Showing 1–50 of 88 items published in January 2020, most recent first.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether a state’s exercise of eminent domain satisfies the “public use” requirement of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause if the only benefits experienced within that state are incidental; whether
At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps looks at the story behind a state constitutional provision relied on by Montana in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue to invalidate a tax-credit program benefiting families who send their children to private schools, including religious schools, contending that
Aziza Ahmed is a professor of law at Northeastern University School of Law. She joined an amicus brief on behalf of reproductive justice scholars in support of the petitioners in June Medical Services v. Gee.
This morning the Supreme Court issued the calendar for its March argument sitting, which begins on March 23 and continues through April 1. When they announced late last year that they would take up three disputes over access to President Donald Trump’s financial records, the justices indicated that the cases would be set for oral argument in March, but they did not set a date for the arguments then.
The Supreme Court tonight refused to block the execution of Donnie Cleveland Lance, who was sentenced to death for the 1997 murders of Sabrina “Joy” Lance and Dwight “Butch” Wood Jr. Georgia was scheduled to execute Lance at 7 p.m. EST.
Briefly: At the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Joshua Sharpe and Bill Rankin report that “Georgia … executed Donnie Lance for the 1997 murders of his ex-wife and her boyfriend in Jackson County” last night, after “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court denied Lance’s final appeals at roughly 8:15 p.m., clearing
Teresa Stanton Collett is a professor law and director of the Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis. She filed an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioner in Gee v. June Medical Services.
On January 28, Casetext and SCOTUSblog conducted the first webinar in a two-part series previewing the biggest decisions expected this term at the Supreme Court.
Briefly: Mario Ariza reports for the South Florida Sun Sentinel on a cert petition that “highlights what experts say is a glaring legal loophole that allows the federal government to seize the property of innocent citizens at little cost or consequence to itself.” At Bloomberg Law, Jacklyn Wille
Denise Harle is legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom Center for Life (@AllianceDefends), which filed an amicus brief on behalf of Louisiana legislators in June Medical Services v. Gee. Harle served as Florida’s deputy solicitor general from 2015 to 2017.
Jennifer Dalven is the director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in June Medical Services v. Gee. Is the Supreme Court going to overturn Roe v. Wade? Everywhere I go, that’s the question I get.
Yesterday the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, allowed the federal government to begin enforcing a new rule affecting legal immigrants applying for green cards who are considered likely to become a “public charge.” Amy Howe covers the order for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.
Thomas M. Fisher is Solicitor General of the state of Indiana, which co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of the respondent in June Medical Services v. Gee.
Fadwa Hammoud is the solicitor general of the state of Michigan, which joined an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioner in June Medical Services v. Gee.
Briefly: At Bloomberg Law, Lydia Wheeler reports that the court “is slated to hear two cases that could help decide the fate of Obamacare, and they have nothing to do with health care[:] The cases, which challenge the validity of a federal financial agency and a decades-old robocall law, focus on a
The Supreme Court released orders this morning from the justices’ private conference last week.
When he ran for president in 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump promised that, if elected, he would appoint “pro-life” Supreme Court justices, which would result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision establishing a woman’s right to an abortion.
Today a divided Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request for permission to enforce a rule known as the “public charge” rule, governing the admission of immigrants to the United States.
On Monday, the court released orders from the January 24 conference. The justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket and asked the federal government to file a brief in CACI Premier Technology Inc. v. Al Shimari.
At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery highlights “five key exchanges” from Wednesday’s argument in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which asks whether Montana’s invalidation of a law that created tax credits to provide scholarships for families who send their children to private schools, including religious schools, was constitutional.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the due process and equal protection clauses prohibit states from imposing substantial financial burdens on indigent parties seeking judicial review, whether it violates the First Amendment
At the helm of the Senate impeachment trial, Chief Justice John Roberts is engaged in politics in a manner distinct from any other role he has or will play on the Supreme Court.
Oyez has posted the aligned audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Shular v. United States GE Energy Power Conversion France v. Outokumpu Stainless USA Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s argument in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which asks whether Montana’s invalidation of a law that created tax credits to provide scholarships for families who send their children to private schools, including religious schools, was constitutional, for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.
This morning, the Supreme Court heard argument in Shular v. United States. Shular asks the court to interpret the Armed Career Criminal Act’s definition of “serious drug offense.” Based on the argument, a majority of justices may be inclined to endorse the government’s interpretation of that phrase and expand the scope of the ACCA – though how much is unclear.
As noted in my preview last week, GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v Outokumpu Stainless USA is the Supreme Court’s first arbitration case of the 2019 term.
This morning the justices will close out the January session with one oral argument, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which asks whether Montana’s invalidation of a law that created tax credits to provide scholarships for families who send their children to private schools, including religious schools, was constitutional.
John Elwood briefly reviews Tuesday’s relists. There were no new relists this week. Good thing, too, because some of us have other business to attend to. But we’ll be back next week with whatever offerings the court has for us. New Relists Sorry, folks. Park’s closed.
This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the latest chapter of the battle over the use of public funding for religious schools. Supporters of such funding argue that the government should not be allowed to discriminate against religious families and schools, while opponents warn that requiring the government to allow public funds to be used for religious schools could harm public education.
As the first substantive day of the impeachment trial wore on, and on, from yesterday into the early morning hours of today, one cable-TV pundit suggested that Chief Justice John Roberts might not feel compelled to attend today’s oral argument in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, an important case about government aid to religious education.
On Tuesday, January 28 at 12:00 p.m. EST, Casetext and SCOTUSblog will co-host the first webinar in a two-part series previewing the biggest decisions expected this term at the Supreme Court.
Today the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Shular v. United States, which asks whether what constitutes a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act should be determined under the same approach used to determine whether an offense is a “violent felony” under the ACCA.
Today the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The court added three new hours of argument to its calendar on Friday and were not expected to grant any new cases today, and they did not.
On Monday, the Supreme Court was closed for Martin Luther King Jr. Day. On Tuesday, the court released additional orders from the January 17 conference, adding no new cases to the 2019 term docket and inviting the federal government to file a brief in four cases, two of which are consolidated.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the Federal Aviation Act preempts a state law limiting the length of an airport runway, whether the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act permits plaintiffs to execute judgments against a foreign
Yesterday afternoon, Chief Justice John Roberts was sworn in as the officer charged with presiding over the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. Kal Golde covers the court’s answers to some frequently asked questions about the chief justice’s role for this blog.
Oyez has posted the aligned audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashion Group Thole v. U.S. Bank Kelly v. United States Romag Fasteners v. Fossil Babb v. Wilkie
This afternoon the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference earlier today. The justices granted six new cases – three pairs of consolidated cases – for a total of three additional hours of argument.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard argument in Babb v. Wilkie, about whether the provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act that applies to the federal government requires plaintiffs to show that they would have received better treatment “but for” the government’s consideration of their age.
At Subscript Law, Daniel Kohrman offers a graphic explainer for Babb v. Wilkie, which was argued yesterday and which asks whether federal employees suing under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must prove that age discrimination was a but-for cause of an adverse employment action.
This afternoon at 2 p.m., Chief Justice John Roberts will travel by car from the Supreme Court to the Senate to assume his role as presiding officer over the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
The justices wrap up the first week of the January session this morning with one oral argument, in Babb v. Wilkie, which asks whether federal employees suing under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must prove that age discrimination was a but-for cause of an adverse employment action.
Counsel faced an active bench yesterday when they presented arguments in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v Fossil, Inc. The case arises under the federal Lanham Act, which establishes various remedies for the infringement of trademarks.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this post ran on September 16, 2019, as an introduction to this blog’s symposium on Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, as well as at Howe on the Court, where it was originally published.
Sometime on Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts will cross the street from the Supreme Court building to the Capitol to begin presiding over the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.
Res judicata, which includes both issue preclusion and claim preclusion, is a common-law doctrine meant to discourage repetitive litigation, preserve judicial resources and protect the finality of judgments.
The justices’ questions in yesterday’s argument in Thole v. U.S. Bank addressed 15th-century trust law, the risk of being hit by a meteorite and practical concerns with being able to identify the risk of loss of pension benefits.