February 2020 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 83 items published in February 2020, most recent first.
Petitions of the week
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether Congress’ omission of a mens rea for the offense of sexual assault by bodily harm means mere negligence as to the lack of consent suffices; whether the “self-executing” just compensation
Friday round-up
Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a constitutional challenge to the structure of the CFPB that will be argued next week, is dividing commentators.
Relist Watch Select
John Elwood briefly reviews Monday’s relists. Because of the press of business, it will be another brief writeup today. The Supreme Court cleared out an enormous number of relists at the February 21 conference — its first conference in almost a month.
Now available on Oyez: This week’s oral argument audio aligned with the transcripts
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: U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association Opati v. Sudan United States v. Sineneng-Smith Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
Argument analysis: Does prejudice matter?
The Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, this term’s case about the hastily drafted and much-litigated 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Thursday round-up
The court released three more opinions yesterday, all of them unanimous. In Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, the court held that a criminal defendant is not required to object formally to his sentence to preserve a challenge to the length of the sentence on appeal.
Event announcement: Supreme Court midterm webinar for states and local governments
On March 26 at 1:00 p.m. ET, join the State and Local Legal Center for a webinar on upcoming decisions this term at the Supreme Court affecting state and local government.
Opinion analysis: In tax refund case, justices decide a narrow question but leave much unresolved
Some Supreme Court decisions send shock waves across and beyond the legal universe. The court’s unanimous ruling Tuesday in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is not one of them.
Wednesday round-up
The justices have one oral argument on their agenda this morning, in Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, about whether dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” under a federal statute that limits prisoners’ ability to file lawsuits without paying the filing fees.
Argument analysis: Will a broad statute be saved by a narrowing construction?
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard argument in United States v. Sineneng-Smith, a government appeal from a reversal of criminal convictions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Argument preview: Abortion debate returns to the Roberts Court
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this post ran on January 27, 2020, as an introduction to this blog’s symposium on June Medical Services v. Russo, as well as at Howe on the Court, where it was originally published.
Opinion analysis: ACCA-Agreement (or ACCA-greement)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t have the first opinion of October Term 2019 or the first opinion from the October sitting. But she made up for it by having the first opinions from the November, December and January sittings.
Opinion analysis: Arguing for a shorter sentence preserves normal federal appellate review
In a succinct six-page opinion, the Supreme Court ruled today in Holguin-Hernandez v. United States that a federal criminal defendant who “advocates for a shorter sentence than the one ultimately imposed” has sufficiently preserved a claim on appeal that a longer sentence is unreasonable, thereby avoiding “plain error” review under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b).
Opinion analysis: Justices unanimously side with retirement-plan participant in plain reading of “actual knowledge”
In October of 2015, after Christopher Sulyma, a former Intel employee, sued Intel’s plan fiduciaries for imprudently managing the retirement plans sponsored by the company, Intel moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred under Section 413(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Live blog of opinions (Update: Completed)
We live-blogged as the court released opinions from the 2019 term on Wednesday, February 26, in Intel Corp Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, Holguin-Hernandez v. United States and Shular v. […]
Argument analysis: The trail, the pipeline and a journey to the center of the earth
Environmental groups faced a skeptical bench during Monday’s argument in two consolidated cases, U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association and Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, as they fought to preserve a 2018 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that had halted an $8 billion, 600-mile natural gas pipeline.
Tuesday round-up
Today the justices will hear argument in one case, United States v. Sineneng-Smith, which asks whether a federal law making it a crime to encourage or cause illegal immigration for financial gain violates the First Amendment. Gabriel Chin previewed the case for this blog.
Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutionality of CFPB structure
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this post ran on February 10, 2020, as an introduction to this blog’s symposium on Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, as well as at Howe on the Court, where it was originally published.
Argument preview: Justices to consider availability of “disgorgement” to SEC in securities litigation
Next week’s argument in Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission will take the justices through familiar ground, as they consider once again the boundaries of the broad and multifarious forms of relief available in litigation enforcing the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Opinion analysis: Justices block cross-border shooting lawsuit
It has been 10 years since 15-year-old Sergio Hernandez was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent, Jesus Mesa, while Hernandez was playing on the Mexican side of the border.
Opinion analysis: In international custody dispute, justices uphold order for return of child to Italy
The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction requires that a child who is abducted from her “habitual residence” be returned to that country, so that the courts there can resolve any custody issues between the child’s parents.
Opinion analysis: Court upholds death sentences for Arizona inmate
In 1991, James McKinney and his half-brother killed two people while robbing the victims at their homes. McKinney was sentenced to death, but in 2015 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit threw out his death sentences.
Live blog of opinions (Update: Completed)
We live-blogged on Tuesday, February 25, as the court released opinions in McKinney v. Arizona, Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Hernandez v. Mesa and Monasky v. Taglieri. SCOTUSblog is […]
Monday round-up
This morning the justices return to the bench for the February argument session. First on the agenda is the oral argument in U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, involving the power of the Forest Service to grant rights of way through lands traversed by the Appalachian Trail.
Argument preview: Do federal courts have jurisdiction to review a challenge to an administrative denial of relief under the Convention Against Torture?
Flag of Lebanon In 1996, Congress enacted a number of provisions limiting judicial review of immigration court decisions.
Argument preview: What process is due in streamlined administrative procedures?
Flag of Sri Lanka Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, which will be argued on March 2, raises important questions about whether asylum-seekers may challenge mistakes made during the expedited removal process.
Justices to take up case involving faith-based adoption agencies and same-sex couples
The Supreme Court returned from its winter recess today with just one new grant from last week’s private conference, but the newest addition to the court’s merits docket is a significant one.
Argument analysis: Justices parse retroactivity and immunity for foreign governments
The Supreme Court heard oral argument this morning in a case brought by the victims of the August 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.
This week at the court
On Monday, the court released orders from the February 21 conference, granting one case — Fulton v. Philadelphia — for oral argument next term and calling for the views of the solicitor general in a pair of consolidated petitions.
Justices grant government’s stay request on “public charge” rule for Illinois
Last month the Supreme Court granted the federal government’s request for permission to enforce a rule known as the “public charge” rule, which prohibits noncitizens from receiving a green card if the government believes that they are likely to rely on public assistance.
2020 Supreme Court Preview presented by Casetext (part two)
On Thursday, February 20, Casetext and SCOTUSblog hosted the second webinar in a two-part series previewing the biggest decisions expected this term at the Supreme Court.
Court allows Tennessee execution to go forward
Tonight the Supreme Court refused to block the execution of Tennessee inmate Nicholas Sutton, which is scheduled for 7 p.m. CST. Sutton was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1985 stabbing death of Carl Estep, an inmate at the prison where Sutton was serving a life sentence for the murder of his grandmother.
Friday round-up
As the justices reconvene today for their first private conference in several weeks, Kimberly Robinson reports at Bloomberg Law that “[t]he second half of the Supreme Court’s current term will be chock-full of high-profile arguments and blockbuster opinions, and court watchers say it’s going to be
Court releases April calendar
Today the Supreme Court released the calendar for its April argument session, the final argument session scheduled for this term. During the April session, which begins on April 20 and ends on April 29, the justices will hear eight hours of oral argument over six days.
Academic highlight: The “Odd Party Out” theory of certiorari
Adam Bonica is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at Stanford University. Adam Chilton is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Maya Sen is a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
Thursday round-up
Court-watchers continue to focus on June Medical Services v. Russo, a high-profile abortion case to be argued on March 4.
Petitions of the week
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the constitutional right to counsel of choice extends to cases in which a criminal defendant’s assets are frozen as part of a parallel civil enforcement action; whether, under the due process
Wednesday round-up
Greg Stohr reports at Bloomberg that “[t]he Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s independence, designed by a Democratic-controlled Congress to insulate the agency from political pressure, now risks being its downfall,” as the court gets ready to hear argument in a constitutional challenge to the structure of the bureau, Seila Law v. CFPB.
Event announcement: “Repugnant Laws”: A book event with Keith Whittington
On Friday, February 21, at 9:00 a.m. ET, the American Enterprise Institute will host a discussion between Professors Adam White and Keith Whittington on Whittington’s recent book, “Repugnant Laws: Judicial Review of Acts of Congress from the Founding to the Present,” a study of Supreme Court decisions on the constitutionality of acts of Congress.
Argument preview: What does it mean to “induce” or “encourage” unlawful presence?
Few lawyers would accuse the Immigration and Nationality Act of being well drafted. The current law was enacted in 1952, but includes bits and pieces dating back to the founding era, along with major new features that are not always well integrated into the whole.
Argument preview: Calling (PLRA) strikes
In 1996, Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which tightened up prisoners’ access to federal civil litigation in many ways. The statute was written hurriedly, and rarely does a year go by without a Supreme Court decision addressing some issue of its interpretation.
Tuesday round-up
Briefly: At HuffPost, Daniel Marans notes that “[e]xpanding the Supreme Court, an increasingly popular reform among some progressive activists, is not politically costly for Democrats, according to an academic survey commissioned by a group that supports the idea.” Veronica Stracqualursi reports at
Argument preview: Justices to consider whether the Appalachian Trail blocks proposed natural gas pipeline
On Monday, February 24, the Supreme Court will hear argument in U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association and Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association.
Argument preview: Justices to consider availability of punitive damages under FSIA
Flag of Sudan In August 1998, truck bombs exploded outside the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, killing more than 200 people and leaving more than a thousand others injured.
Relist Watch: Special Memorandum Unit
John Elwood reviews recent guidance on cert-stage case scheduling On February 14, the Supreme Court Clerk’s Office released a valentine for the bar: a new, four-page memorandum addressing cert-stage pleadings and the scheduling of cases for consideration at the court’s periodic conferences.
This week at the court
On Monday, the Supreme Court was closed for Presidents’ Day. On Friday, the justices met for their February 21 conference and released the argument calendar for the April 2020 sitting.
Petitions of the week
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether a plasma donation center is a “place of public accommodation” subject to the requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, whether laws mandating membership in a state bar