Showing 1–50 of 80 items published in November 2019, most recent first.
Briefly: At Reuters, Andrew Chung talks to one of the plaintiffs in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, a high-profile challenge to New York City’s limits on transporting personal firearms that will be argued on Monday.
Yesterday the Supreme Court released the calendar for the February argument session, which begins on February 24, 2020, and runs through the first week in March. Amy Howe covers the announcement for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.
For nearly a century, the Anaconda Smelter, located in southwestern Montana, refined copper ore for use in phone wires and power lines. The smelter shut down in 1980, the same year that Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act to manage and clean up hazardous-waste sites, dubbed “Superfund” sites.
When Congress dramatically narrowed federal post-conviction review of state criminal convictions in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, one of the central changes was to make it almost impossible for state prisoners to bring “second-or-successive” federal habeas petitions—to
Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), participants in employer-sponsored retirement plans – including 401(k) plans – have the right to challenge the prudence of decisions that plan fiduciaries make in selecting and managing the investment options available to participants.
Supreme Court justices live dual lives. On one hand they generally manage to stay out of the limelight while actually doing their jobs. Even with pressure to the contrary, the justices have managed to keep cameras out of the court and to limit the release of audio recordings of oral arguments to the Fridays after the arguments are heard.
Ten days ago lawyers for President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to temporarily block a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld a subpoena for Trump’s financial records.
Yesterday evening the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld a subpoena for Trump’s financial records. This blog‘s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court, comes from Amy Howe.
Where’s my refund? Millions of Americans ask that question each spring as they await checks from the Internal Revenue Service for tax overpayments. The question takes on added significance if your refund exceeds $4 million and you are teetering on the edge of insolvency.
This morning the Supreme Court released the calendar for the justices’ February argument session, which begins on Monday, February 24, and runs through the first week of March. During the session, the court will hear nine hours of oral argument over six days.
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Georgia v Public.Resource.Org next week, on the first day of its December argument session. An outsider might be surprised that the question presented in this case is not well settled.
The justices added one case to their merits docket on Friday: FNU [First Name Unknown] Tanzin v. Tanvir, which asks whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows lawsuits for money damages against individual federal employees.
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this post ran on November 18, 2019, as an introduction to this blog’s symposium on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, as well as at Howe on the Court, where it was originally published.
Of the two cases involving subpoenas for President Donald Trump’s financial records that are currently before the Supreme Court, the D.C. case—arising out of a subpoena to Mazars from the House Oversight Committee—is likely to generate larger headlines when the justices rule on Trump’s application to stay enforcement of the subpoena for the duration of his forthcoming appeal.
This morning the Supreme Court issued more orders from last week’s private conference. The justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket for this term, and they denied review in several closely watched cases.
On Monday at 9:30 a.m., the court released additional orders from the November 22 conference. The justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket.
UPDATED: The Supreme Court’s Public Information Office reported on Sunday afternoon that Ginsburg had been discharged from the hospital; she is “home and doing well.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was admitted to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore on Friday night.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether federal disability-discrimination law generally prohibits employers from taking adverse action against qualified employees and applicants on the basis of conduct caused by their disabilities,
For the Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports that “[l]awyers for the House, citing the ‘rapidly advancing impeachment inquiry,’ urged the Supreme Court on Thursday to reject President Trump’s bid to shield his tax returns and financial records from congressional investigators.” At CNN, Ariane de
The Supreme Court added one new case to its merits docket this morning. The justices agreed to hear the government’s appeal in FNU [First Name Unknown] Tanzin v. Tanvir, a dispute over whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows lawsuits for money damages against individual federal employees.
Briefly: Kimberly Robinson reports at Bloomberg Law that “[a] bipartisan bill strengthening security permanently for U.S. Supreme Court justices when they travel domestically or overseas is on its way to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature.” At Quartz, Ephrat Livni looks at Google v.
Clare Kindall is the Solicitor General for the state of Connecticut. Connecticut joined a multi-state amicus brief filed in support of the respondents in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.
Michelle Ghetti is Deputy Solicitor General for the state of Louisiana, which authored a multi-state amicus brief in support of the petitioners in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.
Briefly: For The National Law Journal, Marcia Coyle reports that “[d]espite putting a temporary hold Monday on a decision approving a U.S. House Committee subpoena for President Trump’s financial records, the U.S. Supreme Court soon will face a more critical question: whether to hear and decide the
Joseph Blocher is Lanty L. Smith ’67 Professor of Law at Duke Law School, where he co-directs the Center for Firearms Law. Eric Ruben is Assistant Professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law and a Brennan Center Fellow.
David B. Kopel is Research Director at the Independence Institute and an Adjunct Professor at University of Denver, Sturm College of Law. Randy Barnett is Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at Georgetown Law.
Jessica Bulman-Pozen is a Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. Adam M. Samaha is the Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties at NYU Law. They co-authored an amicus brief on behalf of federal courts scholars in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.
Joe Davis and Nick Reaves are Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which filed an amicus brief in support of neither party in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York.
For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Monday temporarily blocked an appeals court ruling that required President Trump to turn over financial records to a House committee.” At the Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that the court’s order “means House
John Elwood hastily reviews Monday’s relists. This week’s excuse for a short post requires just two words: Amtrak WiFi. Finding that one link took me from Baltimore to Wilmington. But at least I only had to reconnect 47 times.
On Friday, the justices added four cases to their merits docket for the term, for a total of three hours of oral argument. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from last week’s private conference. The justices granted four cases from that conference on Friday afternoon, so they did not add new cases to their docket today.
It has been nearly 10 years since the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms applies fully to state and local governments.
On Monday, the court released additional orders from the November 15 conference. On Friday, the court met for the November 22 conference. The justices released orders before noon, adding one new case, FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir, to their merits docket.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, whether the government may commence removal proceedings by serving a noncitizen with a “notice to appear” that fails to specify the hearing’s time and place, whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act
For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “President Trump asked the Supreme Court Thursday to block New York prosecutors from obtaining eight years of his tax returns, setting up a landmark separation of powers battle.” Jess Bravin, Brent Kendall and Corinne Ramey report for The Wall Street Journal
Late Thursday afternoon, the first case arising out of a subpoena dispute involving President Donald Trump reached the Supreme Court when the president’s personal lawyers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in Trump v. Vance.
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: Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California Hernandez v. Mesa Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC
This afternoon the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference earlier in the day. The justices granted four petitions for review, two of which will be consolidated, for a total of three additional hours of argument this term. The cases will likely be argued early next year.
Yesterday lawyers for President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ordering the president to provide New York prosecutors with his tax returns.
The Supreme Court last night denied both applications (here and here) to block the execution of Ray Jefferson Cromartie, who was sentenced to death for the 1994 murder of Richard Slysz. Georgia was set to execute Cromartie by lethal injection at 7:00 p.m.
Yesterday the court heard argument in Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, in which the justices considered whether, in a claim under a federal statute that prohibits race discrimination in contracting, a plaintiff is required to show that the defendant’s action would not have been taken but for the alleged discrimination.
John Elwood hastily reviews Tuesday’s relists. It’s a perfect storm: A week already shortened by Veterans Day made shorter still by an unprecedented gathering of high–functioning introverts.
For the second time in less than three years, the family of Sergio Hernandez was at the Supreme Court today for oral argument. In 2010, Sergio – who was then 15 years old – was on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border when he was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol agent, Jesus Mesa.
This morning the Supreme Court issued more orders from last week’s private conference. After granting one new case last Friday, the justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket for the term, nor did they make any new requests for the views of the federal government.
This morning the Supreme Court wraps up the November session with two more oral arguments.
In a 2015 article for The Washington Post reviewing Melvin Urofsky’s book, “Dissent and the Supreme Court,” David Cole wrote, “What determines a great dissent … is not necessarily the power of the argument but the shifting tides of history. … History, not rhetoric or cogency, determines whether a dissent wins out in the long run.
This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a lawsuit filed by Entertainment Studios Network, a media company owned by African American entrepreneur and entertainer Byron Allen, against cable giant Comcast.
I suggested in my preview of Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry that the argument might tell us a great deal about how the Supreme Court will approach this technical bankruptcy matter.
This morning the Supreme Court begins the second week of the November session with two oral arguments. First up is Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, a high-profile challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to terminate the DACA program, which allowed immigrants brought to this country illegally as children to apply for protection from deportation.