Showing 1–50 of 127 items published in May 2007, most recent first.
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. Regular orders relating to today’s Conference are scheduled to be released Monday at 10 AM eastern.
In a prior post, we described some of the comments made by some experienced Supreme Court practitioners on proposed revisions to the Court’s rules at a forum hosted by the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute.
UPDATE, 2 p.m. Michael Dwyer, assistant federal public defender in St. Louis, formally notified the Supreme Court on Thursday that Mario Claiborne had died.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s refusal on April 30 to hear the appeals of two Guantanamo Bay detainees now facing war crimes trials, the D.C. Circuit Court has ruled that it has no authority to stop those trials from opening next Monday.
Yesterday, Robert Barnes hosted a discussion of the Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Co.; the transcript is available here. NPR’s Nina Totenberg had this audio segment on “Morning Edition” yesterday; Tony Mauro reports here for the Legal Times; and Richard Thompson Ford has this piece at Slate.
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders or opinions are expected to be issued today from the Supreme Court. The next day for orders and opinions is June 4.
UPDATE June 4: The case has now been docketed as 06-1613. UPDATE Thursday p.m. The Constitution Project on Thursday released a report urging Congress to narrow the “state secrets” privilege that is at issue in the petition for review discussed in this post.
The latest edition of “Conference Call” in Legal Times (column archive here; subscription req’d) featured petitions to watch for the Justices’ Conference of 5/31.
On Friday the SG’s office filed this brief recommending that the Court deny cert. in No. 06-457, Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association.
The blogosphere has been treated in recent days to a group of law professors of varying ideological preferences pronouncing it within Congress’ constitutional powers (some even said “well within”) to compel the Supreme Court to allow television coverage of oral arguments.
In today’s New York Times, Linda Greenhouse reports here on the Ledbetter ruling, making it more difficult for workers to sue employers for pay discrimination; Paul Secunda has these thoughts at the Workplace Prof Blog.
The Court is scheduled to issue regular orders at 10 AM eastern and is also expected to release one or more opinions at that time. We will have coverage of both as soon as possible after they are made public.
FINAL UPDATE 1:51 p.m. The Supreme Court on Tuesday split 5-4 in rejecting a worker’s claim of unequal pay, finding that the time for filing such a lawsuit under Title VII begins running with the original decision on a pay differential; there is no new violation each time a later paycheck is issued.
The opinion in Ledbetter is here. The Order List is here. The grants are: 06-989 (Hall Street v. Mattel) 06-1164 (John R. Sand Gravel Co. v. US) 06-1287 (CSX v. Georgia State Bd. of Equalization) 06-9130 (Ali v. Federal Board of Prisons) [06-1269, US ex rel. Bly-Magee v. Premo, was CVSG’d.]
The following analysis is by Tejinder Singh, a student at Harvard Law School and a summer associate at Akin Gump. Last year, as a summer associate at Howe & Russell, he assisted in the preparation of the petitioner’s brief in this case.
Today the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether railroads can challenge states’ methods of valuing their assets for tax purposes under a federal statute that prohibits states from discriminating against railroads in imposing property taxes on their in-state operations.
The Federal Arbitration Act provides that if a party seeks a judicial order confirming an arbitration award, a federal court must grant that order unless very specific (and limited) conditions are met.
In yesterday’s New York Times, Linda Greenhouse’s latest “Supreme Court Memo” column, available here, discussed statutory cases before the Supreme Court, Hackworth v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company (a particular statutory case involving the Family and Medical Leave Act), and what these
David G. Savage of the LA Times reports here on the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, “a victory for employers”; Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr reports here; James Vicini of Reuters has this article on the ruling, which puts a six-month limit on pay discrimination lawsuits; at MarketWatch, Mark H. Anderson reports here.
In No. 06-1164, John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, in which cert. was granted today, the Court will consider whether the Tucker Act’s six-year statute of limitations is jurisdictional (and thus may not be waived by the parties).
You can now download an updated edition of the “Stat Pack” here. If you have any suggestions for what other information should be included each week, email me here.
In line with the post this week discussing the Michigan Law Review symposium on cameras in the courtroom, see here, I thought I would add a few more thoughts on the issue.
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders or opinions are expected to be issued today from the Supreme Court. The next day for orders and opinions is May 29.
This is just a quick note that our L.A. office, where most of the firm’s appellate partners are located, is looking for an associate in the appellate group. The job involves very significant responsibility. Applications can be directed to me.
As Lyle noted this prior post, the Supreme Court has proposed amendments to its Rules governing practice before the Court. On Thursday, the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute convened a meeting of some of the local members of the Supreme Court bar to discuss the proposed amendments.
With this post, we welcome new SCOTUSblog contributor Ben Winograd, who will be joining Akin Gump and the SCOTUSblog team full-time next month. A recent graduate of Northwestern’s Journalism and Legal Studies Program, Ben has previously contributed to (among others) the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog and will be a second-year at Georgetown University Law Center in the fall.
UPDATE: The D.C. government’s motion for a stay indicates that an appeal to the Supreme Court would include these questions: “(1) whether the [Circuit Court] panel decision conflicts with the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Miller (1939)…; (2) whether the Second Amendment protects
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. Regular orders relating to today’s Conference are scheduled to be released Tuesday at 10 AM eastern.
In its decision Monday in the antirtust case of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, the Court expressly (and sua sponte) rejected the half-century-old nostrum from Conley v. Gibson that “a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Id., at 45–46.
The invitation briefs are pouring in – at least three that we’re aware of have been filed in the last day or so.
The online publication for the Virginia Law Review, In Brief, features three essays about the impact of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, see here.
On WBUR’s “Here & Now”, University of Oregon Law Professor Garrett Epps discussed Justice Kennedy’s crucial vote in the 5-4 decisions this Term in this audio segment.
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders or opinions are expected to be issued today from the Supreme Court. The next day for orders and possible opinions is May 29.
The following commentary is by Mark Botti, a partner in Akin Gump’s DC office. Prior to joining the firm, Mark worked for 13 years in the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.
As some of you may recall from my “ask the author” series in December, see here, I answered a number of questions as to why Congress should reenact circuit riding, which was a prominent (even dominant at times) aspect of the Justices’ job duties for the first 120 years or so of this country’s history.
Analysis In the 18 months since Congress began its efforts to curb the legal rights of detainees held by the U.S. military, one legal question has hung over the court cases that have unfolded during that time.
In the Legal Times, Tony Mauro reports here on the controversy over proposed rule changes at the Supreme Court. This editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal praises the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, which raises the bar on civil antitrust lawsuits.
In a new episode of the SCOTUSblog podcast, Kevin Russell – one-half of the law partnership of Howe & Russell – elaborates on his earlier discussion of how to write a convincing cert. petition when the case presents no direct circuit split; his original post can be found here.
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders or opinions are expected to be issued today from the Supreme Court. The next day for orders and possible opinions is May 29.
Here is (what I’m told is) a new posting inviting applications for the position of an Assistant to the Solicitor General. For several years, this job has been as hard as any in the law to get. The posting says that one or more positions are open.
Another invitation brief is in, and it looks like the Court may have another case for its OT2007 line-up: the United States (in a brief available here) recommended that cert. be granted in No. 06-856, LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates.
The latest edition of “Conference Call” in Legal Times (column archive here; subscription req’d) features petitions to watch for the Justices’ Conference of 5/24.
NPR’s Nina Totenberg had this story yesterday on “All Things Considered” discussing the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of parents attempting to ensure their children’s special education needs are met; in today’s New York Times, Linda Greenhouse reports here on the Court’s Winkelman opinion,
The Court is scheduled to issue regular orders at 10 AM eastern and is also expected to release one or more opinions at that time. We will have coverage of both as soon as possible after they are made public.
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to add three new cases for decision at its next Term — cases on a major issue in commodities exchange regulation (Klein & Co. v. Board of Trade, 06-1265), on the power of states to tax the interest on other states’ municipal bonds (Kentucky Department of Revenue
UPDATE 12:35 p.m. The Supreme Court, in the first of five final decisions, ruled on Monday that claims of parallel business conduct are not sufficient to prove an antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The 7-2 decision came in the case of Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (05-1126).
Today’s Orders List is here. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly is here. Winkelman is here. Dayton is here. The summary reversal in LA County v. Retelle is here. Hinck is here. Roper v. Weaver is here.
The Supreme Court has disclosed its calendar for the new Term starting Oct. 1. It indicates that the customary practice of two weeks of argument in the opening sitting beginning on the first day of the Term will again be followed.
In the Wall Street Journal, Mark H. Anderson and Michael A. Pollock report here (subscription req’d) on today’s opinions in Bell Atlantic and Winkelman and the Court’s decision to review Kentucky Department of Revenue v. Davis, a municipal bond case.
In a victory of major proportions for parents who have disabled children of school age, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that parents have rights all of their own — enforceable by them in court — to assure that their child gets a free public education that fits the youngster’s special needs.