Everything published in April 2006, most recent first.
This is another in a continuing series of reports on interesting new appeals to the Supreme Court. At this stage, the blog takes no position on whether the Court is likely to review the case. These reports appear only when the blog is able to obtain an electronic copy of a petition.
The following was prepared by Stanford Law Student Eric Tuttle. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard argument in Mohawk Industries v. Williams, a case regarding the application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Concurring Opinions has this post on the Supreme Court and the role of foreign and international law in interpreting the U.S. Constitution and this post titled, “Roberts’ And Alito’s Pragmatic Turn.” Legal Theory Blog has this post titled, “Hasen on the Sixth Circuit on Hasen on Bush v. Gore and the Theory of Horizontal Stare Decisis.” Rick Hasen comments here.
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that when a mailed notice of a tax sale is returned unclaimed, a state must take added steps to attempt to make sure the property owner knows the property is at risk before it may be sold.
The Supreme Court, dividing 5-4, ruled on Tuesday that federal trial judges have discretion whether or not to dismiss a prisoner’s habeas petition as too late, even though a state had conceded erroneously that the petition had been filed on time.
Washington newspaper readers woke up on Tuesday morning to a new demand, by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, that the Supreme Court be ordered to open its public proceedings to television coverage.
This is another in a continuing series of reports on interesting new appeals to the Supreme Court. At this stage, the blog takes no position on whether the Court is likely to agree to review the cases. The reports will appear only when the blog has obtained an electronic copy of the petition.
Wednesday’s first case is Hill v. McDonough, No. 05-8794, which presents the question whether a prisoner’s action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, challenging the constitutionality of Florida’s use of certain chemicals in its lethal injection protocol, is properly recharacterized as a successive habeas petition.
Here the Wall Street Journal Law Blog has a post on an NPR interview with Dahlia Lithwick discussing “Supreme Court TV.” Here is ACSBlog with a post on Kelo and eminent domain in Illinois. This week, the Legal Theory Bookworm recommends The Nature of the Judicial Process by Benjamin Cardozo.
The Supreme Court on Monday did not grant any new cases for review. But, in a major test case on the application of U.S. patent laws to the digital world, the Court asked the U.S. Solicitor General to express his views on Microsoft v. AT&T Corp. (05-1056).
The only criminal case in U.S. courts to grow directly out of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the death penalty proceeding against Zacarias Moussaoui, is now in final jury deliberations on his fate. At 2:26 p.m.
This is another in a continuing series on the impact of Supreme Court decisions on later cases.
The Supreme Court on Friday set Thursday, May 18, at 10 a.m. for the re-argument in Hudson v. Michigan (04-1360). That case tests whether evidence obtained from a police search must be excluded if police failed to knock and announce their presence before they carried out a search warrant of a home.
Lyle’s post on Alabama v. Adams, in which the state of Alabama urges the Court to reconsider its 2005 decision in Roper v. Simmons, has touched off a lively debate in the comments.
Here PrawfsBlawg has a post on whether or not it is appropriate to consider religion in the judicial nomination process. Here Orin Kerr has a post on Justice Kennedy and cameras at the Court. Here the PropertyProf Blog has a post on Justice Stevens and Kelo.
James C. Duff, a Washington, D.C., lawyer with a long association with the Supreme Court, has been named as the new director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts — the housekeeping agency for the federal judiciary.
(NOTE: From time to time, the blog is going to post reports on interesting new petitions or appeals to the Supreme Court. This is the first of the posts in this new series.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday probed deeply into what a state needs to do to allow defense lawyers for a client with mental problems to mount a defense to criminal charges, but left the impression it wants to act narrowly to avoid putting tight limits on a state’s options.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered a second argument in the case of Hudson v. Michigan (docket 04-1360). The case originally was argued on January 9, but the Court appeared to be having difficulty deciding it with an eight-member bench.
The Court does not plan to issue opinions today or tomorrow. That makes five decision days in a row without opinions — a fairly odd and unusual lacuna this late in a Term. Next possible date for opinions in argued cases is one week from today, Tuesday, April 25th.
Here is Concurring Opinions with a post on the right to counsel and United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez. The case involves a criminal defendant who, for various reasons, was denied the chance to be represented by the attorney of his choice.
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether it is unconstitutional for a judge in a criminal trial to allow family members of a murder victim to wear buttons depicting the victim, when they are spectators in the courtroom.
Today’s Orders List is here. The per curiam opinion in No. 05-552, Gonzales v. Thomas, can be found here.
On Concurring Opinions, here is guest blogger Melissa Waters with a post titled, “Reading Justice Kennedy’s Tea Leaves.” Here, in New York Law Journal, is an article about appellate practices outside of Washington, DC.
On Monday, the Court will hear argument in Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, No. 05-259. The case requires the Court to consider what types of conduct can constitute actionable retaliation under Section 704 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This week, the Supreme Court voted to allow citation to unpublished opinions in federal courts. Here is an article on the decision by Tony Mauro. Concurring Opinions has this post on Ash v. Tyson Foods.
Here Tony Mauro has an article about Justice Alito choosing to join the Supreme Court’s cert pool. Orin Kerr comments here. Here is a Slate article on Hudson v. Michigan.
Two Justices of the Supreme Court made it clear to a House subcommittee on Tuesday that there remains considerable resistance on the Court to the idea of televising its public sessions, including oral arguments.
(UPDATE, Sunday, April 9: Col. Davis on Friday apologized for his criticism of Justice Breyer. Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal filed this report. The report indicates that the colonel made his mistake based on news accounts, not on a misreading of the transcript of oral argument.)
Here is the JURIST with a post by Jonathan Freiman titled “Padilla’s Real Message: The Grace Period is Over.” Mr. Freiman is one of the attorneys representing Jose Padilla on his habeas petition.
Lyle’s post on Friday about Senator Schumer’s new bill — which would create a new cause of action for certain plaintiffs to challenge the legality of the NSA’s warrantless electronic surveillance program — and a similar post of David Barron’s, have generated extensive discussion in their respective comments sections concerning whether plaintiffs suing under the Schumer bill would have Article III standing.
The New York Times has revamped its website and added new features. It is now regularly posting short (2-minute or so) video clips of its reporters summarizing leading stories (accompanied by the ominous tones of a wooden xylophone).
UPDATE: The verdict form, as filled out by the jury and issued Monday, can be found here. Meanwhile, on Tuesday, the District Court made public the jury verdict form for the second phase of the death penalty proceeding, in which the jury will decide for or against a death sentence for Zacarias Moussaoui.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear the appeal of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held in a military jail for more than three years as an “enemy combatant.” The Court, however, declined to dismiss the case as moot, as the Bush Administration had urged.
Even if it were not already evident from the Hamdan proceedings that Justice Kennedy has the power to determine the constitutional law of the war on terrorism, today’s denial of certiorari in Padilla confirms it.
Here is Concurring Opinions with a post titled, “Has Scalia Gone Off the Rails?” On Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has this piece titled, “How Do You Solve the Problem of Scalia?
The Supreme Court on Monday scheduled the new argument in a key death penalty case for Tuesday, April 25, at 1 p.m. It is the only case set for an afternoon hearing during the April session. The case is Kansas v. Marsh (04-1170).