This week at the court
The justices are on their summer recess.
June 2019 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 138 items published in June 2019, most recent first.
Opinion analysis: No role for courts in partisan gerrymandering (Updated)
Editor’s Note: This post, first published at 1:17 p.m., was expanded at 8:50 p.m. The Supreme Court issued a decision today that could have a significant and long-term effect on elections and legislatures across the country.
Opinion analysis: Court upholds warrantless blood tests for unconscious drunk-driving suspects
Yesterday a divided Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment generally does not bar states from taking a blood sample from an unconscious drunk-driving suspect without a warrant.
Gerrymandering symposium: Time to find someone else to solve partisan gerrymandering
Andrew Pinson is the Solicitor General of Georgia. Georgia joined nine other states in filing an amicus brief in support of the appellants in Rucho v. Common Cause.
Gerrymandering symposium: Janus-like judicial restraint in political gerrymanders and the census
Ken Klukowski is Of Counsel at First Liberty Institute, Senior Legal Analyst for Breitbart News and Senior Fellow at the American Civil Rights Union. Observers studying the partisan-gerrymander cases on the last day of the Supreme Court’s term would have at least two takeaways: First, this is the Roberts Court in every sense of the word.
Gerrymandering symposium: Court to foxes — Please guard henhouse
Benjamin D. Battles is the Vermont solicitor general. Vermont, along with 20 other states and the District of Columbia, submitted an amicus curiae brief in Rucho v. Common Cause. The Supreme Court has declared the federal judiciary closed for business when it comes to partisan gerrymandering.
Census symposium: Unusual facts make for unusual decisions
Nicholas Bronni serves as the solicitor general for the state of Arkansas, which co-authored an amicus brief joined by 14 other states supporting the government in Department of Commerce v. Southern District of New York.
Census symposium: The unanswered census question
Kaylan Phillips serves as litigation counsel for the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a 501(c)(3) public-interest law firm dedicated to election integrity.
Census symposium: A win for the deep state
Christopher J. Hajec is Director of Litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which filed an amicus brief in support of the administration in Department of Commerce v. New York.
Census symposium: A place for pretext in administrative law?
Jennifer Nou is Professor of Law and Ronald H. Coase Teaching Scholar at University of Chicago Law School. With Department of Commerce v. New York, the Trump administration continues its losing streak in court under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Friday round-up
Yesterday the Supreme Court closed out its October 2018 term, releasing decisions in its most closely watched cases.
Census symposium: Roberts Court stops the census citizenship question … for now
Juan Cartagena is president and general counsel at LatinoJustice PRLDEF, which filed an amicus brief in support of the challengers in Department of Commerce v. New York. “Contrived.” Read: fabricated, pretextual, a lie.
Justices will weigh in on DACA termination (Updated)
Editor’s Note: This post, originally published at 10:54 a.m., was expanded at 11:39 a.m.
Gerrymandering symposium: The racial implications of yesterday’s partisan gerrymandering decision
Kristen Clarke is the president and executive director and Jon Greenbaum is the chief counsel of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The Lawyers’ Committee submitted an amicus brief in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek.
Gerrymandering symposium: Finally finality from the Supreme Court on partisan gerrymandering
Justin Riemer is Chief Counsel of the Republican National Committee, which filed an amicus brief in support of the state in Rucho v. Common Cause. The Supreme Court’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause is a triumph of judicial prudence.
Gerrymandering symposium: Supreme Court confirms that it will not save our maps, only voters can
Thomas P. Wolf (@tomtmwolf) is Counsel with the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, which filed an amicus brief in support of the challengers in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek.
Video: Tom Goldstein and Sarah Harrington recap OT2018 with Casetext
Earlier today, Tom Goldstein and Sarah Harrington hosted a webinar with Casetext discussing the major cases of October Term 2018, including yesterday’s decisions in the partisan-gerrymandering and census-citizenship cases. A recording of the webinar is available here.
Final Stat Pack for October Term 2018
The Supreme Court term is now complete, resolving cases that had generated months of speculation. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote majority opinions in two of the most anticipated decisions of the term, Department of Commerce v. New York and Rucho v. Common Cause, bringing his total majority-opinion authorship count to seven.
Live blog of orders (Update: Completed)
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the June 27 conference. The justices granted 13 cases, for a total of 11 hours of oral argument next term. The […]
Opinion analysis: Divided court throws out additional jail time for sex offender
In 2010, Andre Haymond was convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to 38 months in prison, followed by 10 years of supervised release. He was also required to register as a sex offender.
Opinion analysis: Court orders do-over on citizenship question in census case (Updated)
Editor’s Note: This post, originally published at 12:49 p.m., was expanded at 5:48 p.m. The fate of a question about citizenship on the 2020 census remains up in the air today.
Symposium: Kisor v. Wilkie – A swing and a miss
Eric S. Schmitt is the Attorney General of Missouri. Kisor v. Wilkie missed a golden opportunity to restore the role of federalism and the separation of powers in federal administrative law. Where the federal courts have whiffed, state courts should step up to the plate.
Symposium: Shadow boxing with the administrative state
Thomas W. Merrill is the Charles Evans Hughes Professor at Columbia Law School. He filed an amicus brief in support of the challenger in Kisor v. Wilkie. An important subcurrent in today’s Supreme Court concerns the legitimacy of the administrative state.
Symposium: Laying bare the realpolitik of administrative deconstruction
Daniel Walters is an assistant professor of law at Penn State Law. The first line in Justice Neil Gorsuch’s partial concurrence in Kisor v. Wilkie says it all: “It should have been easy for the Court to say goodbye to Auer v. Robbins.” Here, Gorsuch betrays a hint of chastened bewilderment in an otherwise fiery, confident performance.
Symposium: Auer deference — Supreme Court chooses evolution, not revolution
Ronald Levin is the William R. Orthwein Distinguished Professor of Law at Washington University in St. Louis. He and other “Administrative Law Scholars” submitted an amicus brief in Kisor v. Wilkie, supporting Auer deference.
Symposium: In “Gundy II,” Auer survives by a vote of 4.6 to 4.4
Michael Herz is the Arthur Kaplan Professor of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University. Under the “Auer doctrine,” named for the 1997 decision Auer v. Robbins, courts accept an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation unless that interpretation is clearly erroneous, or flatly inconsistent with the text of the regulation, or unreasonable, or something like that.
Thursday round-up
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued three opinions, and Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the term will end today; five cases remain to be decided, including cases involving partisan gerrymandering and the government’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.
Symposium: A small win for James Kisor; a big loss for the Constitution
Cory L. Andrews and Corbin K. Barthold are, respectively, Senior Litigation Counsel and Litigation Counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in support of the challenger in Kisor v. Wilkie.
Afternoon round-up: Rucho v. Common Cause
This morning the court issued a 5-4 opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause, which was consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek, ruling that partisan-gerrymandering challenges to electoral maps are political questions that are not reviewable in federal court.
Afternoon round-up: Department of Commerce v. New York
This morning the court issued a 5-4 opinion in Department of Commerce v. New York, which ruled that the addition of a question about citizenship to 2020 census does not violate the Constitution’s enumerations clause or the Census Act, but that the district court was warranted in remanding the case to Department of Commerce to provide a nonpretextual explanation for adding the question.
A “view” from the courtroom: “With respect but deep sadness”
Today, the court intends to announce “all remaining opinions ready” from this term, as Chief Justice John Roberts put it Wednesday. Some cases are more ready than others, it will turn out. But first, we have nearly an hour of some pretty intense drama.
Live blog of opinions (Update: Completed)
We live-blogged as the justices released their opinions in Mitchell v. Wisconsin, Rucho v. Common Cause, Lamone v. Benisek. and Department of Commerce v. New York. The justices set Carpenter v. Murphy for reargument in the fall. […]
Opinion analysis: A total victory for Total Wine in 21st Amendment dispute
Nearly 90 years ago, the 21st Amendment ended Prohibition and gave states broad power to regulate alcoholic beverages. Today, the Supreme Court ruled that the states’ power is not unlimited.
Opinion analysis: Justices leave agency deference doctrine in place – with limits (Updated)
Editor’s Note: This post, originally published at 11:49 a.m., was expanded at 1:26 p.m. A divided Supreme Court issued a major opinion on administrative law today.
Government responds in census case; 4th Circuit remands Maryland case for more fact-finding (Second Update)
Editor’s Note: This post, originally published at 3:45 p.m. on Tuesday, was updated at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday and again at 8:19 a.m. Wednesday. The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census by the end of the week.
Wednesday round-up
Yesterday brought more developments in lower-court litigation stemming from the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census, the subject of a separate case, Department of Commerce v. New York, which the Supreme Court is expected to decide this week.
Afternoon round-up: Kisor v. Wilkie
This morning the court issued an opinion in Kisor v. Wilkie. The court voted unanimously to send the case of veteran James Kisor back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which had upheld a decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs to retroactively deny Kisor benefits.
A “view” from the courtroom: What the Constitution means to me
The court enters the day with eight argued cases remaining, and a strong presumption that there will be at least one more day of opinions, because Chief Justice John Roberts, on Monday, did not give his traditional announcement that the next court session would be the last one of the term.
Relist Watch
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. Greetings and welcome to the last Relist Watch of the year. It’s been a time of great excitement for the Supreme Court bar. If it were not enough that the court is reconsidering basic doctrine, there have been exciting moves among the bar itself.
Challengers urge justices not to decide racial-discrimination claim in census case
With less than 24 hours before the justices are expected to issue their final decisions of the term, yet another filing in the dispute over the decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census arrived at the Supreme Court.
Live blog of opinions (Update: Completed)
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released opinions in three argued cases: United States v. Haymond, Kisor v. Wilkie, and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Thomas. The transcript is available […]
Petitions of the week
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, what a court can consider when finding “circumstantial guarantees of [the] trustworthiness” of a hearsay statement, the proof a parent claiming substantive due process violations must submit to
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday the justices continued to chip away at their merits docket for this term, issuing four opinions; they will return to the bench on Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. to hand down rulings in some of the eight cases remaining.
From 12 to 8: Final countdown at the Supreme Court
In this week’s episode of SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe of Howe on the Court reviews Monday’s Supreme Court orders and opinions. The justices released their decisions in four argued cases: Iancu v. Brunetti, United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
Third Interim Stat Pack for October Term 2018
This is a busy time for the Supreme Court, which is slated to provide decisions in 24 cases over the final two-week span of the term. This equates to over one third of its 69 argued cases with expected decisions.
Monday round-up
On Friday the justices released four more opinions, leaving 12 to be decided before the Supreme Court’s summer recess. In Flowers v. Mississippi, the case of Curtis Flowers, who was tried six times for the same murders, the justices held 7-2 that a prosecutor’s repeated use of peremptory challenges to remove black people from the jury pool violated the Constitution.
Justices bulk up next term’s docket
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from last week’s conference. The justices granted review in eight cases, for a total of five hours of argument, including in a trio of cases involving the federal government’s failure to fully reimburse health insurance companies for losses created as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
Opinion analysis: Vagueness doctrine as a shield for criminal defendants
Today, as expected, the Supreme Court invalidated 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). In United States v. Davis, the court declared that the categorical approach is dead, and with it Section 924(c)(3)(B).
A “view” from the courtroom: From the T-shirt shop to the high seas
With 12 opinions remaining, no one expects today to be the last day of the court’s term. Still, there is an air of anticipation and some special guests are in the courtroom this morning.
Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information
In Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, the Supreme Court held today that the Freedom of Information Act allows a federal agency to withhold from disclosure records submitted by a private entity when the submitter keeps the records secret and the agency promises to keep the records from disclosure.