Showing 1–50 of 93 items published in March 2018, most recent first.
The petitions of the day are: Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Wyoming 17-1159 Issue: Whether—when the Supreme Court has instructed that only Congress may diminish the boundaries of an Indian reservation, and only when its intent is clear and plain—Congress evinced a clear and plain intent in the 1905 Act to diminish the Wind River Reservation by nearly two-thirds simply by using language of cession.
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: United States v. Sanchez-Gomez China Agritech v. Resh Hughes v. United States Koons v. United States Benisek v. Lamone
Court-watchers continue to report and comment on Wednesday’s oral argument in Benisek v. Lamone, a high-profile partisan-gerrymandering challenge by Republican voters to a Democratic-leaning congressional district in Maryland.
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard argument in Benisek v. Lamone, a high-profile partisan-gerrymandering challenge by Republican voters to a Democratic-leaning congressional district in Maryland. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog; her analysis first appeared at Howe on the Court.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. This is spring break for many American schoolchildren, meaning that they’re spending the week in exotic destinations, trying local specialties, and enjoying beautiful scenery with their loving parents.
Erik Hughes was federally indicted in 2013 on four methamphetamine- and firearm-related offenses. He pleaded guilty to two charges, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 500 grams of methamphetamine and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
The issue before the Supreme Court in Koons v. United States concerns the application of 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), which allows federal judges to modify a prison term for a “defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the
The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in a challenge to Maryland’s 6th congressional district, which stretches north and west from the Washington, D.C., suburbs.
In its conference of March 29, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the death penalty, in and of itself, violates the Eighth Amendment in light of contemporary standards of decency and the geographic arbitrariness of its imposition; whether the Indiana procedure
This morning the Supreme Court wraps up the March session by hearing oral argument in Benisek v. Lamone, a high-profile partisan-gerrymandering challenge by Republican voters to a Democratic-leaning congressional district in Maryland.
The transcript in Benisek v. Lamone is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
In the Supreme Court’s first decision of the term, Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited language from the court’s 2010 decision in Magwood v. Patterson stipulating that “[w]e cannot replace the actual text with speculation as to Congress’ intent.”
Monday’s argument in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez featured an active bench asking probing questions of both sides and allowing the attorneys to offer lengthy answers.
The audience didn’t hear quite what it expected yesterday when the Supreme Court turned to the class-action realm at the argument in China Agritech v. Resh.
This morning the justices will hear oral argument in two cases. First up is Hughes v. United States, which involves how to determine the precedential effect of Supreme Court decisions with no majority opinion. Justin Marceau previewed the case for this blog.
In an opinion laden with Chief Justice John Roberts’ historical and rhetorical flourishes, a unanimous Supreme Court in Hall v. Hall held that civil actions consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) retain their separate identities, so that a final decision in one action is immediately appealable by the losing party, even if other actions in the consolidated proceeding remain.
The transcript in Hughes v. United States is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in Koons v. United States is also available.
In the summer of 1969, shortly after his confirmation as chief justice, Warren Burger stood at the lectern in his new courtroom. Burger faced a straight bench, with the justices’ chairs arranged in a line.
We live-blogged this morning as the Supreme Court released its opinion in Hall v. Hall. The transcript of the live blog is available below and at this link.
The second week of the March argument session begins this morning with oral arguments in two cases. The first is United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, in which the justices will consider limits on appellate jurisdiction and mootness in the context of a challenge to a federal court district-wide policy of shackling defendants for most nonjury proceedings.
Live from Yale Law School, it’s First Mondays! We’re joined by Joseph Goldstein Lecturer in Law and Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence Linda Greenhouse.
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The court did not add any new cases to its merits docket for next term, nor did it call for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in any cases.
The transcript in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in China Agritech Inc. v. Resh is also available.
The first case for argument in the Supreme Court this morning has a very interesting underlying issue: whether a policy of shackling all criminal defendants at pretrial appearances in a federal district court is constitutional.
On Monday the Supreme Court released orders from the March 23 conference. The court did not add any new cases to its merits docket for next term, nor did it call for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in any cases. On Tuesday the justices released their decision in Hall v. Hall.
In October, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case alleging that Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature had drawn the state’s redistricting plan to put Democrats at a disadvantage – a claim known as “partisan gerrymandering.” The plaintiffs challenging that plan argued that it
As the first week of the March argument session winds down, Susan Morse has this blog‘s opinion analysis in Marinello v. United States, in which the court held on Wednesday that to convict a defendant of impeding the administration of the tax code, the government must prove that the defendant knew of or could have foreseen a tax-related proceeding.
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: Sveen v. Melin National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren
If the Supreme Court unanimously sides with a death-row inmate in a federal habeas case, chances are that the lower-court decision was clearly wrong, and the justices’ own disposition is remarkably narrow.
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday in a 7-2 decision that the federal government must prove a “nexus” between a particular administrative proceeding and a taxpayer’s conduct in order to secure a conviction under the “omnibus clause” in Section 7212(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, which makes it a
In its conference of March 23, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether a state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18
The Supreme Court issued two opinions yesterday. In Ayestas v. Davis, the justices held unanimously that the lower court had applied too demanding a standard in determining when the funding of services for a criminal defendant in a capital case is necessary.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. All activity in Washington, D.C., may have ground to a halt because of snow, but the Supreme Court has entered a time of unparalleled productivity on the relist front.
Today the Supreme Court dismissed Salt River Project v. Tesla Energy Operations Inc. at the request of the parties. The Supreme Court had granted certiorari in this case on the question of whether a district-court order denying antitrust state-action immunity may be appealed immediately, or only after a final judgment.
The oral argument in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund was notable for the repeated expression by the justices of frustration at the “gibberish” Congress provided in the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.
Over the objection of four justices, the Supreme Court tonight blocked Missouri from executing Russell Bucklew, who was scheduled to die tonight. Bucklew was convicted for the 1996 murder of Michael Sanders, who was living at the time with Bucklew’s former girlfriend, Stephanie Ray.
This morning the justices will hear oral argument in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, in which they will consider tribal immunity from state-court actions to adjudicate title to land. Ronald Mann had this blog‘s preview.
The transcript in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
In the pre-dawn hours this morning, the website of the Office of Personnel Management delivered the news about whether an impending snowstorm in the Washington area would close executive-branch agencies. “FEDERAL OFFICES in the Washington, DC area are CLOSED,” the notice said.
At SCOTUSblog, we try to provide the public with access to as much comprehensive information about the Supreme Court as we can. Many of our efforts focus on case coverage and commentary, whether through our own reporting and analysis, online symposia of outside contributors or links in our daily round-ups to content available elsewhere on the internet.
The Supreme Court is slowly plodding through the 2017 term. The court began the term at a historically sluggish pace, and although the justices have picked up the pace in certain areas, other signs point to the possibility that the court’s output this term will continue at the same rate.
It was a tale of two arguments yesterday in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren. The first half of the argument featured most of the justices offering scorching criticism of the idea that the tribe could be immune from state jurisdiction over off-reservation land; the second half featured the same group of justices complaining to counsel for the landowners that the argument in their favor was not ripe for decision.
We live-blogged this morning as the court released its opinions in Ayestas v. Davis and Marinello v. United States. The transcript of the live blog is available at this link.
In the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Congress not only created the U.S. Sentencing Commission and tasked it with creating guidelines for federal sentencing, it also enacted a novel provision, 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), which allows modification of a prison term for a “defendant who has been sentenced
The question of how to count the votes of the justices to decide who won a Supreme Court case – and on what ground – when the court is splintered has baffled lower courts for years.
This morning the justices will hear oral argument in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a First Amendment challenge by crisis-pregnancy centers to a California law that requires licensed centers to post notices to inform patients about the availability of state-funded
The transcript in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a highly anticipated case that combines two often controversial topics: the First Amendment and abortion.
We live-blogged this morning as the court released its opinion in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund. The transcript is available at this link.
The Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari on the substantive constitutional issue in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez — the validity of a district-wide policy permitting United States marshals to place full restraints on defendants during most non-jury proceedings, even without a determination of cause to restrain the defendant.