Showing 1–50 of 101 items published in January 2019, most recent first.
Brianne Gorod is Chief Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. There are lots of Supreme Court cases that don’t make big headlines. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t important. A case the court will hear later this term is a prime example.
Jonathan H. Adler is the Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
Briefly: At Verdict, Sherry Colb discusses Mitchell v. Wisconsin, in which the court will decide whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement; she questions the utility of the “implied consent” concept, arguing that the Fourth Amendment analysis would be cleaner without it.
Gillian Metzger is the Stanley H. Fuld Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. From one perspective, the Supreme Court’s decision to grant review in Kisor v. Wilkie is not surprising.
Elizabeth Murrill is the solicitor general of Louisiana, which joined Utah and 17 other states in a cert-stage amicus brief urging the court to grant Kisor v. Wilkie and overrule Seminole Rock and Auer.
Briefly: Tucker Higgins of CNBC covers Monday’s request (in June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee) by two doctors and an abortion clinic to prevent a Louisiana abortion law from going into effect as they pursue their case at the Supreme Court; the state’s response is due tomorrow.
Over the past several years the Supreme Court has undergone substantial change. Not only has the face of the court shifted, but so has its center, with the departure of Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Adrian Vermeule is the Ralph S. Tyler, Jr., Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School.
Kimberly Hermann is General Counsel at Southeastern Legal Foundation. As James Madison captured in Federalist 51, our federal structure is designed to give unique powers to each branch of government for “keeping each other in their proper places” – the critical separation of powers principles.
Briefly: In the wake of the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Robles v. Domino’s Pizza, holding that the ADA requires businesses to make websites accessible to the disabled, NFIB urges the Supreme Court to “clarify, once and for all, whether the ADA covers digital
John Elwood previews February’s likely relists. We’re now in the middle of the Supreme Court’s nearly month-long midwinter hiatus between conferences.
Commentary and coverage focus on the Supreme Court’s decision last week to review New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, in which the justices will consider whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun outside city limits violates the Constitution.
We’ve got a breather between sittings, so Professor Stephen Sachs joins us as we recap an opinion, take a look at some grants and orders, discuss whether law school clinics are good or bad ideas, and ask a lot of questions about his and Professor William Baude’s amicus brief in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt.
This spring the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie, a case that arises from a dispute over benefits for a Marine who served in the Vietnam War.
[UPDATE: On January 29, Justice Samuel Alito directed the state to file a response to the challengers’ request by 3 p.m. on Thursday, January 31. ] The hot-button issue of abortion returned to the Supreme Court today.
The Supreme Court is between sittings. The justices will meet next for their February 15 conference. The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 19, is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
Last week the Supreme Court announced that it would no longer hear oral argument on February 19 in a dispute over evidence in a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to bring a question about citizenship back to the 2020 census.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the availability of accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act to an armed, violent and mentally ill suspect being brought into custody; a parent’s ability to change a child’s habitual
Briefly: At CNN, Eric Bradner and Joan Biskupic report that “[t]he Supreme Court’s future is poised to turn into a defining battle in the 2020 presidential election, as justices consider taking up cases that touch some of the nation’s most sensitive political divides.” For this blog, Stephen
The Supreme Court issued the argument calendar for its March sitting today. Over a six-day period from March 18 through March 27, the justices will hear oral argument in nine cases. Three of those cases are likely to be among the biggest cases of the term.
At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery and Amy Swearer remark Tuesday’s cert grant in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, a challenge to New York City’s limits on transporting personal firearms, “gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to shed some
Suppose the federal courts run out of money in the current federal government shutdown? What happens to the Supreme Court? The answer is that the Supreme Court will continue to perform its essential functions, including processing petitions, hearing oral arguments and deciding cases.
The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins to Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum on the occasion of the publication of their book “The Company They Keep: How Partisan Divisions Came to the Supreme Court” (Oxford University Press, 2019, 272 pp., cloth: $29.95).
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued orders from last Friday’s conference. The justices agreed to review a challenge to New York City’s restrictions on the transportation of licensed handguns, in a case that may not be heard until next term.
On Friday, the Supreme Court removed Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a dispute over discovery in a challenge to the government’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, from the February argument calendar.
This morning’s decision in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, the Supreme Court’s first patent case of the year, breaks no new ground.
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to have a handgun at home for self-defense. Two years later, the justices made clear that this right also applies against state and local governments.
Last month the unnamed corporation at the center of a dispute over a grand jury subpoena that is widely believed to be connected to the investigation of Special Counsel Robert Mueller asked the Supreme Court for permission to file a petition for review under seal.
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the January 18 conference and its opinion in Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The transcript of the live blog […]
The January sitting is over and the Supreme Court will be out of session for a few weeks. But First Mondays keeps on working even when the justices are taking a break.
The Supreme Court released orders from the January 18 conference on Tuesday; the justices granted New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York.
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: Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson Azar v. Allina Health Services Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address the standard for removal of a juror for misconduct during deliberations, a court’s ability to enable a defendant to earn income to pay restitution, and whether a horizontal agreement to boycott a supplier can escape per se condemnation under Section 1 of the Sherman Act under certain circumstances.
UPDATE: On Friday, January 18, the Supreme Court announced that it had removed the case from the February argument calendar and suspended the briefing schedule “pending further order of this Court.” Although the justices will not hear oral argument in the case in February, today’s order does not
Yesterday, the challengers in Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, a dispute over discovery in a challenge to the government’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, asked the justices to dismiss the case, arguing that a
Yesterday morning’s argument in Home Depot U.S.A. v. Jackson was a notable one, as Justice Elena Kagan brought a strong view of the case to the bench and proceeded to dominate the argument. The case involves the removal of litigation from state court to federal court.
In the first 5-4 decision of this term (Stokeling v. United States), the Supreme Court ruled yesterday that state robbery statutes that require “resistance … overcome by physical force,” even if the force used is “minimal,” are sufficient to satisfy the prior-conviction requirement of the federal Armed Career Criminal Act.
During yesterday’s argument in Knick v. Township of Scott – the second time the court has heard the case this term – the justices seemed to be looking for a compromise position.
For this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s oral argument in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, a challenge to Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing.
The saga over Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health seems to ebb and flow from the headlines almost daily. Part of the mystery relates to the amount of information shared with the public.
Medicare was before the Supreme Court yesterday in a case that could have significant implications for administrative law. At the granular level, the case, Azar v. Allina Health Services, concerns whether the Department of Health and Human Services was permitted to change, without notice and comment, an important reimbursement formula for hospitals that treat many low-income patients.
This morning the Supreme Court wraps up its January session with oral arguments in two cases. First on the agenda is a reargument in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which asks whether the court should reconsider a precedent that requires property owners to exhaust state remedies before bringing federal takings claims under the Constitution.
Justice Samuel Alito struggled to suppress a smile. Justice Stephen Breyer buried his head in his hands. Chief Judge Merrick Garland succumbed to a giggle fit.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. I’m traveling today, so I’m going to be more summary than usual. The April calendar already appears to have a full complement of 12 cases, but the court in theory could add to it with this Friday’s grants.
The transcript of oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair is also available.
Ratified in 1933, the 21st Amendment ended Prohibition – which (fun fact!) was established by the 18th Amendment, ratified 100 years ago today. It also gave states broad power to regulate alcoholic beverages.
In Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, the government contends (and the lower courts agreed) that the TVA should be immune from tort liability to shield executive policy-making, even when the TVA is engaged in arguably commercial activity.
The week’s second argument, Rimini Street v. Oracle USA, has the justices considering the scope of fees available to a prevailing party in litigation under the federal Copyright Act. Sitting for the second week without Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the bench was remarkably quiescent.
This morning the justices will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson, which involves the ability of a third-party class-action defendant to remove a counterclaim from state court to federal court. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog.
The transcript of oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in Azar v. Allina Health Services is also available.