Thursday’s posts from the Courthouse
The early report on the decisions can be found here. The Term-closing remarks of the Chief Justice can be found here. A discussion of what Hamdan did not decide is here.
June 2006 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 103 items published in June 2006, most recent first.
More on Hamdan
David Glazier, Associate Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, has these thoughts on Hamdan: The Court’s Hamdan decision marked a significant departure from the facile adherence to precedent advocated by military commission proponents.
Texas redistricting remedies schedule
One day after the Supreme Court decided the Texas congressional redistricting cases (League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 05-204, is the lead case), a federal judge in Marshall, Texas, on Thursday set the schedule for remedying the parts of the new election boundaries that did not survive the Justices’ review.
Final orders: no grants
The Supreme Court issued its final orders for the 2005-2006 Term on Friday, showing no new cases granted for the fall Term. The Court has granted cases for argument next Term that will require 29 hours. That is eight fewer hours than the outlook at this time a year ago.
More on Alito’s Impact
Yesterday, in Slate’s Supreme Court “Breakfast Table” with Dahlia Lithwick, Walter Dellinger discussed Tom’s earlier SCOTUSblog post presenting a first impression of the voting statistics for the term.
More Thoughts on the Texas Redistricting Cases.
Dan Ortiz of the University of Virginia Law School has these thoughts on the decision: Wednesday’s opinions in LULAC confounded, I think, nearly all expectation. While many thought that the Court might develop the law governing partisan gerrymandering in one direction or another, it did not.
A move to save the San Diego cross
The city of San Diego and a war memorial group, seeking to keep a Christian cross on a hill — Mount Soledad — overlooking the city, have asked Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to block a federal judge’s order to remove the cross from the site.
Blog Round-Up
Akin Gump summer associate Malachi Alston has this round-up of recent postings in the blogosphere: A typo (Election Law, Reid Cox) was noticed in Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Randall v. Sorrell.
Hamdan News Round-Up
Yesterday’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has been a hot topic around the web and in print: Linda Greenhouse has a general summary of the decision in the New York Times here, and the Guardian’s Susan Goldenberg has a wrap-up here.
Yesterday’s Decision in Clark v. Arizona
Akin Gump summer associate Jered Matthysse has this summary of yesterday’s decision in Clark v. Arizona: On Thursday, the Supreme Court held by a vote of six to three that due process does not require a State to use both prongs of the M’Naughten insanity test.
Today’s posts from the Courthouse
The early roundup of today’s rulings can be found here. A post on how to count the voting in the Texas redistricting case is here. An analysis of the Vienna Convention ruling can be found here.
Fascinating Error in the Texas Redistricting Case: Part I
Rick Pildes has these additional thoughts on today’s decision: In understanding the implications of the Texas decision for the Voting Rights Act, one critical question is whether the Court actually holds that District 25, the new Austin-to-Texas Hispanic district, violates the VRA.
What to Watch For in Hamdan
My sense is that there’s been a good deal of confusion about just what the disputed issues are in the Hamdan case that the Court will likely decide today. (For some thoughts on why you should keep your eye on Justices Stevens and Kennedy, see here.)
Decisions: Hamdan decided, military commissions invalid
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Congress did not take away the Court’s authority to rule on the military commissions’ validity, and then went ahead to rule that President Bush did not have authority to set up the tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and found the commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention.
Hamdan Summary — And HUGE News
As I predicted below, the Court held that Congress had, by statute, required that the commissions comply with the laws of war — and held further that these commissions do not (for various reasons).
Court Term ends, with thanks
The Supreme Court concluded its 2005-2006 Term on Thursday morning, recessing for the summer at 10:42 a.m. It will be back on the bench, barring unforeseen emergency developments, on Monday, October 2.
Mid-day News Round-Up
The early news stories on today’s developments at the Court are in, and virtually every major news source is fronting the Hamdan ruling right now. Here are what the outlets are saying: The AP is running this summary article regarding the ruling.
Legislative Supremacy, The Laws of War, and the Geneva Holding
As I indicated here, the holding that the military commissions are unlawful — although of enormous significance — is hardly the most important holding of the Court today in Hamdan. At least three other holdings are likely of greater lasting significance: 1.
After Hamdan: Reclaiming Congressional War Power
Steve Vladeck, Professor at the University of Miami School of Law has these thoughts on today’s decision: I should interpose a caveat from the outset: Although I played a small but recurring role on the legal team for the Petitioner in Hamdan, what follows are my own personal thoughts, and do not in any way represent the position or views of Hamdan or his counsel.
Analysis: What Hamdan did not decide
In 177 pages of opinions, and especially in the 94 pages that actually decide the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (05-184), the Supreme Court on Thursday decided much — far more, in fact, than it did in its first foray into war-on-terrorism issues in 2004.
More on the Texas redistricting cases
Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, Associate Professor of Law at Indiana University, Bloomington, has these thoughts on the Texas redistricting cases: Thicket: Something suggestive of a dense growth of plants, as in impenetrability or thickness If there was every any doubt, none should remain after the Court’s decision in LULAC v. Perry: the law of democracy is one messy thicket indeed and the Court is stuck in it.
Comments on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
Richard Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation has these comments on today’s decision: I’d be surprised if any of the holdings in today’s Hamdan decision end up having large practical significance.
More on Mondays Opinion in Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy
James DAuguste of Akin Gump has this discussion of Mondays opinion: Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy that parents of disabled children that prevail in proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are not permitted to be reimbursed for funds expended on experts.
Clear Notice and the Spending Clause
Sam Bagenstos has an important post about the somewhat surprising prominence of the Spending Clause in the Court’s decision on Monday in Arlington Central School District Board of Educ. v. Murphy.
Decisions: No ruling on Hamdan; partisan gerrymander claim rejected
(NOTE: The Chief Justice announced that the Court will issue remaining decisions in the Term at 10 a.m. Thursday. The two still-undecided cases are the war crimes tribunal case (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) and a test of the right to raise an insanity defense to disprove criminal intent (Clark v.Arizona).The Court issued three rulings on Wednesday.)
Today’s Discussion Board
SCOTUSblog will be hosting a discussion of today’s decision in the Texas redistricting cases. Walter Dellinger of Duke University Law School and O’Melveny & Myers LLP had these thoughts on the redistricting case yesterday in his Breakfast Table discussion with Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick.
Initial Thoughts on the Texas Redistricting Case
Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School has these thoughts (cross-posted on his Election Law Blog) on today’s decision: Initial Thoughts on the Texas Redistricting Case [cross-posted at Election Law Blog] The Supreme Court’s decision today in LULAC v. Perry is a rich and complex set of six opinions, and
First Thoughts On Voting Rights, Gerrymandering, and Texas
Rick Pildes of NYU Law School has these thoughts on today’s decision: Today’s complex opinion in the Texas case is noteworthy for a number of reasons, some more obvious, some more subtle.
Texas redistricting: counting the votes
The Supreme Court’s decision on Wednesday in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (05-204) and three companion cases on the Texas congressional redistricting plan is a composite of six opinions and a widely distributed array of votes on a handful of major issues, and subparts of those issues.
News Round-Up
Akin Gump summer associate Adrienne Dedjinou has this round-up of recent news: Coverage of the Court’s cert. grant in Massachusetts v. EPA: CBSNews.com had this article; David G. Savage of the L.A.Times had this article; Tony Mauro of Law.com has this article; and The N.Y. Times had this news story.
Analysis: What is left of the Vienna Convention?
The Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling Wednesday on foreign nationals’ right to seek the aid of a consular officer from their home country after they are arrested and charged in the U.S. leaves two specific questions unanswered under the more general inquiry of whether anything of real substance remains of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
More on the Texas Redistricting Cases
Michael S. Kang, Professor at Emory University School of Law, has these thoughts on the Texas redistricting cases: In LULAC v. Perry, the Supreme Court upheld the Texas mid-decade redistricting against gerrymandering and Voting Rights Act claims except with respect to Congressional Districts 23 and 25.
Blog Round-Up
Akin summer associate Malachi Alston has this round-up of Supreme Court commentary in the blogosphere: In Harmless Errors and Broad Brushes (Crimes and Consequences, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation), the Gonzalez-Lopez decision is analyzed by looking at the Court’s precedent regarding “harmless
Comments on LULAC v. Perry
Daniel H. Lowenstein, Professor of Law at University of California, Los Angeles, has these thoughts: Today’s Texas redistricting decision and Monday’s campaign finance decisions have certain features in common. Most obviously, the Court was badly fractured.
Today’s roundups on the Court
The early roundups on Monday’s action at the Court can be found here (for Orders) and here (for Decisions).
The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and its Washington DC Lawyer Chapter invite you to the 2006 Supreme Court Review
9:00 – 10:30 a.m. Thursday, June 29, 2006 National Press Club Ballroom 529 14th St. NW, 13th Floor Washington, D.C. This event will begin promptly at 9:00 a.m. and end promptly at 10:30 a.m. There is no charge for this event. Please RSVP to [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 27.
Another Circuit on DNA sampling
This is another in a continuing series of reports on the aftermath of Supreme Court decisions. In this case, the ruling comes a week after the Supreme Court’s decision in Samson v. Califorinia and one day after the Court refused to review the specific issue at stake in the new appeals court decision discussed in this post.
More on Yesterday’s Opinion in the Vermont Cases
Brenda Wright of the National Voting Rights Institute, who argued on behalf of one respondent, has these thoughts on yesterday’s decision: Professor Briffault’s comments yesterday summarize the ruling well.
Orders: Court grants global warming, four other cases
UPDATE 11:41 a.m. The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether the Environmental Protection Agency has a duty to regulate “greenhouse gases” as a strategy to deal with global warming. The case is Massachusetts, et al., v. EPA (05-1120).
Decisions: campaign finance limits nullified; five rulings overall
(NOTE: The next decision day will be Wednesday, the Supreme Court announced. Five decisions remain (see below). Presumably, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., will announce on Wednesday when the Term will end.
More on Davis/Hammon
Mark Dwyer, Chief of Appeals and Counsel to the District Attorney in New York City, has this to say about Davis/Hammon. May I begin with a short moment of what may be viewed as prosecutorial sour grapes?
Some Initial Thoughts on the Vermont Campaign Finance Decision
Rick Hasen has these thoughts (which are cross posted at Election Law) on today’s decision: The decision in Randall v. Sorrell today is a monumental one, because it marks the first time that the two new Justices have considered a campaign finance case.
News on Today’s Opinions
Jason Harrow of Akin Gump has collected these early articles and commentary on today’s opinions and order list: The AP has this story on Kansas v. Marsh. The AP has this story on the Vermont cases. The AP has this story on the Massachusetts v. EPA case, which was granted today.
More on Today’s Opinion in the Vermont Cases
Mark Alexander has these thoughts on today’s decision: Today, the United States Supreme Court unwisely rejected Vermont’s campaign spending limits. In upholding Buckley, the Court failed to find a compelling interest in upholding Vermont’s Act 64.
Blog Round-Up
Akin Gump’s Katie Spencer has this round-up of recent SCOTUS-related postings from around the web: Here and here, Sentencing Law and Policy offers a few quick thoughts on the decisions handed down in Marsh and Recuenco.
More on Today’s Campaign Finance Cases
Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School has these further thoughts (cross-posted here) on today’s decision: This post follows up on my earlier initial thoughts on the Vermont campaign finance case.
More on Today’s Opinion in Kansas v. Marsh
Akin Gump summer associate Catherine Creely has this summary of today’s opinion: What if you were on a jury charged with sentencing a double murderer in a capital case?
Thursday’s Decision in Burlington Northern v. White
Eric S. Dreiband of Akin Gump has this summary of Thursday’s decision: On June 22, 2006, the Court issued its decision in Burlington Northern v. White, No. 05-259, and held that the anti-retaliation protections of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are not limited to actions and harms that are related to employment or occur at the workplace.
Kelo developments: one year after
This report is another in a continuing series on the aftermath of Supreme Court decisions. This post involves developments on the one-year anniversary of Kelo v. New London.
WLF Supreme Court Media Briefing
Yesterday the Washington Legal Foundation hosted a media briefing on the Court’s October 2005 term. Video of the event is available here.