Showing 1–50 of 87 items published in January 2018, most recent first.
For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that President Donald Trump was “without a Supreme Court quorum” in the audience for last night’s State of the Union address, and that “[t]he four justices who [were] in attendance — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Neil
The justices are in recess but their actions—particularly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s—continue to attract attention.
On Friday the Supreme Court received a request from Republican legislators in Pennsylvania to temporarily block a ruling by the state’s supreme court invalidating the state’s federal congressional map. Amy Howe has this blog‘s coverage; her post first appeared at Howe on the Court.
The justices met on Friday for their February 16 conference; our “petitions to watch” for that conference are available at this link. The calendar for the February sitting, which begins on February 20, is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
The Supreme Court yesterday received yet another request to intervene in a state’s redistricting battle – this time from Republican legislators in Pennsylvania, who asked the justices to temporarily block a ruling by the state’s supreme court invalidating the state’s federal congressional map.
Redistricting challenges continue to come before the Supreme Court. Yesterday Pennsylvania asked the Supreme Court to step in and block temporarily a ruling by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania striking down the state’s federal congressional map.
Charles Rothfeld is special counsel at Mayer Brown. He will file an amicus brief on behalf of the State and Local Legal Center supporting the respondents in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky.
Yesterday the Supreme Court released its argument calendar for the March sitting, which begins on Monday, March 19. Amy Howe has this blog‘s coverage; her post first appeared at Howe on the Court.
Ken Klukowski is an attorney representing the American Civil Rights Union, which filed an amicus brief in support of the challengers in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, and is also senior legal editor for Breitbart News Network.
Elizabeth Slattery is a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and co-host of SCOTUS 101, a podcast about the Supreme Court. When was the last time a T-shirt changed the way you voted? Probably never, but the state of Minnesota thinks you’re much more impressionable.
Daniel I. Weiner is senior counsel and Christopher R. Deluzio is counsel for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. As the petitioners in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky would have it, the case is a classic First Amendment dispute.
For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[t]he justices agreed Tuesday to decide quickly whether to hear the Trump administration’s appeal of a federal district court’s order to restart the DACA program without waiting for an appeals court ruling,” and that “[b]y setting up a fast track for both
The Supreme Court released the calendar for its March sitting, which begins on March 19. The justices will hear nine hours of oral argument over six days, with three of those days featuring two hours of argument each and the other three slated for just one hour each.
Less than a week ago, the Supreme Court granted a request by North Carolina Republicans to block (at least temporarily) an order by a three-judge federal court in that state that would have required the state legislature to submit a new federal congressional map today.
Rodney Smolla is dean and professor of law at Widener University Delaware Law School. The Supreme Court should strike down the Minnesota statute at issue in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky.
In its first 5-4 merits decision of the term, the Supreme Court yesterday divided on the meaning of the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute’s tolling provision.
The Supreme Court released its rulings in three cases yesterday, placating court-watchers frustrated by the slow pace of opinions this term. Mark Walsh has a “view” from the courtroom for this blog.
J. Gerald Hebert is the senior director for voting rights and redistricting at the Campaign Legal Center. American political campaigns are extended crescendos of vitriol. Passions and tempers run high. But at the end of all the viciousness, the citizens cast their votes.
In 2010, Andrew Cilek went to his local polling place in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to vote. Cilek was wearing a T-shirt that had three different images on it: the Tea Party logo, the message “Don’t Tread on Me,” and an image of the Gadsden flag, which dates back to the American Revolution but is often associated these days with the Tea Party and libertarianism.
For this blog, Andrew Hamm reports that the Supreme Court will operate as usual for the foreseeable future despite the government shutdown.
It’s a federal courts feast this week, and the main course is a conversation with Professor Stephen Vladeck of the University of Texas School of Law, who argued for the petitioner in Dalmazzi v. United States.
The federal government’s attempts to define the statutory phrase “waters of the United States” — and in turn, to establish the geographic reach of the federal government’s regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act — have repeatedly spurred litigation over the years.
Almost 10 years ago, Theodore Wesby attended a party in the northeast section of Washington, D.C., that his own attorney would later describe as “raucous.” There were strippers offering lap dances, plenty of alcohol, people having sex upstairs, and (at least the smell of) marijuana.
Today is the first weekday of the federal government shutdown, but few court-watchers are surprised that the Supreme Court is open for business. As Andrew Hamm reported for this blog on Sunday, the court operated as usual during the 2013 and 1995 government shutdowns, even conducting its entire two-week argument session in October of 2013.
This morning the Supreme Court issued additional orders from last week’s conference. On Friday, the justices announced that they would review Hawaii’s challenge to the most recent iteration of the president’s “travel ban.” Today the court granted review in an environmental-law case, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
We live-blogged this morning as the Supreme Court released orders and opinions. The transcript of the live blog is available at this link.
On Monday the Supreme Court released additional orders from the January 19 conference on Monday. The justices granted Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Company.
As parts of the federal government shut down this weekend, the Supreme Court’s “opinion line” promises that on Monday the court will release orders and “there is a possibility of opinions.” Past recent shutdowns did not interfere with the court’s work, nor is the present situation expected to curtail it.
Last week a three-judge federal court in North Carolina struck down the state’s federal congressional map, ruling that Republicans had drawn the map to give themselves an advantage over Democrats – specifically, the court stressed, to guarantee Republicans’ “domination of the state’s congressional
In June 2012, President Barack Obama signed a policy known as “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (popularly known as DACA), a program that allows undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to apply for protection from deportation.
Last night the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to take the highly unusual step of agreeing to review a lower-court decision preventing the federal government from dismantling the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, even though the appeals court has not yet ruled on the case.
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Hall v. Hall Dalmazzi v. United States Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro McCoy v. Louisiana
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on the challenge to President Donald Trump’s September 24 order, the latest version of what is often known as his “travel ban,” which limited travel from eight countries: Libya, Iran, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela and Chad.
In its conference of January 19, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co. and Auer v. Robbins should be overruled; whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Andrew Kisela, the police officer who
Encino Motorcars v Navarro was up for a repeat performance yesterday, as the justices heard argument for the second time on the question whether the Fair Labor Standards Act protects the service advisors who greet you when you take your car to a dealership for service.
Yesterday the justices heard oral argument in two cases. The first was Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, which asks whether service advisors at car dealerships are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime-pay requirements. Mark Walsh offers a first-hand account of the argument for this blog.
This morning’s oral argument in Hall v. Hall addressed two related issues. One is the effect of consolidating separate civil actions and whether they become a single action or retain separate identities. The second is how that affects the timing of and obligation to appeal.
This morning the justices will hear oral argument in two cases. First up is Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, which asks whether service advisors at car dealerships are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime-pay requirements. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in the case of Robert McCoy, a Louisiana death-row inmate who says that he should get a new trial because his own lawyer told jurors that he was guilty – over McCoy’s express objection.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relists. True to form for the second conference in January, last week’s 18 new relists yielded 12 new cases and 11 hours of oral argument. (Texas’ two state-on-top appeals concerning its congressional and statehouse voting districts were consolidated.)
The transcript in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in McCoy v. Louisiana is also available.
There are some 40,000 job classifications in the United States (a figure used by Justice Stephen Breyer today). Under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, many are eligible for overtime pay. Many others are expressly exempt, either under the statute or under Department of Labor regulations.
This morning the justices will hear oral argument in two cases. First up is civil procedure case Hall v. Hall, which asks when a judgment dismissing one action is final and appealable when multiple actions were consolidated for all purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42.
The Supreme Court issued additional orders this morning from last Friday’s conference. The justices added 12 new cases, for a total of 11 hours of argument, to their calendar for this term last week, but they did not add any new cases today.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in the case of several members of the armed forces, who were convicted by military courts-martial of offenses ranging from the relatively minor (wrongful use of a controlled substance) to the serious (sexual misconduct).
The transcript in Hall v. Hall is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in Dalmazzi v. United States is also available.
This week, we start with some bad news and some good news. The bad news? The Supreme Court has a mouse problem. The good news? Serial Supreme Court litigant Fane Lozman is on Twitter, and he’s a Friend of the Show.
The Supreme Court released additional orders from the January 12 conference on Tuesday. The court did not add any new cases to its docket. On Tuesday the justices heard oral argument in Hall v. Hall and Dalmazzi v. United States.
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado Florida v. Georgia Byrd v. United States Collins v. Virginia Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
Briefly: At the Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen explains why he expects the court to announce this afternoon that it will review several redistricting cases from Texas, remarking that “[i]t is shaping up to be a blockbuster term on gerrymandering at the Supreme Court.” In an op-ed for the Washington