Thursday round-up
Court-watchers and advocates are gearing up for next week’s unprecedented telephonic Supreme Court arguments.
April 2020 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 111 items published in April 2020, most recent first.
Argument preview: Justices to consider what makes a minister a minister (Corrected)
Eight years ago, in a case called Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Supreme Court recognized a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, reflecting the idea that religious institutions normally have the sole right to determine who can act as their ministers.
Argument preview: Justices to hear second set of arguments on reservation status of eastern Oklahoma
Map of Oklahoma Territories, 1885 (click to enlarge) McGirt v. Oklahoma will bring the justices a pronounced sense of déjà vu, as they hear argument for the second time in two years about whether the eastern half of Oklahoma is an Indian reservation.
Mission Creep Watch
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists, as well as some released holds. Because of the demands of my day job, I’m a little late with this installment. But what this post lacks in timeliness it more than makes up for in sheer tediousness.
Educational seminar: Preview of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com
Today at noon, we held a webinar before the oral argument in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com. Tejinder Singh of Goldstein & Russell and John Duffy of the University of Virginia School of Law led a discussion for undergraduate students on how the case relates to trademarks in marketing and advertising.
Courtroom access: No “performances,” just a “massive civics lesson” when supreme courts overseas live-stream their hearings
Editor’s note: On April 13, the Supreme Court announced that it would conduct 10 oral arguments via telephone conference on several days in May in cases whose oral argument dates had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it would make an audio feed available to the public through a media pool, providing real-time audio of oral arguments for the first time in its history.
Wednesday round-up
At AP, Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman report that, as the Supreme Court prepares to hold arguments by telephone “for the first time in its 230-year history,” attorneys say “the teleconference arguments in 10 cases over six days present a range of challenges … , but also opportunities.” Greg Stohr
Petitions of the week
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that involve, among other things, what tolling rule applies in a class action filed in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction; whether, by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to grant expedited review and approval of
Courtroom access: Laboratories for live-streaming?
Editor’s note: On April 13, the Supreme Court announced that it would conduct 10 oral arguments via telephone conference on several days in May in cases whose oral argument dates had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it would make an audio feed available to the public through a media pool, providing real-time audio of oral arguments for the first time in its history.
Argument preview: Justices take on First Amendment challenge to robocall law
Next week, in Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument on whether the federal law prohibiting robocalls to cellphones violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause.
Argument preview: Justices tackle challenge to “conscience” exemptions from birth-control mandate
In some ways, next week’s consolidated oral argument in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania will be like 2016 all over again.
Argument preview: Is “Booking.com” generic for online hotel reservation services?
Editor’s note: This post was originally published on March 16, 2020. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com raises the question whether a business can create a registrable trademark by combining an unprotectable generic term with a generic top-level domain name like “.com.” Trademarks and service marks are words or symbols that communicate the source of goods and services.
Event announcement: SCOTUSblog oral argument seminars (Updated)
The Supreme Court’s decision to hold oral arguments in May 2020 remotely via telephone conference and to make live audio available to the public marks an unprecedented increase in public access to the court.
Pennsylvania businesses challenge state closure order (Updated)
UPDATE: On May 6, after referral to the full court, the application for stay was denied without public dissent. Yet another pandemic-related emergency filing reached the Supreme Court tonight.
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday the court released three opinions. By a vote of 6-3, the court dismissed as moot a Second Amendment challenge to New York City’s now-repealed limits on transporting personal firearms, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York.
Argument preview: Court to consider constitutionality of condition for HIV/AIDS funding – again
In 2003, Congress passed the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act, which has provided billions of dollars to fund efforts to combat HIV/AIDS overseas.
After ruling in New York gun rights case, more Second Amendment cases set for Friday conference
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in a challenge to New York City’s ban on the transport of licensed handguns outside the city.
Courtroom access: Field trip diaries
Editor’s note: On April 13, the Supreme Court announced that it would conduct 10 oral arguments via telephone conference on several days in May in cases whose oral argument dates had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it would make an audio feed available to the public through a media pool, providing real-time audio of oral arguments for the first time in its history.
Monday round-up
On Friday, the Supreme Court denied two requests to temporarily halt enforcement of the “public charge” rule, which governs the admission of noncitizens into the U.S., until the COVID-19 crisis is over. Amy Howe covers the orders for this blog.
Courtroom access: Legislative efforts to allow cameras in Supreme Court chamber
Editor’s note: On April 13, the Supreme Court announced that it would conduct 10 oral arguments via telephone conference on several days in May in cases whose oral argument dates had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it would make an audio feed available to the public through a media pool, providing real-time audio of oral arguments for the first time in its history.
Opinion analysis: Court sends New York Second Amendment case back to lower courts without ruling on the merits
The Supreme Court sent a major Second Amendment case back to the lower courts today, ruling that the challenge to a New York City restriction on the transport of guns is “moot” – that is, no longer a live controversy – because the city changed the rule last year.
Opinion analysis: Decisive win for health insurers seeking compensation for ACA losses
Today the Supreme Court ruled that health-insurance companies that lost money offering policies on the “health benefit exchanges” established by the Affordable Care Act are entitled to compensation for their losses.
Justices ask for more briefing in Trump tax-returns cases
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not act on two cases that have been repeatedly relisted in recent weeks, a death-penalty case from Texas and the federal government’s challenge to one of California’s “sanctuary state” laws, which prohibit state and local law-enforcement officials from cooperating with federal immigration officials.
Opinion analysis: Sharply divided bench rejects Georgia’s copyright in annotations of Georgia statutes
The decision this morning in Georgia v Public.Resource.Org resolves a technical question of copyright law, the extent to which governmental authorities can copyright (and profit from) the materials that they create.
Live blog of orders and opinions (Update: Completed)
We live-blogged on Monday, April 27, 2020, as the Supreme Court released orders from the April 24 conference and opinions in Georgia v. Public.Resource.org, Maine Community Health Options v. United […]
This week at the court
On Monday, the court released orders from the April 24 conference, adding no new cases to the merits docket. The justices released opinions in Georgia v. Public.Resource.org, Maine Community Health Options v. United States and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of New York.
No pause from Supreme Court for “public charge” rule during COVID-19 pandemic
Earlier this year, a divided Supreme Court gave the Trump administration the green light to enforce the “public charge” rule, which governs the admission of immigrants into the United States, while the government appeals orders by district courts in New York and Illinois that blocked it from doing so.
Petitions of the week
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that involve, among other things, whether an officer who has consent to “get inside” a house but instead destroys it from the outside is entitled to qualified immunity in the absence of case law addressing those precise facts,
Friday round-up
Yesterday the Supreme Court released three more decisions. In County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, the court held 6-3 that a Clean Water Act permit is required for either a direct discharge of pollutants into navigable waters or its functional equivalent.
Opinion analysis: Divided court upholds restrictive reading of immigration statute, limiting relief to noncitizens facing removal
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Barton v. Barr, upholding a restrictive reading of a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that offers relief to noncitizens facing removal proceedings.
Symposium: Liquidating elector discretion
Rebecca Green is professor of the practice of law and co-director of the Election Law Program at William & Mary Law School. In a 2014 case called National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the Supreme Court blessed a method of interpretation known as “liquidation” that seeks to identify settled practice as a means of understanding ambiguous constitutional text.
Symposium: To bind or not to bind: The state perspective on state authority over Electoral College balloting
Paul S. Swedlund is assistant attorney general of the state of South Dakota. He is lead counsel on an amicus brief for 45 states and the District of Columbia in support of Washington and Colorado in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca.
Courtroom access: Before abortion argument, mixed feelings about line-standers
Editor’s note: On April 13, the Supreme Court announced that it would conduct 10 oral arguments via telephone conference on several days in May in cases whose oral argument dates had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it would make an audio feed available to the public through a media pool, providing real-time audio of oral arguments for the first time in its history.
Thursday round-up
At the Washington Legal Foundation’s Legal Pulse blog, Lawrence Ebner wonders, “given the unusual alignment of Justices” in Ramos v. Louisiana, in which a fractured court ruled on Monday that the Constitution requires a unanimous jury verdict in state criminal trials, “whether the Court’s
Symposium: Why the Constitution mandates that presidential electors exercise best judgment
Rob Natelson is a retired professor of law at The University of Montana, senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver and a widely published originalist scholar.
Symposium: Unbinding presidential electors could throw the 2020 election into chaos
Paul M. Smith is vice president of litigation and strategy and Adav Noti is senior director of trial litigation and chief of staff at the Campaign Legal Center, which filed an amicus brief in support of the states in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca.
Opinion analysis: Justices reject “willfulness” requirement for requiring trademark infringers to disgorge profits
In a term with blockbuster decisions hovering on the horizon about disclosure of presidential records, abortion, workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and protections for Dreamers, Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. will be on any observer’s list for least earth-shattering decision of the year.
Courtroom access: “There’s got to be a better way to do this”
Editor’s note: On April 13, the Supreme Court announced that it would conduct 10 oral arguments via telephone conference on several days in May in cases whose oral argument dates had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it would make an audio feed available to the public through a media pool, providing real-time audio of oral arguments for the first time in its history.
Opinion analysis: The justices’ purpose-full reading of the Clean Water Act
Today the Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, that the Clean Water Act requires a permit when a point source of pollution adds pollutants to navigable waters through groundwater, if this addition of pollutants is “the functional equivalent of a direct discharge” from the source into navigable waters.
Live blog of opinions (Update: Completed)
We live-blogged on Thursday, April 23, 2020, as the court released opinions in County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, Romag Fasteners v. Fossil and Barton v. Barr. SCOTUSblog is […]
Wednesday round-up
At The Washington Free Beacon, Kevin Daley reports that Monday’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, in which a fractured court ruled that the Constitution requires a unanimous jury verdict in state criminal trials, “featured a continuing debate over the force of precedent” that “was something of a
Relist Watch: The lockdown continues
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. It’s to be expected that the sixth week of quarantine will feel like a low point. All the time with your family is making things tense; eating at home is getting monotonous; the days cooped up inside are beginning to blend together; and without any structure, things are starting to go off the rails.
Symposium: Constitutional doctrine and political reality in the faithless elector cases
David G. Post is a former professor of law at the Beasley School of Law at Temple University, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and a contributor at the Volokh Conspiracy blog.
Symposium: Leave courts out of presidential elector dispute
Derek Muller is a visiting professor of law at Notre Dame Law School. He wrote an amicus brief in support of neither party in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca.
Courtroom access: “Bridgegate” and the politics of line-standing
Editor’s note: On April 13, the Supreme Court announced that it would conduct 10 oral arguments via telephone conference on several days in May in cases whose oral argument dates had been postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that it would make an audio feed available to the public through a media pool, providing real-time audio of oral arguments for the first time in its history.
Opinion analysis: Supreme Court forecloses judicial review that could save “bad patent claims,” while dissent bemoans a “rough day” for judicial power
The chief justice described the legal issue in Thryv Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies LP as “small potatoes,” and with the current national lockdown, he seems even more right today than when he made the comment months ago at oral argument.
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday the Supreme Court released decisions in three cases. In Ramos v. Louisiana, the court ruled 6-3 that the Constitution requires a unanimous jury verdict in state criminal trials. Amy Howe has this blog‘s opinion analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court.
Courtroom access: SCOTUStalk stands in line for Supreme Court seats
Since October, SCOTUSblog has been outside the Supreme Court collecting data and stories from people who traveled to see oral arguments in person during the 2019-2020 term. On December 11, 2019, two of our staff attempted to obtain seats via the public line to watch an argument.