Showing 1–50 of 70 items published in May 2019, most recent first.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address the timeframe for a candidate to challenge a ballot-access rule after the election at issue has passed, and whether the Federal Employers Liability Act permits liability if a plaintiff cannot establish common-law but-for causation.
Last month, the Supreme Court cleared the way for Alabama to execute Christopher Price, who was on death row for the 1991 murder of minister Bill Lynn.
Yesterday challengers to the decision by Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to include a question about citizenship in the 2020 census alerted the Supreme Court to new evidence indicating that a Republican redistricting strategist played a key role in Ross’ decision and that the question was included to create an advantage for whites and Republicans in future elections.
There is more commentary on Tuesday’s summary reversal in Box v. Planned Parenthood, in which the justices overturned a lower court’s decision striking down an Indiana law with respect to a provision relating to the disposition of fetal remains by abortion providers but left the decision in place with respect to a provision barring abortions based on the disability, sex or race of the fetus.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relists. I’m going to be very summary because of the press of professional obligations this week. As predicted, the Supreme Court agreed with the solicitor general’s recommendation and granted review in Hernandez v. Mesa, 17-1678, involving the liability of American law-enforcement officers who allegedly wrongfully shoot across the U.S.-Mexico border and kill Mexican nationals.
It has been just over a month since the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a challenge to the decision by Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census.
Section 405(g) of the Social Security Act allows for judicial review of “any final decision … made after a hearing” by the Social Security Administration.
On Tuesday, in Nieves v. Bartlett, a majority finally agreed on a standard for how probable cause affects a civil damages action for First Amendment retaliatory arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: A plaintiff must show the absence of probable cause to arrest as an element of the claim and the presence
Yesterday’s decision in Home Depot USA v. Jackson offers an unusual outcome: a holding by the justices that limits the ability of defendants in large class actions to remove those cases to federal court.
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued three opinions. Mark Walsh has a “view” from the courtroom for yesterday’s session, which included the traditional presentation of Attorney General William Barr to the court.
Late last year, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to wade into the dispute over the Trump administration’s September 2017 decision to end the program known as “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA), which allows undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children to apply for protection from deportation.
Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that on Friday the Supreme Court granted a request by Republican legislators in Ohio and Michigan “to put lower court rulings that found partisan gerrymandering in those states on hold while they appeal.” For The
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. After considering the case at 15 consecutive conferences, the justices finally acted on a petition by Indiana, which had asked the court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit striking down a law regulating abortions in that state.
We’re now past Memorial Day, and almost into June, so we are in the home stretch of October 2018 term. Today, like many days this term, the big news will come at 9:30 a.m. with the release of orders.
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the May 23 conference, granting Hernandez v. Mesa and issuing a summary reversal in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and […]
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court released orders from the May 23 conference, granting Hernandez v. Mesa and issuing a summary reversal in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. The justices released their opinions in three argued cases: Smith v. Berryhill, Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson and Nieves v. Bartlett.
Subscript Law has a graphic explainer for Monday’s decision in Herrera v. Wyoming, in which the court held that a hunting right granted to the Crow Tribe under an 1868 treaty is still valid.
Anita S. Krishnakumar is the Mary C. Daly Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Faculty Scholarship at St. John’s University School of Law. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt has received significant attention for its overruling of Nevada v. Hall, a 40-year-old precedent that held that states lack sovereign immunity in each other’s courts.
In the next month or so, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its decisions in a pair of cases challenging federal congressional districts in North Carolina and Maryland as the product of unconstitutional partisan gerrymandering.
Subscript Law offers a graphic explainer for Monday’s opinion in Merck Sharp & Dohme v. Albrecht, in which the court held that whether the FDA would have rejected a proposed change to a prescription drug label, pre-empting a state-law claim for failure to warn of the drug’s risks, is a question of law for a judge to decide.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. Congress is fighting with the executive branch to try to obtain information this week. But here at Relist Watch, we’re just giving the stuff away. A lot of throughput this week, as the Supreme Court disposed of five relists.
With many decisions still to come in the next month or so, the Supreme Court has already started to define itself in the post-Kennedy era. Certain patterns have emerged in the justices’ voting that distinguish this court from past courts.
The Georgetown University Supreme Court Institute (SCI) is seeking applicants for the position of director. SCI’s principal function is to provide moot courts to attorneys who will argue in the Supreme Court.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address the validity of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure Section 1207.04, under what circumstances a criminal defendant pursuing a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is entitled to relief under a
At the NCSL blog, Lisa Soronen looks at Monday’s opinion in Herrera v. Wyoming, in which the court held that “an old treaty allowing Native Americans to hunt on federal land is still valid.” At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie writes that “Justice [Neil] Gorsuch’s endorsement
In Merck Sharpe & Dohme v. Albrecht, the Supreme Court yesterday issued the latest in its burgeoning canon of drug pre-emption cases, offering clarity on the procedure for deciding pre-emption defenses, but little additional elucidation on the contours of those defenses.
Yesterday’s opinion in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC resolved a long-standing disagreement in the lower courts about what happens when a debtor exercises its statutory right to reject a contract in bankruptcy.
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued three opinions. In Herrera v. Wyoming, the court held 5-4 that the Crow Tribe did not lose its rights under an 1868 treaty to hunt on unoccupied federal lands when Wyoming became a state, and that establishment of a national forest did not make land within the forest categorically “occupied.” Gregory Ablavsky has this blog‘s opinion analysis.
For The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin report that several “petitions seeking Supreme Court review of abortion restrictions are currently pending, and the justices could act on some of them in coming weeks.” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost discusses what the court’s ruling last
In Herrera v. Wyoming, the Supreme Court today overruled the Wyoming courts and held that the Apsáalooke Nation, also known as the Crow Tribe, retains its treaty-guaranteed right to hunt on unoccupied lands outside its reservation.
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices added one new case to their merits docket for next term: Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry, a bankruptcy case.
In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court briefly covers the latest Supreme Court news before speaking with Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog and David Savage of the Los Angeles Times about abortion and recent legislation aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade.
Chief Justice John Roberts presents retired Justice Anthony Kennedy with the Henry J. Friendly Medal. “This award will inspire me in future years to bring again the message of civility and decency and progress to all of those who, like you, revere the law,” retired Justice Anthony Kennedy promised today as he received the Henry J. Friendly Medal at the American Law Institute’s annual meeting.
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the May 16 conference, granting Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, and its opinions in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, […]
The Supreme Court released orders from the May 16 conference on Monday; the justices granted Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC. On Monday, the justices released their opinions in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, Herrera v. Wyoming and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht.
Those of you paying close attention to oral argument in the Supreme Court this term may have noticed something unusual. In three cases (Sturgeon v. Frost, Gamble v. United States and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair), one of the advocates was a state government attorney arguing on behalf of a state or group of states as amicus curiae.
Briefly: At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley covers “two abortion controversies from Indiana and Louisiana on which the justices may act in the coming months.” At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro passes on former solicitor general Paul Clement’s “tips on how to get the Supreme Court to overturn a precedent.” In the latest episode of Rewire.News’ Boom!
Adam Liptak reports for The New York Times that although “[a]bortion rights are at risk at the Supreme Court, … the short-term threat may not come from extreme laws like the one passed by Alabama lawmakers” this week: “The court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is more likely to chip away
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. The world’s a mess: Tension in the Persian Gulf; turmoil in global trade; persistent conflict. The way things are going, many people can’t even seek comfort in simple escapism.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, how to determine the ownership of a tax refund paid to an affiliated group, the test that governs the assertion of legislative privilege in a racial-gerrymandering case under Shaw v. Reno, and the proper standard for successor liability for unpaid ERISA pension obligations.
Richard Re analyzes Monday’s opinion in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the court overruled a 40-year-old precedent and held that a state cannot be sued in the courts of another state without its consent, for this blog.
The following is a series of questions prompted by the forthcoming publication of Michael Bobelian’s “Battle for the Marble Palace: Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and the Forging of the Modern Supreme Court” (Schaffner Press, 2019).
In an already familiar 5-4 lineup, the Supreme Court has overruled Nevada v. Hall, which for 40 years has stood for the proposition that states generally lack sovereign immunity in one another’s courts.
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued decisions in three cases. In Apple v. Pepper, a divided court held that a lawsuit against Apple by iPhone users who allege that Apple is violating federal antitrust laws by requiring them to buy apps only from the company’s App Store can go forward.
Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post first published at Howe on the Court, that on Friday, “Republican legislators from Ohio and Michigan … asked the Supreme Court to put lower-court rulings that found partisan gerrymandering in those states on hold while they appeal”; the legislators argue
This morning a divided Supreme Court handed a major victory to the plaintiffs in a massive antitrust lawsuit against technology giant Apple. By a vote of 5-4, the justices allowed the lawsuit, brought by a group of iPhone users who allege that Apple is violating federal laws by requiring them to buy apps exclusively from Apple’s App Store, to go forward.
The Supreme Court on Monday expanded the time available under some circumstances to private parties, or relators, who bring whistleblower suits called “qui tam” actions under the False Claims Act, the Civil War-era statute meant to battle fraud in federal contracting.
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket for next term, nor did they act on petitions for review asking them to weigh in on an Indiana abortion law or an Oregon couple’s refusal to make a custom cake for a same-sex wedding.
In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court briefly covers the latest Supreme Court news before speaking with John Elwood about the essentials concerning petitions for certiorari.
Tensions over the death penalty resurfaced today at the Supreme Court. The justices declined to take up two petitions for review filed by death-row inmates in Alabama and Tennessee, in orders accompanied by opinions that were sometimes biting.