At the Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen links to additional amicus briefs in the Wisconsin Right to Life case here. In addition, Tony Mauro reports here at The BLT that Chief Justice Roberts has decided to rejoin the Credit Suisse case.
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders or opinions are expected to be issued today.
This month’s issue of the Cornell Law Review will contain my co-authored article (with Ryan W. Scott) entitled “Are Senior Judges Unconstitutional?” I just received the final version of the article from the journal, which I have posted on SSRN, see here.
With a rhapsodic essay about John Milton and James Madison, and a bracing reminder of the evils of the Star Chamber and the Alien and Sedition Acts, a Wisconsin advocacy group on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to take away the government’s power to ban campaign season radio and TV ads by corporations and labor unions using their own money.
The following argument recap is by Steven Siger of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. His preview of this case can be found here.
In today’s New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has this article on yesterday’s argument in Roper v. Weaver; Christine Grimaldi of Cox New Service reports here on the habeas corpus case in the Contra Costa Times; and Grant Slater has this article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
UPDATE Friday a.m.
The Fifth Circuit Court’s sweeping ruling Monday on securities fraud, perhaps frustrating investors’ claims for up to $40 billion in damages out of the Enron scandal, adds a new layer of significance to two appeals that the Supreme Court will be considering at its private Conference on Friday.
At 10 AM eastern, the Court will hear one hour of oral argument in Roper v. Weaver (preview here). A transcript should be available sometime this afternoon. No opinions on the merits are expected to be released today.
The Supreme Court indicated on Tuesday that at least some Justices are interested in claims by state prisoners that they should be able to get more retroactive benefit out of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that lay down new rules of criminal procedure.
The following argument recap was written by Mariko Hirose of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic. Her preview of this can be found here. The question of whether a Bivens remedy is available for retaliation for the exercise of the Fifth Amendment right against government takings dominated the oral argument on Monday in Wilkie v. Robbins, No. 06-219.
At the Legal Times online, Tony Mauro has this article about the likely reason for Justice Kennedy’s recent recusal in the case CSFB v. Billing, which will be argued next week.
The transcript in Roper v. Weaver is now available here.
The Bush Administration urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday evening to pass up review at this time of legal claims of detainees at the military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, urging the Justices to let the detainees attempt their challenges in a federal appeals court first rather than in a habeas proceeding in a trial court.
The Solicitor General’s office has just filed its response in the Boumediene and Al Odah detainee cases. The page-proof version of the Brief in Opposition is here, and the Opposition to the Petitioners’ Motion to Expedite is here.
The following argument preview was written by Erika Myers of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.
Beginning at 10 AM eastern, the Court is expected to release at least one opinion on the merits; we will bring you coverage as they are released. The Court will then hear one hour of oral argument in Fry v. Pliler (preview here). A transcript should be available sometime this afternoon.
The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that federal bankruptcy law does not forbid the recovery of attorneys’ fees when that right has been recognized by contract.
Here, the AP reports on the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision today in the attorneys’ fees case, Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric.
The transcript from today’s oral argument in Fry v. Pliler is now available here.
UPDATE 2:44 PM: Added complete briefs in 06-995. Yesterday’s edition of “Conference Call” in Legal Times (column archive here; subscription req’d) featured petitions to watch for both the Justices’ Conferences of 3/23 and 3/30.
The following argument preview is by Steven Siger of the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic.