Showing 1–50 of 96 items published in May 2020, most recent first.
On Monday, the court released orders from the May 28 conference. The justices did not add any new cases to next term’s merits docket. The court also released opinions in Thole v. U.S. Bank, Nasrallah v. Barr, Banister v. Davis, Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment and GE Energy Power Conversion France v. Outokumpu Stainless USA.
Last night the Supreme Court declined to intervene in challenges by churches in southern California and the Chicago area to stay-at-home orders issued as a result of the COVID-19 crisis.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that involve, among other things, under what circumstances the foregone-conclusion exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination might apply to the compelled production of passwords to encrypted electronic
At Law & Liberty (via How Appealing), John McGinnis worries that in two cases involving “the ability of presidential electors in the Electoral College to exercise their own legal discretion in the choice of President,” “the Court may do grave damage to originalism by suggesting that the bad
In a press release today, Senators Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who are both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on the Supreme Court to continue providing live audio of its oral arguments in the future, even after the coronavirus pandemic is over.
Editor’s note: This is the third post in a series analyzing the Supreme Court’s telephonic oral arguments with live audio instituted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court heard some of the most important cases of the term in a month when there almost were no arguments at all.
The latest episode of Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast “highlights an issue that’s been piling up on the high court’s docket: Qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that serves to shield law enforcement from liability even in the face of the most egregious allegations of civil rights
Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that yesterday the court denied, at least for now, “a request by the federal government to put a temporary hold on an order by a federal court that could lead to the release or transfer of over 800 inmates from a
John Elwood reviews Friday’s relists. A funny thing happened on Friday: The Supreme Court relisted cases for the next week’s conference, only one day following its previous conference. That may not seem like a big deal, but it’s the biggest change in the court’s relisting procedures in years.
At AP, Mark Sherman reports that “Chief Justice John Roberts told graduating seniors at his son’s high school that the coronavirus has ‘pierced our illusion of certainty and control’ and he counseled the students to make their way with humility, compassion and courage in a world turned upside
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not add any cases to their merits docket for next term, nor did they seek the views of the federal government in any new cases.
Today the Supreme Court denied a request by the federal government to put a temporary hold on an order by a federal court that could lead to the release or transfer of over 800 inmates from a federal prison where nine inmates have died from COVID-19.
Update: Justice Elena Kagan has called for a response in the case; it is due on Thursday, May 28, by 8 p.m. On Wednesday, two Chicago-area churches asked the justices to allow them to hold services on Pentecost as well.
On Monday, the court was closed for Memorial Day. On Tuesday, the court released orders from the May 21 conference. The justices granted no new cases for argument next term. On Thursday, the justices will hold their May 28 conference.
Briefly: Mark Sherman reports for AP that “President Donald Trump won at least a temporary reprieve from the Supreme Court earlier this week in keeping secret grand jury materials from the Russia investigation away from Democratic lawmakers”; “[t]he president and his administration are counting on
Editor’s note: This is the second post in a series analyzing the Supreme Court’s telephonic oral arguments with live audio instituted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data for this project was provided by Oyez, a free law project by Justia and the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.
Just a few hours after the Supreme Court granted his request to temporarily block the release of grand jury materials from the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco was back at the court with a new filing.
Yesterday the Supreme Court granted the Justice Department’s request to block temporarily a lower court order requiring disclosure to the House Judiciary Committee of grand jury material from Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
When the Supreme Court building closed due to the coronavirus, some of the remaining arguments for the term were rescheduled for a special May session via telephone. For the first time, live audio of oral arguments was made available to the public.
In May, for the first time in its history, the Supreme Court provided live audio of its oral arguments to the public due to the COVID-19 pandemic. That move appears to enjoy broad support.
For The Washington Post (subscription required), Mark Berman reports that “Missouri on Tuesday carried out the country’s first execution amid the coronavirus pandemic, not long after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request to stop the lethal injection.” Katie Bart reports on the justices’ order denying Walter Barton’s request for a stay of execution for this blog.
Today the Supreme Court blocked the disclosure to the House Judiciary Committee of grand jury materials from the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Yesterday the court issued a unanimous opinion in Opati v. Sudan, holding that the current version of the terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act allows punitive damages for preenactment conduct.
Editor’s note: This is the first post in a series analyzing the Supreme Court’s telephonic oral arguments with live audio instituted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
This evening the Supreme Court refused to block the execution of Walter Barton, scheduled for 6:00 p.m. CDT. Barton was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1991 killing of Gladys Kuehler. There were no recorded dissents.
Live teleconference oral arguments have been the most visible sign of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Supreme Court, and they have prompted copious coverage and commentary.
John Elwood reviews this week’s relists. If these weeks in lockdown all are beginning to feel the same to you, you’re not alone: The torpor has spread to the relist rolls as well. This week, there was very little movement. There were no new relists.
At ABC News, Devin Dwyer collects mostly positive reviews of the court’s recent livestreamed telephonic arguments, reporting that “[t]he coronavirus pandemic introduced America to its Supreme Court in action, and millions had reason to be riveted by what they heard.” At AP, Jessica Gresko offers
It has been over two decades since al Qaeda operatives detonated bombs outside the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over 200 people and injuring thousands more.
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not add any new cases to their argument calendar for next term.
On Thursday, May 21, at 1:00 p.m.
We live-blogged on Monday, May 18, as the court released orders from the May 15 conference and its opinion in Opati v. Sudan. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext, the most […]
On Monday, the court released orders from the May 15 conference, adding no new cases to the merits docket for next term. The justices released their opinion in Opati v. Sudan. On Thursday, the justices held their May 21 conference.
Today we hosted a 30-minute webinar discussing Wednesday’s faithless elector cases, Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v Baca. Amy Howe of Howe on the Court and Cathy Ruffing of Street Law led an interactive discussion with middle school students about the arguments made in these cases and the possible implications for the Electoral College.
This morning the Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s decision in Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc., holding that Lucky Brand is not precluded from raising a defense that could have been raised in a previous lawsuit between the same parties.
Yesterday the court issued a unanimous decision in trademark case Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Group, holding that because Marcel is raising claims it did not raise in a previous suit between the parties, Lucky Brand is not precluded from raising new defenses.
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: McGirt v. Oklahoma Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru Trump v. Mazars and Trump v. Vance Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca
Credit: Reuters In the United States, police violence frequently dominates the news cycle. People who believe that police officers have subjected them to excessive force can bring civil suits for violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
Today we held a 30-minute webinar discussing Tuesday’s oral arguments in Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP & Trump v. Vance. Amy Howe and Steven Mazie of Bard High School Early College led an interactive discussion with middle school students about what happened in oral argument and possible consequences for the separation of powers.
Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s arguments in Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca, which ask whether the Constitution forbids a state from requiring its presidential electors to follow the state’s popular vote when casting their electoral college ballots, for this blog, in post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.
We live-blogged on Thursday, May 14, as the Supreme Court released its opinion in Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Group. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext, the most intelligent way […]
Today we hosted a 30-minute webinar debriefing Monday’s oral argument in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru. Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell and Daniel Mach of the American Civil Liberties Union discussed what happened at oral argument, possible outcomes and implications for the separation of church and state.
Today the Supreme Court will wrap up its oral arguments for October Term 2019 by hearing another set of high-profile cases that could have implications for the upcoming presidential election: Chiafalo v. Washington and Colorado Department of State v. Baca, which ask whether the Constitution forbids
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a set of cases that Deputy Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, who argued on behalf of the federal government, described as “truly historic.” At issue was whether President Donald Trump could prevent the disclosure of his financial records, including his tax returns, to state prosecutors and congressional committees.
This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a pair of challenges to the constitutionality of so-called “faithless elector” laws – state laws that penalize or remove a presidential elector who does not vote for the candidate he has pledged to support.