Showing 1–50 of 77 items published in October 2019, most recent first.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether compulsory display-and-describe ultrasound laws, such as the Kentucky Ultrasound Informed Consent Act, abridge physicians’ freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment; whether a
For The Washington Post (subscription required), Robert Barnes reports that in a public appearance yesterday at Georgetown Law with the Clintons, “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she knew there was concern about President Bill Clinton nominating a 60-year-old to the Supreme Court when he picked her in 1993”; “‘If you worried about my age, it was unnecessary,'” she continued.
Briefly: At Boise State Public Radio (via How Appealing), James Dawson reports that “[l]awyers representing several homeless people are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a request from the city of Boise to review the legality of its anti-camping ordinance,” in City of Boise, Idaho v. Martin.
The central regulatory construct of the Clean Water Act is the requirement of a permit for the addition to the nation’s waters of any pollutant that comes “from any point source.” Congress’ high hopes for the cleansing power of the act’s permitting system are reflected in the name Congress chose
The argument next week in Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander asks the justices to apply their 2014 decision in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. The current case may allow the justices to offer guidance on how to reconcile two dissonant themes from that decision.
Briefly: At Bloomberg Law, Evan Weinberger reports that “[t]he Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could lose leverage in enforcement negotiations as the Supreme Court considers whether its leadership structure is unconstitutional,” in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Having decided two maritime-law cases during its October 2018 term, the Supreme Court will consider its third admiralty case in just over a year when it hears argument in CITGO Asphalt Refining Company v. Frescati Shipping Company on November 5.
From historically entertaining facts spring important, even if not always riveting, legal issues. Such is the case in Allen v. Cooper, to be argued on November 5. The legal issue is whether Congress can subject states to suit for damages for copyright infringement.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists, after a fashion. The work crunch continues at my day job, so another, uh, … succinct installment today. Two noteworthy changes this week.
At CNBC, Tucker Higgins reports that Janet Napolitano, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama and now president of the University of California system, “will head to war against President Donald Trump in a blockbuster fight at the Supreme Court,” in Department
With public attention focused squarely on the DACA litigation, Barton v. Barr is not the marquee immigration case for the October 2019 term. Nevertheless, the case presents a compelling question of statutory interpretation, and has the potential to affect thousands of noncitizens with criminal records who face removal from the United States.
Next Monday, November 4, the Supreme Court will hear argument in a case that asks whether it is reasonable to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is currently its driver.
If you let freedom ring, its tone would be civil. This was the resounding theme at events in Philadelphia this weekend featuring retired Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Neil Gorsuch, who both asserted that civility and liberty are imperative to the functioning of our democracy.
On Friday, the justices released orders from their November 1 conference. The justices added one new case, Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, to their merits docket.
Briefly: For The Washington Post (subscription required), Robert Barnes looks at recent polls that measured the public’s view of the Supreme Court, noting that one poll revealed a surprising “amount of support for increasing the number of justices.” At Bloomberg Law, Jordan Rubin reports that
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether a person can be “seized” under the Fourth Amendment when he is not confined to a particular space, in a case arising out of Officer Darren Wilson’s “move on” order to Dorian Johnson and
When the Supreme Court hears oral argument early next year in the challenge to the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership structure, the CFPB itself will not be defending statutory restrictions on the president’s ability to remove the CFPB director from office.
Yesterday the Supreme Court invited Paul Clement, who served as U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, to defend the structure of the CFPB against a constitutional challenge in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Briefly: For The New York Times (subscription required), Adam Liptak reports that “[t]he Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request from more than two dozen multinational energy companies to block a state court lawsuit brought by the city of Baltimore seeking to hold the companies accountable for
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued additional orders from the justices’ private conference last Friday, adding no new cases to their merits docket. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.
Public faith in government has fallen to historic lows. The Supreme Court, however, appears to have bucked the trend. A number of recent polls demonstrate broad public support for the job the justices are doing, though this approval appears influenced by party alignment.
Oyez has posted the aligned audio and transcripts from last week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument last week in: Financial Oversight Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment Kansas v. Garcia Rotkiske v. Klemm Mathena v. Malvo
On Friday afternoon, the justices added four cases to their merits docket, including Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a constitutional challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Three days after adding another blockbuster case, involving the president’s ability to fire the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to their docket for this term, the justices this morning issued additional orders from their private conference last week.
Supreme Court oral arguments are not entirely what they seem. Although at first blush they may appear to be an opportunity for attorneys to make their arguments directly to the justices, they often become occasions for the justices to test out their theories of a given case and to gauge other justices’ positions on given topics.
On Monday, the Supreme Court released additional orders from the October 18 conference. The justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard argument in Rotkiske v. Klemm. What seemed like a run-of-the-mill statutory-interpretation case revealed itself to be deeply convoluted, involving uncertainty both about which issues had been waived in earlier proceedings and what the question presented even means.
Briefly: Pratheepan Gulasekaram analyzes Wednesday’s oral argument in Kansas v. Garcia, which asks whether federal immigration law preempts a state prosecution for identity theft based on using someone else’s Social Security number to obtain employment, for this blog.
The website of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created in 2010 under the Dodd-Frank Act as a response to the 2008 financial crisis, describes the CFPB as a “U.S. government agency that makes sure banks, lenders, and other financial companies treat you fairly.” Today the Supreme Court
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the First Amendment invalidates a longstanding state constitutional provision limiting judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a “bare majority” on the state’s highest
The Supreme Court heard oral argument yesterday in Kansas v. Garcia, which presents a potential conflict between state identity-theft prosecutions and federal immigration law.
This week on SCOTUStalk, Amy Howe sits down with Kevin Russell to discuss the oral arguments in the LGBT employment discrimination cases heard by the court last week.
Yesterday the justices heard argument in Mathena v. Malvo, in which convicted D.C.-area sniper Lee Boyd Malvo is asking the court to overturn his sentence of life without parole for murders committed in Virginia in 2002, when Malvo was 17.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relists … barely.
Today is a three-argument day at the Supreme Court. First up is Kansas v. Garcia, which asks whether federal immigration law preempts a state prosecution for identity theft based on using someone else’s Social Security number to obtain employment.
As much as it is discussed and debated, especially lately, there is remarkably little case law concerning “executive privilege”—the idea that there are at least some internal executive branch communications that are shielded against compelled disclosure.
It has been 17 years since John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, known as the “D.C. snipers,” shot and killed 12 people and injured six more. The Washington, D.C., area was paralyzed with fear until the then-42-year-old Muhammad and Malvo, who was then 17, were arrested at a Maryland rest stop.
This morning the Supreme Court will hear 80 minutes of argument in five cases consolidated under Financial Oversight Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, which ask whether the members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board were appointed in violation of the Constitution’s appointments clause, and, if so, whether the board’s decisions should be invalidated.
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from last week’s private conference. The justices did not add any new cases to their docket for this term.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument this morning in a dispute over the validity of appointments to a board created by Congress to bring financial stability back to Puerto Rico.
On Tuesday, the justices released orders from their October 11 conference and heard oral argument in Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC. On Wednesday, the court heard oral argument in Kansas v. Garcia, Rotkiske v. Klemm and Mathena v. Malvo.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether district courts have inherent authority to release grand jury materials in extraordinary circumstances, as in the case of a researcher investigating the 1956 Galíndez affair, and whether
In an op-ed at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), John Bursch pushes back against “one of the advocates’ main arguments” in a trio of cases the court heard this week about whether federal law protects employees from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or
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: Kahler v. Kansas Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. Ramos v. Louisiana Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC
This summer was another busy one for the Supreme Court. During the summer term — which we define as the period between the last day October Term 2018 decisions were handed down (June 27, 2019) and the first day of oral arguments for OT 2019 (October 7, 2019) — the justices participated in 52 events.
In the fall of 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo terrorized the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. Dubbed the “D.C. snipers,” Muhammad and Malvo randomly shot and killed 12 people and badly injured six more.
At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery writes that “[a]fter two hours of oral argument and dozens of questions” Tuesday in a trio of high-profile civil-rights cases involving LGBT employees, “there was not much agreement among the justices.” In an op-ed at Forbes, Michael Bobelian suggests that,
Capitol of Puerto Rico The Constitution’s appointments clause provides that the president nominates, but the Senate must confirm, principal “Officers of the United States,” although Congress can also give the president the power to appoint “inferior Officers.” Next week the Supreme Court will hear
On Wednesday, October 16, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Rotkiske v. Klemm, yet another case arising from the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Yesterday the court heard oral arguments in a trio of high-profile civil-rights cases involving LGBT employees: consolidated cases Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.