Showing 1–50 of 78 items published in February 2019, most recent first.
When a defense lawyer decides not to file an appeal of a guilty plea despite his client’s request, he renders ineffective assistance of counsel, even if the client waived his right to appeal in the plea agreement, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in Garza v. Idaho.
The Supreme Court today ruled that, just like foreign countries, international organizations such as the World Bank can be sued in U.S. courts when they are acting as private players in the market.
I’m pleased to announce that we’re partnering with Casetext to help our readers access the court opinions, statutes and other primary legal content we cite in SCOTUSblog posts. If you don’t know Casetext yet, you should. Casetext is the best place to read the law on the internet.
Amy Howe covers yesterday’s oral argument in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause challenge to a World War I memorial shaped like a cross on public property, for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.
At Tuesday’s oral argument in Mont v. United States, the justices considered whether a term of federal supervised release is tolled, or put on hold, when someone on supervised release is held in pretrial detention on a new criminal charge.
Today the justices close out the February session with an argument in the most notable case of the term so far, The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause challenge to a World War I memorial shaped like a cross on public property. Amy Howe had this blog‘s preview.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. With the recent reduction in trusted sources for Supreme Court news, we untrusted news sources must do our best to fill the gap. So even though I have an argument approaching, I will once again try to rise to the occasion.
The transcript of oral argument in The American Legion v. American Humanist Association is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
For nearly a century, a 40-foot-tall stone and concrete cross has stood on a traffic median in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, just a few miles from the Supreme Court. But seven years ago, a group of local residents filed a lawsuit seeking to have the cross removed.
Today the Supreme Court gave an Alabama death-row inmate at least a temporary reprieve, sending the case back to the lower courts for them to consider whether the inmate’s dementia leaves him so incompetent that he cannot be executed.
Pablo Arredondo joined us to live-blog about recent developments in legal technology and A.I. The Supreme Court released their opinions in Madison v. Alabama, Garza v. Idaho and Jam v. […]
This morning the justices will hear oral argument in two criminal cases, both involving federal supervised release. First up is United States v. Haymond, a constitutional challenge to a statutory provision that requires judges to impose additional prison time on sex offenders who violate the terms of their supervised release.
The transcript of oral argument in United States v. Haymond is available on the Supreme Court’s website. The transcript in Mont v. United States is also available.
This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a dispute over the constitutionality of a federal law that requires convicted sex offenders to return to prison for at least five years – and possibly for the rest of their lives – if a judge finds that they have committed certain crimes.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) — allowing parties to seek permission for interlocutory review of decisions granting or denying class certification within 14 days of the decision — is a mandatory nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule, not subject to tolling or exception for reasons of
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released its opinion in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert. Jake Heller joined us to discuss Casetext’s approach to public access to legal knowledge and how […]
This morning the Supreme Court kicks off the second week of the February sitting with an oral argument in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, which asks whether a private operator of a public-access TV channel is a “state actor” who can be sued for violations of the First Amendment.
The transcript of oral argument in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from last week’s conference. The justices added just one new case to their merits docket for next term and issued an unsigned opinion that sent a ruling that was released after the death of one of the judges who participated in the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
On March 4 at noon EST in Washington, D.C., the American University Washington College of Law will host a Q&A with Floyd Abrams to celebrate 100 years of Supreme Court free speech decisions. Steve Wermiel will moderate the event, which will be held in Claudio Grossman Hall.
How divided is the current Supreme Court? On the surface the answer appears mixed. Much conversation over the past several years surrounding the court’s decisions has had to do with partisan and ideological divisions among the justices.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in a case involving whether a private nonprofit corporation that runs a public-access TV channel is a “state actor,” who can be sued for violations of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court released orders from the February 22 conference on Monday; the justices granted Rotkiske v. Klemm for next term and summarily reversed in Yovino v. Rice. On Tuesday, the justices released their opinion in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert.
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: Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the proper test for an equal-terms claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the constitutionality of a state’s prohibiting political action committees from transferring
At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie covers the court’s decision Tuesday in Timbs v. Indiana, in which the justices ruled unanimously “that the constitution protects people accused of crimes from having outlandish sums seized by city or state authorities.” Subscript Law offers a graphic explainer for the decision.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this post ran on December 10, 2018,, as an introduction to this blog’s symposium on The American Legion v. American Humanist Association, as well as at Howe on the Court, where it was originally published.
Approximately eight in 10 federal prisoners serve a period of supervised release after they get out of prison, and any violation of a condition of supervised release can lead to reimprisonment.
Yesterday the court issued two opinions from the December argument session. In Timbs v. Indiana, the court ruled unanimously that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to states and localities under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relists. I have an argument coming up, so I’m going to be fairly summary today. There was a fair amount of turnover at the February 15 conference, with one relist getting the nod (while its companion case had to settle for a hold) and one lucky petitioner winning summary reversal.
This morning, in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, the justices will consider whether a trademark licensee retains any rights under a licensing agreement when the licensor goes bankrupt. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog.
The transcript of oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
West Virginia cannot impose its state income tax on federal retirement benefits paid to a retired U.S. marshal while exempting its own pension payments to former state law enforcement officers, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a 9-0 decision.
The Supreme Court today ruled that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states. The decision is a victory for an Indiana man whose luxury SUV was seized after he pleaded guilty to selling heroin.
The second and last argument of the week came in the Supreme Court’s most important bankruptcy case of the year, Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents a problem that has confused lower courts for more than 30 years: What happens when a debtor exercises its statutory right to reject a contract in bankruptcy?
In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act “to protect the public from sex offenders and offenders against children.” One part of the act provides that if a defendant who is required to register as a sex offender commits certain crimes carrying a prison term longer than
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released its opinions in Dawson v. Steager and Timbs v. Indiana. The transcript of the live blog is available below and at this link.
This morning the justices will return from a four-week break to hear oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service, in which they will consider whether the federal government can challenge patents under the America Invents Act. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog.
The transcript of oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
The justices have a light calendar this week, with only two arguments. If the first argument of the week (Return Mail Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service) is any guide, they’ve spent their extra time focusing carefully on the relatively thin session.
Last Friday the justices added the dispute over the decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census to their merits docket. Today they issued more orders from last week’s conference, granting review in another case and throwing out – for the second time – the death sentence of a Texas inmate who argues that he cannot be executed because he is intellectually disabled.
The court is returning to the bench this morning after its usual four-week winter recess. The recess, marked by noteworthy “shadow docket” actions on the death penalty, abortion rights and other matters, may have offered more news than the relatively sleepy February sitting.
Next week the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case involving free speech and public-access television channels. Although the issue may sound somewhat obscure, internet giants like Facebook and YouTube are paying close attention, fearing that the court’s ruling could have ripple effects that limit their ability to control their content.
As we enter the February sitting, we give you the rarest of episodes: a completely comprehensive preview of all the cases that will be argued this week! All two of them!
The Supreme Court released orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term’s merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
Briefly: For the Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports that “[t]he Supreme Court meets behind closed doors [today] to weigh a question that could shape the political power of California for the decade ahead[:] At issue is the Trump administration’s plan to ask all households for the first time
The Supreme Court’s 2018-2019 term will end with a bang. In a brief order issued after the justices’ private conference, the court announced this afternoon that it will review a challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the availability of tribal sovereign immunity in inter partes review, a probate-estate beneficiary’s ability to establish a direct injury for a RICO claim in certain circumstances, and the state subsidies pre-empted by the Federal Power Act.
In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse writes that Chief Justice John Roberts’ vote last week in June Medical Services v. Gee to temporarily block a Louisiana law that would require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals was not surprising, because
The second of the two cases set for oral argument next week is a bankruptcy matter, Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. Although the case presents a variety of twists and complications, the central question is so simple that it is surprising it has not been settled for decades: When a