Showing 1–50 of 67 items published in November 2005, most recent first.
The Supreme Court found itself Wednesday searching creatively for narrow ways to decide two abortion cases — the first to be heard by the Court in five years and the first to be heard by the new “Roberts Court.” In the process, the Justices left the distinct impression that no grand pronouncements on abortion rights are likely to emerge at this point in the history of that searing culture war.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, apparently nettled by the Justice Department’s shift in position on terrorism suspect Jose Padilla, refused on Wednesday to order his immediate release from military custody and threatened to cast aside its ruling in the government’s favor in the case.
The Supreme Court — in the only decision of the day — ruled unanimously on Tuesday that a lawsuit filed in state court may be shifted to federal court if all of those named on each side of the case are from different states — with emphasis on actually being named, and not potentially involved.
Abortion is always a hot-button issue. It is especially so now that Justice O’Connor is retiring and Judge Alito is slated to replace her.
On December 6, 2005 the Supreme Court will hear the oral argument in FAIR v. Rumsfeld, a case arising from a challenge to the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, a federal law denying federal funds to institutions of higher learning, including law schools, that fail to facilitate the efforts of military recruiters.
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to decide when a federal court is to issue an injunction after finding that a patent has been infringed. In accepting a case involving the online auction site, eBay, the Court also asked attorneys to argue whether the Court should reconsider prior precedents on the issue.
Is available here.
A block of Vermont marble fell off the front pediment of the Supreme Court building Monday morning. No one was struck by the falling rock. About the size of a large loaf of bread, the piece fell onto the Court’s front marble steps, chipping off several smaller pieces.
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to let the state of New Jersey sue the state of Delaware – directly in the Court — in an interstate dispute over plans to build a large new natural gas loading facility for supertankers along the Delaware River that forms a border between the two states.
The Supreme Court has given the federal government an extra 18 days to submit its response to the appeal by Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who is seeking to challenge his designation as an “enemy combatant” in the war on terrorism.
The Supreme Court on Monday released the hearing dates for the February-March sitting. Here is the schedule, day by day: Mon., Feb. 20 Holiday; no arguments.
Concurring Opinions asks, “Why does the Supreme Court Accomplish so Little?” The author, guest blogger Jason Mazzone, argues that the Court should increase its workload. The Volokh Conspiracy comments here.
On Tuesday the Court will hear the case of Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. John Cardegna, et al., No. 04-1264. This case presents the question whether the Federal Arbitration Act allows a party to avoid arbitration by claiming that the underlying contract containing an arbitration clause (but not the arbitration clause itself) is void for illegality.
The Supreme Court will hear argument Monday concerning when a plaintiff who sued the federal government for an alleged constitutional violation is barred from suing individual government employees for the same conduct.
Here is the Hearing List of attorneys arguing the dozen cases in the sitting that begins this coming Monday. Not surprisingly, the Solicitor General is arguing both the Ayotte abortion case (for the U.S. as amicus) and the Solomon Amendment case.
The upcoming issue of Lews & Clark Law Review will focus on federalism after Gonzales v. Raich. It features a forward by Randy Barnett and articles by Ann Althouse, Thomas Merrill and others.
The federal government has obtained a grand jury indictment in Miami of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who has been held in military custody for three and a half years — a move that potentially could affect Padilla’s pending appeal to the Supreme Court.
The American Constitution Society and the George Washington University Law School Student ACS Chapter invites you to: “FAIR v. Rumsfeld: The Advocates Speak” featuring: Beth Brinkmann, Partner, Morrison & Foerster LLP; Kenneth Choe, Senior Staff Attorney, ACLU LGBT Rights and AIDS Projects; Sharon
Issue 2 of The Pocket Part, The Yale Law Journal’s online companion publication is now available. In this issue, Harvard Professor Kenneth Mack takes on the conventional historical account of the NAACP litigation strategy that led to Brown v. Board of Education.
Oyez has archived Judge Alito’s oral argument in FCC v League of Women Voters. Here is the audio link. Concurring Opinions has this post on the fact that a judge’s past judicial record is not necessarily a good indication of how they’ll decide cases as a Supreme Court justice.
ACSBlog has this post on this article by Dahlia Lithwich accusing conservatives of shying away from a candid discussion about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito’s position on abortion.
The Supreme Court will release, for immediate broadcast, the audiotape recordings of two oral arguments in major cases in its next sitting. The Court announced on Friday that audiotapes will be available promptly in the cases of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (docket 04-1144)on Wednesday, Nov. 30, and Rumsfeld v. FAIR (04-1152) on Tuesday, Dec. 6.
(This report is part of a continuing series on developments in the terrorism case of Zacarias Moussaoui in the wake of the Supreme Court’s refusal on March 21 to hear his pre-trial appeal.
The Harvard Law Review’s Supreme Court Issue is now available. Read Judge Posner’s forward here. Fortune Magazine has this article discussing whether or not Judge Alito is really pro-business. ACSBlog has this post on the Court’s decision in Schaffer v. Weast.
Transcript for the oral arguments held on Oct. 31 – Nov. 9, 2005, are now available on the Supreme Court’s website. This incudes Volvo Trucks North America, Inc. v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc., Central Va.
News stories out of the Senate Monday night indicated that a new version had been drafted of the proposal to limit access to U.S. courts for foreign nationals detained by the U.S. military during the war on terror.
The death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only individual accused in the U.S. of crimes related to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has been delayed for a month, under a federal judge’s new order late Monday.
In nomination news: Documents released this week revealed that Supreme Court nominee Judge Alito wrote in 1985 that he personally believed the Constitution did not protect a woman’s right to an abortion. Think Progress comments here.
Amid the maneuvering in the Senate over judicial review of detainees held by the U.S. military (see Marty Lederman’s report above for the latest), a federal judge in Washington has barred the Pentagon from going ahead with the first planned war crimes trial before a military commission.
The Supreme Court’s clerk on Tuesday dismissed, by agreement of the parties, the case of Bank of China, New York Branch v. NBM LLC (docket 03-1559). The case was dismissed under the Court’s Rule 46.1, providing for dismissal at any stage of the proceedings when the parties agreed in writing.
Update: The Senate at midday Tuesday approved the revised Graham amendment, now known as the Graham/Levin amendment, to restrict court review of the U.S. military’s dealings with detainees. The vote was 84-14, with one senator from each party not voting.
We, along with the Stanford Clinic, are counsel to the respondents in No. 03-1559, Bank of China v. NBM. The question in the case was whether RICO claims based on predicate acts of mail or wire fraud require proof of reliance.
The identity of Article III Groupie of Underneath Their Robes is revealed! Concurring Opinions has this updated post on statistics related to professors who blog. Law.com has posted this article on Hope v. Pelzer.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that parents, not school officials, have the burden of proving a parents’ claim that an educational plan for their disabled child does not satisfy their child’s needs.
The New York Times has this article discussing Law Students Against Alito and the dissatisfaction members of the Yale Law community are feeling with the Alito nomination. Concurring Opinions discusses the article here, asking if Yale Law School owes anything to Alito.
I previously posted on some petitions that had been pending for a long time and their likely disposition. Two cases — 05-37/-45, San Jose Charter of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, and 05-101, Bradshaw v. Richey — are still pending and still seem headed for summary reversal.
The Senate yesterday by a vote of 49-42 passed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill, offered by Lindsey Graham, section (d) of which would eliminate the statutory right of habeas corpus for alien detainees held by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo.
As How Appealing points out, this was a banner week for bloggers – three of them argued before the Supreme Court – two on Tuesday alone. In non-nomination news: Crime & Federalism has this post on why the Supreme Court should grant cert in Johnson v. Meadows.
In non-nomination news: Here is the Volokh Conspiracy on Georgia v. Randolph, the Fourth Amendment case heard yesterday by the Court. The Volokh Conspiracy also has this post on a new First Amendment R.A.V.-based Case that may be on its way to the Supreme Court.
After bypassing hundreds of cases seeking to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s decision limiting federal criminal sentencing rules, the Court is now showing an interest in one key issue: whether to make that decision retroactive.
We thought that we would take a moment to update our readers on what the firm is working on right now.
(The Supreme Court on March 21 refused to hear an appeal by Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged with a crime in the U.S. for a role in the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. After that, he pleaded guilty.
(On Monday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the military tribunals President Bush has created to try war crimes charges against foreign terrorist suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. That case is Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, docket 05-184.
The death of the Supreme Court’s “federalism revolution” might have been pronounced prematurely.
Having attended the argument and followed the issue in United States v. Georgia , No. 04-1203, for a while, I thought I would add my own reactions to Lyle Denniston’s coverage of the argument here. [Disclosure: I had some involvement in the United States’ petition in this case when I was working for the Government].
In nomination news: Sentencing Law & Policy has this detailed post with yet more information about Alito and criminal law. Think Progress has this post titled, “What the New York Times Won’t Tell You About Alito’s ‘Apolitical’ Supporter.” On FindLaw Mike Dorf has this column on a potential Catholic majority on the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Tuesday that workers are entitled to wages for the time it takes them to walk to their work stations from the place where they don required clothing and obtain necessary tools.
Obviously fascinated by a simple social question — who controls strangers’ entry into a house when husband and wife disagree on granting permission, the Supreme Court spent a lively hour Tuesday poring over competing interests affecting domestic privacy.
Here is The Federalist Society’s website for their Annual National Lawyer’s Coventions which will be held in Washington, DC on November 10-12.