Showing 1–50 of 105 items published in March 2019, most recent first.
The Supreme Court released orders from the March 29 conference on Monday; the justices added Kansas v. Glover to their merits docket for next term. On Monday, the justices released their opinions in Bucklew v. Precythe and Biestek v. Berryhill.
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: PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc. The Dutra Group v. Batterton Rucho v. Common Cause Lamone v. Benisek Kisor v. Wilkie
Last month the Supreme Court cleared the way for Alabama to execute a Muslim inmate after denying the inmate’s request to have an imam at his side in the execution chamber, even though the prison would have allowed a Christian chaplain to be present in the chamber.
Last night the Supreme Court halted the execution of a Buddhist prisoner, Patrick Murphy, pending review of Murphy’s challenge to Texas’ refusal to allow a Buddhist priest to join him in the execution chamber. Amy Howe has this blog‘s coverage.
Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the justices considered whether to overrule precedents that require courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations, for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court; she
The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins to Stephen Budiansky concerning Budiansky’s book “Oliver Wendell Holmes: A Life in War, Law, and Ideas” (W.W. Norton, 2019, 592 pp., cloth: $29.95). Stephen Budiansky is the author of 17 books of biography, history and science.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously yesterday in favor of Alaskan John Sturgeon, who waged a 12-year battle against the National Park Service over its ban on hovercraft in park preserves.
Today the justices wrap up their March argument sitting with one oral argument, in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which they will reconsider precedents that require courts to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog.
The transcript of this morning’s oral argument in Kisor v. Wilkie is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument this morning in a dispute over veterans’ benefits that could become one of the most significant cases of the term.
This morning’s decision in Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission brings no surprises, as the court’s holding follows the views apparent at the oral argument (discussed in my earlier post).
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. After last week’s relist commotion, this week the changes are fewer, more subtle, and bad news for petitioners.
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released its opinion in Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission. The transcript of the live blog is available below and at this link. SCOTUSblog […]
Administrative law nerds anxiously await the term’s main event tomorrow: argument in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the Supreme Court will consider whether to overturn Auer deference to agency regulatory interpretations.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in The Dutra Group v. Batterton, a maritime case that asks whether a Jones Act seaman can recover punitive damages in a personal-injury suit based on the unseaworthiness of a vessel on which he was working.
This morning the court will hear oral arguments in two partisan-gerrymandering cases. First up is Rucho v. Common Cause, a challenge to North Carolina’s federal congressional map, adopted by the state’s Republican-controlled legislature in 2016.
The transcript of today’s oral argument in Rucho v. Common Cause is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in Lamone v. Benisek is also available.
A lawsuit by victims of the bombing of the USS Cole received a setback today at the Supreme Court.
Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a pair of cases that could prove to be among the most consequential of the term. The cases involve allegations that state officials engaged in unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering – that is, they went too far in taking politics into account – when they drew election maps in North Carolina and Maryland.
Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases, Lamone v. Benisek and Rucho v. Common Cause, which challenge the constitutionality of election maps in Maryland and North Carolina, respectively.
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released its opinions in Sturgeon v. Frost and Republic of Sudan v. Harrison. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: A more intelligent way to search […]
This morning the court begins the second week of the March sitting with two oral arguments. First up is PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc., which asks whether the Hobbs Act, a jurisdictional-channeling statute, requires courts to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s interpretation of a statute allowing recipients of “junk faxes” to sue the senders for damages.
Yesterday Attorney General William Barr sent a summary of the report by Special Counsel Robert Mueller to Congress.
The transcript of the oral argument in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc. is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in The Dutra Group v. Batterton is also available.
In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court talks with Evan and Oscie Thomas about Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court. Evan is the author of “First: Sandra Day O’Connor,” a biography released last week. Listen on Pippa | Spotify
Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases, including one in which the justices will have some fun with the Federal Register, the dry, daily publication that lists proposed and final regulations.
The Supreme Court released orders from the March 22 conference on Monday; the justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket for next term. On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in Sturgeon v. Frost and Republic of Sudan v. Harrison.
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: Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill Smith v. Berryhill Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt Flowers v. Mississippi
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address whether federal preclusion principles limit the what defenses a defendant can raise when a plaintiff asserts new claims and when a state law might be exempt from the dormant commerce clause.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, holding that parties who enforce security interests are not debt collectors within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act provided that they do no more than the bare minimum required by state law to enforce the security interest.
Amy Howe analyzes Wednesday’s oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi, which asks whether a Mississippi prosecutor’s repeated use of peremptory challenges to remove black people from the jury pool violated the Constitution, for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court; she
The blog is beginning the hiring process for a new blog manager.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in the case of an African-American death-row inmate in Mississippi who was convicted by a jury that included just one African-American juror.
Mark Walsh has a first-hand look at yesterday’s argument in Flowers v. Mississippi, which asks whether a prosecutor’s repeated use of peremptory challenges to remove black people from the jury pool violated the Constitution, for this blog.
In Monday’s oral argument in Smith v. Berryhill, the justices confronted a split among the courts of appeals as to whether an SSI disability claimant can obtain judicial review of the Social Security Appeals Council’s dismissal of his appeal as untimely under 42 U.S.C. sec. 405(g).
In Nielsen v. Preap, four justices joined Justice Samuel Alito yesterday to adopt an expansive interpretation of a mandatory-immigration-detention statute.
With a three-justice plurality opinion, a two-justice concurrence in the judgment and two dissents, Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den appears unusually fractured at first glance.
The justices will hear argument in one case this morning: Flowers v. Mississippi, which asks whether a prosecutor’s repeated use of peremptory challenges to remove black people from the jury pool violated the Constitution.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. Exciting times on the relist front! After a couple of light weeks, we had a flurry of action Monday. From last installment’s two new relists, the Supreme Court called for the views of the solicitor general in one case involving what accommodations employers must make for their employees’ religious exercise.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this post ran on January 28, 2019, as an introduction to this blog’s symposium on Kisor v. Wilkie, as well as at Howe on the Court, where it was originally published.
The transcript of this morning’s oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
Although Supreme Court justices’ votes are not purely the product of ideological preferences, some of the most important cases the justices decide come down to 5-4 splits along ideological lines. This was especially apparent during the 2017 Supreme Court term.
Today will bring an intense hour of argument about race in jury selection in the case of a Mississippi man who has been tried six times by the same prosecutor, which will culminate in a series of short questions by Justice Clarence Thomas, his first during oral argument in three years.
This morning the justices issued a per curiam opinion vacating the decision of the lower court in Frank v. Gaos. They had granted review in that case to consider the propriety of so-called “cy pres” settlements – settlements of class actions that distribute all or a part of the monetary relief to public-interest or charitable recipients instead of the named plaintiffs.
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released opinions in two cases: Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP and Frank v. Gaos. SCOTUSblog is sponsored by Casetext: A more intelligent way to search the […]
Today the justices will hear oral argument in Cochise Consultancy v. United States, ex rel. Hunt, which asks whether the “discovery” exception to False Claims Act statute of limitations applies to private parties in cases in which the government has not intervened.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this post ran on February 4, 2019, as an introduction to this blog’s symposium on Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, as well as at Howe on the Court, where it was originally published. Every 10 years, the federal government conducts a census.
The transcript of this morning’s oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
The Supreme Court engaged in a relatively lively argument today over a thorny issue of statutory interpretation under the False Claims Act: how two separate statute-of-limitations provisions apply to whistleblower, or “qui tam,” actions when the federal government has not intervened in a suit
This morning’s 6-3 opinion in Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries affirms the decision of the lower court holding that the manufacturers of asbestos-dependent equipment used on Navy ships can be held liable to sailors who became ill because of their contact with the asbestos.