Showing 1–50 of 91 items published in November 2018, most recent first.
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: Apple Inc. v. Pepper Nieves v. Bartlett Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert Carpenter v. Murphy Timbs v. Indiana
For The Economist, Steven Mazie reports after Wednesday’s oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana, in which the justices considered whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states, that “[t]he unusual left-right coalition of organisations urging the Supreme Court to
With its newest member seated on the Supreme Court (and officially included in the latest class picture), the justices continued to project a united front, emphasizing their familial bonds and eschewing the labels of “conservative” and “liberal” altogether. “It was Justice Thomas who tells me that when he first came to the court, another justice approached him and said, ‘I judge you by what you do here.
Next week the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of an Alabama man who was convicted of both federal and state gun charges arising from the same traffic stop.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the classification of Title VII’s administrative-exhaustion requirement as a jurisdictional prerequisite or a waivable claim-processing rule; the meaning of the statutory term “confidential” in the
For this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, Amy Howe covers yesterday’s oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana, in which the justices considered whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states.
In a mixed-bag ruling, a unanimous Supreme Court returned Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to decide several questions not answered on the first go-round.
Anyone who believes civil procedure is not funny should read the transcript of Tuesday’s argument in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, which showed eight interruptions for laughter in a case considering whether the 14-day period for appealing a class-certification decision is subject to equitable tolling based on concerns for fairness and justice.
Today the justices will hear oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana, in which they will consider whether the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause applies to the states. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.
The transcript of oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
Petitioner Tyson Timbs outside court after oral argument Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Tyson Timbs, an Indiana man who lost his 2012 Land Rover after he pleaded guilty to drug charges.
During his Supreme Court confirmation hearing in 2005, Chief Justice John Roberts declared, “Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath, and judges have to have modesty to be
The Supreme Court will ring in 2019 with a nearly full argument calendar. Today the justices released the calendar for the January 2019 sitting, which begins on January 7.
Social Security Disability Insurance provides monthly payments to more than 10 million people. Supplemental Security Income disability benefits reach a partially overlapping group of roughly seven million.
It should surprise nobody that the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (universally described as the AIA) produces a steady diet of statutory interpretation problems for the Supreme Court to consider.
In Monday’s argument in Nieves v. Bartlett, the justices pushed all sides for a compromise approach to handle the broad range of cases that might qualify as First Amendment retaliatory arrests, an approach that would neither allow all claims nor defeat all claims.
There are two oral arguments on the Supreme Court’s agenda today. The first is in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, which involves the timeliness of an appeal from a denial of class-action certification. Howard Wasserman previewed the case for this blog.
On November 16, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear oral argument in February in a dispute over evidence in the challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to bring back a question about citizenship on the 2020 census.
The transcript of oral argument in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in Carpenter v. Murphy is also available.
This morning brought the justices a capital case of a different kind. Carpenter v. Murphy doesn’t raise issues of actual innocence, ineffective assistance of counsel or permissible methods of execution.
McCulloch v. Maryland turns 200 this March. And the landmark 1819 decision — perhaps best remembered for Chief Justice John Marshall’s observation that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy” — continues to cast a long shadow over state efforts to collect tax revenues from federal government entities and their employees.
This morning the Supreme Court begins its December sitting with oral arguments in two cases. The first is Apple v. Pepper, in which the justices will consider whether IPhone-app purchasers can bring an antitrust suit against Apple.
If you’re sick of leftovers, we’ve cooked up a fresh batch of argument previews for your enjoyment. Beth Colgan of UCLA joins us to prepare and serve the main course: a fascinating case about excessive fines (yes, really) called Timbs v. Indiana.
Although the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provide a wide-ranging foundation for the entire federal regime of securities regulation, the great bulk of the Supreme Court’s encounters with those statutes has focused on the problem of misstatements made in connection with the sale of securities.
The transcript of oral argument in Apple Inc. v. Pepper is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in Nieves v. Bartlett is also available.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument this morning in a dispute between technology giant Apple and a group of iPhone users over the sale of apps from Apple’s App Store.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Apple Inc. v. Pepper and Nieves v. Bartlett. On Tuesday, the justices released their opinion in Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. They also heard oral argument in Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert and Carpenter v. Murphy.
It is rare to ask the Supreme Court to hear a case before a federal appeals court has had an opportunity to weigh in. But yesterday the Trump administration made its second such request in less than 20 days, this time urging the justices to take up three cases (here, here and here) challenging the government’s ban on service in the military by most transgender individuals.
At NPR, Nina Totenberg reports that “[i]n a rare moment of direct criticism, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked President Trump on Wednesday for the president’s description of a federal judge who ruled against his asylum policy as ‘an Obama judge,'” and that “[w]ithin hours, the
Next week the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of Tyson Timbs, an Indiana man who lost his Land Rover after his conviction on state drug charges.
At Education Week’s School Law Blog, Mark Walsh reports that in Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, “[a] group of Pennsylvania high school students has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court a lower-court ruling that upheld a school district’s policy of permitting transgender students to use
John Elwood reviews next Monday’s likely relists. [Editor’s Note: This post was updated on November 27 to confirm our predicted returning relists and address one new relist (Hester v. U.S.) that we had not included in the original post.
Even before Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy this fall, some commentators were suggesting that liberals might want to avoid appealing cases to the increasingly conservative Supreme Court. “If you are liberal,” wrote Ian Millhiser of the Center for American Progress in 2014,
In a series of decisions in the past decade, most recently 2017’s Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, the Supreme Court has distinguished jurisdictional rules from non-jurisdictional claim-processing rules.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the meaning of the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” in District of Columbia v. Heller when determining whether a felon is entitled to lodge an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality
Yesterday the justices issued additional orders from their conference last Friday; as expected, they did not add any 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.
Carpenter v. Murphy has the Supreme Court once again reviewing the troubled history of the nation’s treatment of Native Americans. The specific question is whether the reservation once afforded the Creek Nation in what is now eastern Oklahoma remains a reservation for purposes of the Major Crimes Act.
The Roberts Court has shown two jurisprudential preferences. One is for protecting the freedom of speech, earning it a reputation as perhaps the most speech-protective Supreme Court in history.
The Supreme Court added two cases to its docket on Friday, including In re Department of Commerce, et al., a dispute arising out of a challenge to the administration’s decision to include a question about citizenship on the 2020 census form; the court scheduled oral argument in the case for February 19, 2019.
The First Mondays national tour continues! This week we’re live at Duke Law School, with not one but two great guest hosts: Professors Marin Levy and Steve Sachs.
The Supreme Court issued more orders this morning from the justices’ private conference last Friday. The justices had added two new cases to their merits docket for the term last week and were not expected to grant any more today – and they did not.
When the justices return from their Thanksgiving vacation next week, they will hear oral argument in a would-be class action filed against the technology giant Apple by iPhone users.
The age of big data is upon us. Data in law is ubiquitous, informative of past decisions and helpful in prognosticating future results. How we make use of this data is often a topic of debate.
The Supreme Court released orders from the November 16 conference on Monday morning; the justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket. The calendar for the December sitting, which will begin on Monday, November 26, is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
Since the moment President Donald Trump appointed Matthew Whitaker as Acting Attorney General on Wednesday, November 7, the move has been met with significant political and legal criticism, with numerous lawyers and commentators arguing that the president lacked both statutory and constitutional authority to name Whitaker—previously chief of staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions—as Sessions’ interim successor.
For The Baltimore Sun, Michael Dresser reports that “Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh announced Thursday that he is appealing a federal ruling that threw out the state’s congressional map for the 6th District after determining that Democratic officials unconstitutionally drew the boundary to
The Supreme Court announced this afternoon that it would hear oral argument in February in a dispute over evidence in the challenge to the government’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.
This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address whether plaintiffs may obtain certification of issue classes for a cause of action under Rule 23(c)(4) without having demonstrated that common issues predominate under Rule 23(b)(3), the creation of a particular inferred
Briefly: The AP reports that “[t]wo journalists who helped cover the confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh are working on a book about the newest Supreme Court justice.” At Law.com, Tony Mauro covers the recent uptick in law firm bonuses for Supreme Court clerks, reporting that “the prevailing
Common sense tells us that increased political polarization affects the U.S. Supreme Court as well as the political branches, and now legal scholars have the data to prove it.