Everything published in August 2006, most recent first.
Linda Greenhouse has this article in today’s New York Times finding that women are “suddenly scarce among Justices’ clerks.” In the article, she cites this July post at the Volokh Conspiracy which ignited a plethora of comments and several other blog posts.
Legal activity continues in the lower courts in the wake of the Supreme Court’s June 29 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (05-184), striking down under federal law and one part of the Geneva Convention the war crimes tribunals set up by the Pentagon at the detention camp for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Over the weekend, The Newark Star-Ledger ran this extensive story about the first months of Justice Alito’s career on the Supreme Court. David Savage of the LA Times analyzes the amicus briefs filed by the government in the upcoming school diversity cases (the full-text of the two briefs are linked to in this earlier SCOTUSblog post).
Today, we’re introducing a new feature to the blog: podcasts. Every week or two, we will record and post a 5-7 minute segment on a topic that seems amenable to a recording. A principal use of podcasts will be to have guests appear on the blog.
Akin represents the respondent in KSR v. Teleflex, which involves the proper test for deeming a patent invalid as “obvious.” August 22nd was the due date for the petitioner’s merits brief as well as amicus briefs in support of the petitioner or in support of neither party.
This is the final installment in our discussion with Jeff Rosen about his new book, The Most Democratic Branch: How the Courts Serve America. For previous installments, see Part I here and Part II here. Q: Thanks for taking questions. The book was great.
Judge Posner had this editorial in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal arguing for more flexibility in the way the judiciary handles terror cases, writing that “we are boxed in by our revered 18th-century Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.” Marty Lederman reacts to that editorial here at the Georgetown Faculty Law Blog.
The Solicitor General has filed briefs on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae supporting the petitioners in both of the Equal Protection Clause cases pending before the Court.
This is Part II of Jeff Rosen’s discussion of his new book, The Most Democratic Branch: How The Courts Serve America (for Part I, see this post from yesterday).
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday denied without comment a request to delay a federal appeals court order that threatens to shut down part of the television re-broadcast business of the DISH satellite television network.
Jeff Rosen is here, as promised, with his responses to several questions about his new book, The Most Democratic Branch: How The Courts Serve America. Thanks to all who submitted questions to me.
The Justice Department’s Antitrust Division is now free to seek an indictment of a Norwegian ocean shipping company and at least one of its executives for allegedly dividing up customers with its competitors.
NOTE: On April 17, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by Chinese nationals attempting to challenge the federal government’s authority to continue holding detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, even though they were found not to be terrorist suspects.
First off, if you have not yet seen the opinion by Judge Taylor regarding the NSA terrorist suveiallance program, see this earlier post, by Lyle, which summarizes the ruling (the opinion can be downloaded in full here).
The DISH satellite television network on Thursday asked Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to delay a federal appeals court order that would shut down any re-broadcast by that network of copyrighted TV shows from traditional broadcast networks.
UPDATE Friday p.m. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor on Friday ordered a stay of her ruling until she rules on the government motion for a stay pending appeal. That motion is due by Aug. 23, with the opposition due on Aug. 29 and the government reply on Sept. 5.
This article (via How Appealing) stating that Terrence Boyle won’t receive a recess appointment to the Fourth Circuit reminded me that I wanted to note one of the values of opinions respecting the denial of cert.
The following analysis is by Paul Gutermann of Akin Gump. Another circuit has weighed in on an important environmental question that the Supreme Court has agreed to decide.
Last Oct. 17, the Supreme Court refused to hear the federal government’s appeal seeking to regain the opportunty to force the tobacco industry to surrender $280 billion in profits — one of the remedies the Justice Department had sought in its massive anti-racketeering lawsuit against the industry.
On August 4, we filed the attached petition and appendix presenting the following question: The Transportation Security Agency (TSA) uses a directive that it claims requires airline passengers, as a prerequisite to boarding a flight, to show identification or undergo further security screening.
Howard Bashman has a new “On Appeal” column at law.com that features a detailed look at the arguments in the October sitting. It can be read here. Ilya Somin has this op-ed in Legal Times about the status of eminent domain in the wake of Kelo and the recent decision of the Ohio Supreme Court, Norwood v. Horney.
In what is probably the last filing as the D.C. Circuit Court prepares to decide the legal fate of Guantanamo Bay detainees, the Justice Department on Tuesday mounted a new argument in response to a new thrust by the prisoners’ lawyers.
Today we are announcing the beginning of a new, periodic feature. It’s called “Ask the Author,” and it will allow us to conduct substantive discussions via e-mail with the people behind new books and articles that relate to the Supreme Court.
UPDATE Wednesday a.m. News reports on the decision discussed here say that attorneys for the four voters involved plan to appeal to the Supreme Court. Thanks to Colorado Confidential for the tip. And thanks to Howard Bashman of How Appealing blog for the initial alert to this ruling.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., has named a government attorney, Jeffrey P. Minear, as his new administrative assistant, the Supreme Court announced on Monday. Minear, 51, is now an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General and is senior litigation counsel in that office.
The Supreme Court on Monday released the argument calendar for its November sitting, which actually begins on Oct. 30. The official calendar can be found here. (The arguments in October, the first sitting of the Term, can be found here.)
UPDATE 8 p.m. President Bush signed into law on Monday the federal “taking” bill discussed below. The White House issued no statement on the signing. Five weeks after Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy temporarily blocked the removal of a Christian cross from city property in San Diego, this much-litigated dispute has taken a new turn.
The federal judge who so far has refused the Justice Department’s request to dismiss a significant test case on the federal “Terrorism Surveillance Program” has been assigned the task of deciding pre-trial issues in that case and 16 similar lawsuits.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked state prosecutors in Connecticut to file a response to an appeal by Michael Skakel in a high-profile murder case in that state.
NOTE: This post discusses the continuing legal fallout of the Supreme Court’s war-on-terrorism decision on June 29 in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (05-184).
One day after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused to take action that would allow Texas Republicans to remove former Rep. Tom DeLay from the November congressional ballot, the ex-congressman on Tuesday announced plans to formally withdraw.
UPDATE at 5 p.m. Justice Antonin Scalia on Monday afternoon denied the request of the Texas GOP to delay a federal appeals court ruling that requires the name of former Rep. Tom DeLay to remain on the congressional ballot for this fall’s election.
The C-SPAN cable television network will broadcast an interview with Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., at 7 p.m. Eastern time Saturday, August 5 (4 p.m. Pacific time). The transcript, which can be found here, is copyrighted, and may be used only with attribution to C-SPAN.
Attorneys for an Atlanta woman, Sandra Cano, who was the “Mary Doe” in one of the Supreme Court’s two decisions establishing abortion rights in 1973, have asked the Supreme Court to reopen her case and overturn the ruling. Doe v. Bolton was decided along with Roe v. Wade on January 22, 1973.
Responding to the Supreme Court’s decision partly nullifying a 2003 Texas congressional redistricting plan, a special three-judge U.S. District Court (Marshall Division) on Friday drew up a new map that changes the boundaries of five existing districts.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens on Wednesday referred to his eight colleagues a request to block an antitrust indictment in the ocean shipping industry.
The head of the Texas Republican Party, seeking to clear a space on the November election ballot for a new GOP candidate for the House of Representatives, announced plans Thursday to file an appeal to the Supreme Court on an expedited basis, after the Fifth Circuit Court kept former Rep. Tom DeLay on the ballot.
On Friday, August 4, 2006, the ABA is hosting an event called “On The Docket 2006: The Meaning of Change on the Supreme Court” The event will be a part of this week’s ABA Annual Meeting and will feature Doug Kmiec, Dahlia Lithwick, Maureen Mahoney, and our own Tom Goldstein.
UPDATE Thursday a.m. Justice Ginsburg’s Oct. 7 in-chambers opinion in this case had been redacted to remove material that was then under seal. The Court has now released an unredacted version of her opinion.
Impact of Supreme Court rulings on later cases — a continuing series.
The ACSblog has a comprehensive piece today that tries to “untangle” the debate over presidential signing statements. The article, which can be found here, is co-authored by several former Office of Legal Counsel attorneys, including SCOTUSblog contributor Marty Lederman and Michael Small of Akin Gump.
The Justice Department on Tuesday argued in a new legal brief in D.C. Circuit Court that detainees at the military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot pursue any challenges to their wartime detention by relying on the Geneva Convention.