Showing 1–50 of 110 items published in June 2020, most recent first.
Gretchen Borchelt is vice president for reproductive rights and health at the National Women’s Law Center. She filed an amicus brief on behalf of NWLC and 72 other organizations in support of the petitioners in June Medical Services v. Russo.
Richard Blumenthal is the senior United States senator from Connecticut. He joined an amicus brief on behalf of 197 members of Congress in support of the petitioners in June Medical Services v. Russo. He is the Senate lead sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act.
Erika Bachiochi is a Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a Senior Fellow at the Abigail Adams Institute. Follow her at @erikabachiochi. In comparison to the high court’s bombshell opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County earlier this month, June Medical Services v. Russo would seem relatively straightforward.
Yesterday the Supreme Court released decisions in three cases, including one of the highest-profile cases of the term. In June Medical Services v. Russo, the court, by a vote of 5-4, struck down a Louisiana law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. After a couple of weeks with no new relists, the Supreme Court is back this week with a vengeance. The court has scheduled an impromptu conference for Wednesday, July 1.
Jane Schacter is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of law at Stanford Law School. She signed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in June Medical Services v. Russo.
In 2015, the Montana legislature created a scholarship program that provided a dollar-for-dollar tax credit for donations to private scholarship organizations.
Steven Green is the Fred H. Paulus Professor of Law and director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy at Willamette University College of Law. He filed an amicus brief on behalf of a number of religious groups in support of the respondents in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.
When the digital travel company Booking.com sought to register its domain name as a service mark for hotel reservation services, the U.S. Patent and Trademark office denied registration under a longstanding policy that the combination of a generic term for goods and services with the “.com” suffix did not create a protectable trademark.
We live-blogged on Tuesday, June 30, as the court released opinions in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by […]
Amy Howe reports for this blog that on Friday the court denied a request that it revive a lower court ruling allowing any Texas voter to vote by absentee ballot without an excuse for the 2020 election cycle; her post originally appeared at Howe on the Court.
Four years ago, by a vote of 5-3, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that (among other things) required doctors who perform abortions to have the right to admit patients at a nearby hospital.
Cynthia Yee-Wallace is deputy attorney general of the state of Idaho. She filed an amicus brief on behalf of the state in support of the respondent in June Medical Services v. Russo, along with Brian Kane, who is the assistant chief deputy attorney general for the state of Idaho.
In response to the 2008 financial crisis, Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency with approximately 1,500 employees that tackles everything from payday loans to financial literacy programs and helping consumers navigate the COVID-19 pandemic.
Seven years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that nongovernmental organizations based in the United States cannot be required to have a policy that expressly opposes prostitution and sex trafficking in order to receive government funds to fight HIV/AIDS.
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The court did not grant any new cases for oral argument in the fall, but with another conference now scheduled for Wednesday, more grants could come as soon as Thursday morning.
We live-blogged on Monday, June 29, as the court released orders form the June 25 conference and opinions in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, June Medical Services v. […]
On Monday, the court released orders form the June 25 conference. The justices did not grant any new cases for oral argument next term. The court released opinions in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, June Medical Services v. Russo and United States Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International.
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam upheld a scheme of limited and narrow judicial review over expedited removal, a bare-bones administrative process created under the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg reports for The New York Times that “[t]he Trump administration asked the Supreme Court late Thursday to overturn the Affordable Care Act — a move that, if successful, would bring a permanent end to the health insurance program popularly known as Obamacare and wipe out coverage
On June 30, 2020, from 3-4:30 p.m. ET, the Washington Council of Lawyers will host a discussion on the 2019-2020 Supreme Court term and the court’s future under COVID-19, led by a panel of veteran court reporters: Robert Barnes of the Washington Post, Joan Biskupic of CNN and Amy Howe of Howe on the Court.
The Supreme Court today refused to reinstate a ruling by a federal trial court that would have allowed all eligible voters in Texas to vote by mail for the 2020 election cycle.
Briefly: David Savage reports for the Los Angeles Times that “[t]he Supreme Court is nearing the end of its term and ready to release major decisions on abortion, religion and the separation of powers.” At Bloomberg Government, Andrew Kreighbaum and Erin Mulvaney report that “[t]ransgender students
We live-blogged on Thursday, June 25, as the court released its opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam. Jake Heller joined us to discuss Casetext’s approach to public access […]
At NBC News (via How Appealing), Julie Moreau reports that last week’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, in which the court held that federal employment discrimination law protects gay and transgender employees, “which was widely praised by LGBTQ advocates but condemned by social
Before it became a news source, or a legal database, or a Twitter presence often mistaken for the court itself, SCOTUSblog was a tool. It was created to give the public a way to access and understand, in real time, how the work of the justices affects their daily lives.
John Elwood reviews the empty space where Monday’s relists would be. I don’t know for sure what the justices will be talking about at their conference this week. But I do know what they won’t be talking about: relisted cases. That’s because there aren’t any.
Yesterday the court issued one decision, in Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, holding 8-1 that the SEC can seek disgorgement of profits as a remedy in court for violating the securities fraud laws if the amount does not exceed the wrongdoer’s net profit and is awarded for the victims.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that ask the court to decide, among other things, whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, whether and to what extent the
On Wednesday, July 1, at 1:00 pm. EDT, the Washington Legal Foundation will host a virtual briefing on the current Supreme Court term and cases concerning business and the free market.
Kristina McKibben analyzes last Thursday’s decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, in which the court held that the government’s decision to terminate the DACA program, which allowed undocumented young people brought to this country as children to
One week after finally denying review in a large batch of cases asking them to weigh in on issues relating to qualified immunity for police officers and the rights of gun owners, this morning the justices issued a relatively quiet list of orders from their private conference last week.
The decision this morning in Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission struck a middle ground, rejecting the broad argument that the SEC could never obtain disgorgement of profits from unlawful activity in securities litigation, but sharply cutting back the remedy as the SEC has envisioned it in recent years.
OT 2019 has turned out to be a term of unexpected twists and turns.
We live-blogged on Monday, June 22, as the court released orders from the June 18 conference and its opinion in Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by […]
On Monday, the court released orders from the June 18 conference and its opinion in Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission. On Thursday, the court released its opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam. The justices also held their June 25 conference.
Heather Alarcon is Senior Director of Legal Services at the Association of American Medical Colleges, which joined an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.
Nina Perales is vice president of litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the state of New Jersey and defendant-intervenor DACA recipients in Texas v. United States – an ongoing lawsuit challenging the legality of DACA – in
Craig Newby and Jeffrey Conner are deputy solicitors general for the State of Nevada, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of five states in support of the respondents in University of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Trump v. NAACP and Wolf v. Vidal.
Zachary Price is a professor of law at UC Hastings Law in San Francisco. In its decision in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California barring repeal of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, the Supreme Court reached an attractive result through flawed legal reasoning.
Kimberly Hermann is General Counsel at Southeastern Legal Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. The date is June 19, 2020.
Nicholas Bronni is the solicitor general for the state of Arkansas, which joined an amicus brief in support of the federal government in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.
Yesterday the Supreme Court decided another of the term’s most closely watched cases, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, ruling that the government’s decision to terminate the DACA program, which allowed undocumented young people brought to this country as
Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that “[a]fter just under three years (and three Supreme Court terms) on the job, Noel Francisco announced today that he would step down as the solicitor general of the United States, effective July 3, 2020.”
It has been eight years since the Obama administration created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, which allows undocumented young adults who came to the United States as children to apply for protection from deportation.
After the federal government announced that it plans to resume executions in July after a pause of nearly 20 years, the Supreme Court today put the dispute over the lethal-injection protocol that the government plans to use in those executions on a fast track.