Showing 1–50 of 83 items published in May 2018, most recent first.
For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that in Collins v. Virginia, in which the justices held on Tuesday that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement does not permit a warrantless search of a motorcycle parked in the driveway of a home, Justice Sonia “Sotomayor wrote that the
On June 12 at 1 p.m. EST, the State and Local Legal Center and the National Conference of State Legislatures will host a webinar entitled, “Sports Gambling is Legal: Now What?” Speakers include Richard Simpson and Ethan Wilson.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may be the most “notorious” Supreme Court justice, but she is not the first to achieve some media celebrity while a sitting justice.
The current term at the Supreme Court has been anything but ordinary. With two argued cases already dismissed, the justices are down to 61 argued cases for possible signed decisions. This would tie last term for the fewest signed decisions in the modern court era.
Yesterday the Supreme Court released opinions in two argued cases. The first was Collins v. Virginia, in which the justices held 8-1 that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement does not permit a warrantless search of a motorcycle parked in the driveway of a home.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relists. You know how every time news shows cut to a commercial after another boring segment, they tease the one interesting story about the dirtiest local restaurants/approaching swarm of killer bees/looming derecho, which they finally air in the program’s last two minutes?
In its conference of May 31, 2018, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., the Supreme Court should vacate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s judgment and instruct that court to remand the case
For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Saleh Al-Batati report that “[a] disabled Yemeni girl, whose exclusion from the U.S. was questioned by Supreme Court justices reviewing the Trump administration’s travel ban, arrived Saturday in New York for resettlement.” At the Cato Institute’s Cato at
The pace of Supreme Court opinions continues to be at crawl, but we have two to talk about this week, both written by Justice Neil Gorsuch: Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis and Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren. We’ll also recap some new grants for OT2018 and answer a few hotline calls.
When two Virginia police officers searched for the motorcyclist who had eluded them by driving away at speeds of up to 140 miles per hour, they probably would not have imagined that the case would end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
One could easily miss this morning’s short, unanimous opinion by Justice Stephen Breyer in Lagos v. United States. But the impact of the decision is significant.
Three months after oral argument (and as suggested in my analysis of that argument), the Supreme Court “dismissed as improvidently granted” (a “DIG,” in Supreme Court-speak) the case of City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt.
The Supreme Court issued orders this morning from the justices’ private conference last week, and the big news out of today’s order list was what the justices did not do: They did not add any new cases to their merits docket for next term, and they did not ask the U.S. solicitor general to weigh in on any cases.
We live-blogged as the Supreme Court released orders from the May 24 conference and opinions in Collins v. Virginia, Lagos v. United States and City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt. The […]
On Tuesday the Supreme Court released orders from the May 24 conference. The justices also released their opinions in Collins v. Virginia and Lagos v. United States and dismissed City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt as improvidently granted.
In its conference of May 24, 2018, the court considered petitions involving issues such as whether the rule espoused in Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, which held that a federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a dispute without first determining that it has
The petitions of the day are: Clearstream Banking S.A. v. Peterson 17-1529 Issue: Whether foreign sovereign property held by a foreign financial intermediary in a foreign country may, under any circumstances, be subject to execution in United States courts.
At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie observes that Monday’s decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis, in which the court held that arbitration clauses in employment contracts that require employees to forgo class and collective actions are enforceable, “gives employers a powerful
John Elwood (finally) reviews Monday’s relists. Monday’s order list was a striking illustration of how nice it is to have Washington on your side: Of the four relisted cases the Supreme Court agreed to review, the government (either as amicus or respondent) had told the court that review was warranted in three of them.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is known as one of the Supreme Court’s speediest writers, a distinction that leaves her, perhaps, with ample time for speaking engagements, even during the hectic final months of the Supreme Court’s term.
Deepak Gupta is the founding principal of Gupta Wessler PLLC. He was counsel of record on an amicus brief for the American Association for Justice supporting the employees in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.
For the Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports on Epic Systems v. Lewis, in which the court held on Monday that arbitration clauses in employment contracts that require employees to forgo class and collective actions are enforceable, noting that “[s]cholars who have looked into the 1925 [Federal
Katherine V.W. Stone is Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. She has written frequently about arbitration law, most recently in The Bold Ambition of Justice Scalia’s Arbitration Jurisprudence: Keeping Workers and Consumers Out of Court.
Epic Systems v. Lewis, in which the court held on Monday that arbitration clauses in employment contracts that require employees to forgo class and collective actions are enforceable, continues to attract attention from court-watchers. Scott Bomboy reports on the decision for Constitution Daily.
It is that time of year again. As we near the end of the Supreme Court term, we are experiencing another round of prognostications on whether Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire, leaving another vacancy for President Donald Trump to fill.
Williams v. Louisiana ended with both a bang and a whimper. Flagged as a “petition of the day” back in April, Williams’ petition sought to have the U.S. Supreme Court review the Louisiana courts’ decision to leave in place his conviction for first-degree murder.
Richard Samp is chief counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation, which filed an amicus brief in support of the employers in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.
Archis Parasharami is a partner and Dan Jones is an associate at Mayer Brown. Parasharami contributed to an amicus brief for the Chamber of Commerce in support of the employers in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.
Ben Robbins is senior staff attorney for the New England Legal Foundation. He filed an amicus brief for NELF in support of the employers in the consolidated cases in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.
Nicole G. Berner is general counsel and Claire Prestel is associate general counsel of the Service Employees International Union. SEIU joined an amicus brief in support of the employees in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.
The Supreme Court decided two cases yesterday. In a major employment case that was argued on the first day of the term, Epic Systems v. Lewis, the court held 5-4 that arbitration clauses in employment contracts that require employees to forgo class and collective actions are enforceable.
On Monday morning Justice Elena Kagan joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent from the Supreme Court’s majority opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, which held that arbitration clauses in employment contracts that require employees to forgo class and collective actions are enforceable.
Briefly: Constitution Daily provides an “update on 12 significant decisions that will be handed down from the Court into late June.” At Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast, Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson break down the funniest moments from the Supreme Court’s 2017 term.
Supreme Court opinions have been coming down in a slow trickle, but it’s enough to quench our thirst. This week, we recap five cases the justices have decided, from sports betting to privacy expectations in rental cars, from shackling criminal defendants to determining effective assistance of counsel.
[NOTE: This post was updated with additional analysis at 3:30 p.m.]
This morning the Supreme Court added four new cases to its docket for next term, on topics ranging from federal pre-emption to the rules governing attorney’s fees for Social Security claimants.
After the court put a major dent in its pending caseload last week, with five relatively significant decisions, including the much-discussed ruling favorable to sports betting in Murphy v. NCAA, the odds on this week’s lone opinion day is that we’ll get fewer decisions.
Rarely have I read a set of opinions that so closely tracked the discussion at oral argument as the opinions this morning in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v Lundgren.
This afternoon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg received the Henry J. Friendly Medal from the American Law Institute.
We live-blogged this morning as the Supreme Court released orders and opinions. The justices granted four cases for next term: Virginia Uranium Inc. v. Warren, Culbertson v. Berryhill, Jam v. International Finance Corp. and Royal […]
On Monday the Supreme Court released orders from the May 17 conference. The justices granted Virginia Uranium Inc. v. Warren, Culbertson v. Berryhill, Jam v. International Finance Corp. and Royal v. Murphy.
Briefly: At CNN, Joan Biskupic lists five reasons why Justice Anthony Kennedy may not retire this term, “beginning with the fact that he has always lived for this.” In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates “review the RBG
John Elwood (finally) reviews Monday’s relists. We are about to hit a critical date as October Term 2017 draws to a close: “cutoff” – the date by which briefs in opposition (and court-invited amicus briefs from the solicitor general) must be received for the Supreme Court to act on them before the summer recess following ordinary procedures.
In its conference of May 17, 2018, the court considered petitions involving issues such as whether the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation is violated when the trial court prevents a defendant from cross-examining a government witness regarding the mandatory life sentence he would have faced
Here’s a quick quiz: When does 6 plus 1 not necessarily add up to 7? Counting vote totals can sometimes be a challenge at the Supreme Court, especially when the justices write separate opinions that take different forms and reach different conclusions.
At his eponymous blog, Michael Dorf explores the judicial politics at play in Monday’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the justices struck down the federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting, that might “explain[] the liberal wing of the
Is Chevron deference unconstitutional? Congress, several justices and legal academics are debating the legitimacy of this decades-old principle of administrative law.
Court-watchers continue to focus on Monday’s ruling in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the justices struck down the federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting. Scott Bomboy covers the decision for Constitution Daily.
Scott Dodson is the Associate Dean for Research and the James Edgar Hervey Chair in Litigation at UC Hastings College of the Law. The basic separation-of-powers model allocates lawmaking power to the legislative branch, enforcement power to the executive branch, and interpretive and adjudicative power to the judicial branch.
Rather than originating from a federal court of appeals like the majority of cases before the Supreme Court, the most discussed case of this term came from a state court.