Showing 1–50 of 93 items published in March 2020, most recent first.
In a 7-2 decision announced today, the Supreme Court held that a safe berth clause in a particular maritime charter party agreement constituted a warranty of safety, making the charterer, who designated the unloading berth, liable for costs to clean up an oil spill.
Yesterday, for the second time since its building closed to the public, the Supreme Court issued opinions via its website rather than from the bench, along with orders from last week’s conference.
SCOTUSblog is looking for a new editor, to start work in July 2020. The editor’s responsibilities will include editing every post that is published on the blog, writing a daily round-up of news and commentary related to the Supreme Court, organizing and supervising special projects, and working with the blog manager to identify authors for case coverage and symposia, as well as topics for symposia and other features.
They are the legal version of Willy Wonka’s golden ticket: the cards (in colors that change from day to day) distributed in front of the Supreme Court that give the people holding them access to one of the seats set aside for the public at that morning’s oral arguments.
Ariane de Vogue reports at CNN that “[u]ndocumented immigrants who work as health care providers are asking for their efforts fighting the coronavirus to be taken into consideration as the Supreme Court considers the Trump administration’s bid to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program,” in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.
This morning the Supreme Court continued its virtual operations, releasing orders from the justices’ private conference last week. Following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidelines for COVID-19, and in a departure from tradition, only Chief Justice John Roberts was in the justices’ conference room again last week, with the rest of the justices participating remotely by telephone.
We live-blogged on Monday, March 30, as the Supreme Court released orders from the March 27 conference and its opinion in CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. SCOTUSblog […]
On Monday, the court released orders from the March 27 conference, adding one new case, Brownback v. King, to next term’s merits docket. The justices released their opinion in CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co. On Friday, the justices held their April 3 conference.
Briefly: At Bloomberg Environment (subscription required), Ellen Gilmer reports that “[e]nvironmentalists and tribal advocates are pushing the Supreme Court to get involved in a long-running dispute over a New Mexico power plant and adjacent coal mine.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel to the petitioners in this case.]
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from criminalizing threats to commit violence communicated in reckless disregard of the risk of placing another in fear, whether a guilty plea waives a
At the NCSL Blog, Lisa Soronen looks at Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, in which the court ruled unanimously that a plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in contracting under federal law has to plead and prove that race was a but-for cause of his injury.
At NPR, Nina Totenberg reports that Monday’s decision in Kahler v. Kansas, in which the justices ruled that the due process clause does not require Kansas to adopt an insanity test that turns on a defendant’s ability to recognize that his crime was morally wrong, “upholds a Kansas law that
In the introduction to his eye-opening work on the Supreme Court certiorari process, “Deciding to Decide,” H.W. Perry summarizes the court’s lack of institutional transparency: “Although some rules are published, most of the internal procedures are by consensus, are unpublished, and are frequently
John Elwood briefly reviews Monday’s relists. Wow. It’s been a long week. As if the coronavirus weren’t enough all on its own, there’s fresh news of other disasters. By which I mean parents everywhere realizing their wish they could spend more time with their families might actually be coming true.
Today, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the consolidated cases of Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr and Ovalles v. Barr. The court ruled in favor of the noncitizens who were challenging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s denial of their motions to reopen their removal cases.
Yesterday the court released opinions in four argued cases, by posting the rulings on its website at five-minute intervals rather than delivering them from the bench as it usually does.
SCOTUSblog is looking for a new editor, to start work in July 2020. The editor’s responsibilities will include editing every post that is published on the blog, writing a daily round-up of news and commentary related to the Supreme Court, organizing and supervising special projects, and working with the blog manager to identify authors for case coverage and symposia, as well as topics for symposia and other features.
On what would have been the first day of oral argument in the March session, court-watchers are focused instead on how the Supreme Court is adapting to the current public-health emergency.
As reported on this blog and Howe on the Court, the Supreme Court has issued an order extending the deadline for filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to 150 days from the lower court’s judgment. The prior deadline had been 90 days.
Until 1979, every jurisdiction in the United States allowed mentally ill defendants to assert what was traditionally regarded as an insanity defense – that is, to argue that because they did not understand that their actions were wrong, they cannot be held criminally responsible for those actions.
A state cannot be sued for copyright infringement because Congress did not validly abrogate sovereign immunity when it enacted the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990, the Supreme Court held Monday in Allen v. Cooper.
Due to guidance surrounding the coronavirus outbreak, the IMLA has rescheduled its 2020 Mid-Year Seminar, which will be held entirely online.
This morning the Supreme Court issued its opinion in an important race-discrimination case. The justices unanimously ruled that a lawsuit brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a part of the Civil Rights Act that prohibits racial discrimination in contracts, requires the plaintiff to show “but for” causation – that is, that the defendant would have made a different contracting decision were it not for the plaintiff’s race.
Last Friday, the justices had their regularly scheduled private conference. According to the court’s Public Information Office, the meeting was a departure from their normal format: Following Center for Disease Control guidelines to combat the spread of the coronavirus, only Chief Justice John Roberts was actually in the justices’ conference room, with the rest of the justices joining the meeting by phone.
We live-blogged on Monday, March 23, as the court released orders from the March 20 conference, adding no new cases to their merits docket, and opinions in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Allen […]
On Monday, the court released orders from the March 20 conference, adding no new cases to next term’s merits docket. The justices released opinions in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Allen v. Cooper, Kahler v. Kansas, Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media and Davis v. United States.
Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that yesterday “the justices responded again to the emergency created by the [coronavirus] and its impact on U.S. workplaces by issuing an order that … relaxes filing deadlines for petitions seeking Supreme Court
Briefly: In the latest episode of Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast, Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson discuss several high-profile cases “over whether congressional committees and Manhattan prosecutors can get their hands on the president’s financial records—including his tax
John Elwood briefly reviews Monday’s relists This week’s installment of Relist Watch will be unlike any one you’ve ever read. Most of them read like they were written by some unshaven lout in his basement wearing sweatpants.
Having indefinitely postponed its March oral argument sitting, the Supreme Court will need to develop a plan for these cases and those in the April sitting too. There are 20 oral arguments in question: 11 for March and nine for April.
In the past week, the coronavirus has prompted the Supreme Court to close its building to the public and postpone its March argument session, which was slated to begin on March 23.
Marcia Coyle reports for The National Law Journal that “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court’s extraordinary postponement of its March argument session injected new uncertainty into a high-stakes process for a small group of advocates and their clients who said now they will work ‘to stay fresh’ in hopes of
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to a plea offer that was never made; whether a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to subpoena
Because of concerns about the spread of the coronavirus, the Supreme Court has postponed the oral argument session that was scheduled to begin on Monday, March 23. Amy Howe covers the announcement for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.
SCOTUSblog is looking for a new editor, to start work in July 2020. The editor’s responsibilities will include editing every post that is published on the blog, writing a daily round-up of news and commentary related to the Supreme Court, organizing and supervising special projects, and working with the blog manager to identify authors for case coverage and symposia, as well as topics for symposia and other features.
At CNN, Ariane de Vogue reports that “[t]he Supreme Court has closed its doors to the public until “further notice” as the impact of the coronavirus pandemic ripples across the country, raising questions about how the justices will handle the next set of oral arguments scheduled to begin March 23.”
This morning the Supreme Court announced that, in “keeping with public health precautions recommended in response to COVID-19,” it would postpone its March argument session, which had been scheduled to begin on March 23.
Editor’s note: On March 16, the Supreme Court postponed oral argument in United States v. Briggs and the other cases scheduled for the March sitting, and “will examine the options for rescheduling those cases in due course.” When the Supreme Court entertains argument in United States v. Briggs,
On Monday, the court announced that it is “postponing the oral arguments currently scheduled for the March session” due to concerns surrounding the coronavirus, and it “will examine the options for rescheduling those cases in due course.” The building “will remain closed to the public” but “will
Like other government institutions, the Supreme Court is figuring out how to function during the coronavirus pandemic. So far, it has continued its normal business, while closing the Supreme Court building to public visitors.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the First Amendment and strict scrutiny apply to subject-matter restrictions on ballot initiatives, whether officers can presume that a person is “armed and presently dangerous” simply
Yesterday the Supreme Court announced that the court building would be closed to the public until further notice, but would remain “open for official business.” Amy Howe covers the announcement for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.
The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins to Richard Lazarus in connection with Lazarus’ new book, “The Rule of Five: Making Climate History at the Supreme Court” (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2020).
Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that yesterday “the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s application for permission to enforce the Migrant Protection Protocols, colloquially known as the ‘remain in Mexico’ policy, while it appeals to