Showing 1–50 of 82 items published in January 2017, most recent first.
In The New York Times, Peter Baker reports on President Donald Trump’s decision to move up his announcement of a Supreme Court nominee to tonight at 8 p.m., noting that some “Senate Democrats, still angry that Republicans prevented Mr. Obama from filling the seat, said they might filibuster Mr.
At the Associated Press, Julie Pace reports that “President Donald Trump could announce his pick for the Supreme Court as early as Monday,” and that although “Trump originally said the announcement would come on Thursday,” “word of a possible earlier announcement came as the White House dealt with
Judge Neil Gorsuch of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit was “taking a breather” in the middle of a ski run when he heard that Justice Antonin Scalia had died. In a speech last April, Gorsuch added that he was “not embarrassed to admit” he cried his way down the mountain.
In May of 2016, when then-candidate Donald Trump was putting the Supreme Court front and center in his presidential campaign, he released a “much-anticipated list of people he would consider as potential replacements for Justice Scalia at the United States Supreme Court.” On this initial list of 11
Once it became apparent that President Donald Trump would be nominating a justice to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s long-vacant seat on the Supreme Court, Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit was widely considered to be the front-runner for the nomination.
The justices are now in recess. The justices will meet next for their February 17 conference. The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 21, is available on the court’s website.
In Forbes, Daniel Fisher remarks that the possible nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch, a reported frontrunner for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, “would be good news for libertarians and bad news for members of Congress who like to hand broad powers to administrative agencies to make
John Elwood reviews Monday’s (suspected) relists There is nothing like a presidential transition, particularly between presidents of opposing (I almost said “different”!) parties.
At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that “the president is a week away from nominating someone who would become a core member of the court’s conservative wing,” and that each of “four appellate judges in contention for the slot, including frontrunners Neil Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman, would fit neatly
At Fox News, Bill Mears reports that after meeting with Senate leaders yesterday to discuss the Supreme Court vacancy, President Donald Trump said he would announce his choice next week, and that “the list of possible candidates is now down to three names, all of them federal appeals court judges:
Yesterday the court issued additional orders from its conference of January 19, granting no additional cases and denying review in a case involving a high-profile challenge to a Texas voter ID law. The court also denied review in a challenge to Alabama’s advisory-jury death sentencing law.
Over the weekend, reports indicated that President Donald Trump’s shortlist for a nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia nearly a year ago has apparently gotten even shorter, with Jan Crawford of CBS News reporting that the list had been narrowed to
Coverage continues of last week’s oral argument in Lee v. Tam, a First Amendment challenge to a government refusal to trademark a rock band’s disparaging name.
The Supreme Court issued orders from its January 19 conference this morning. After granting review in two cases from that conference last week, the justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket today.
On Monday the court issued additional orders from the January 19 conference. It did not grant certiorari in any new cases. The justices will meet next for their February 17 conference.
The petition of the day is: Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur v. Farhang 16-692 Issues: (1) Whether a choice-of-law provision in a foreign state’s contract automatically waives sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1), regardless of the contract’s other terms indicating an intent not
Thomas Lee has a storied pedigree in both his home state of Utah and the legal field. His father, Rex Lee, served as the U.S. solicitor general and the president of Brigham Young University.
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Lynch v. Dimaya Midland Funding v. Johnson Lee v. Tam Ziglar v. Abbasi
After its conference yesterday, which was held a day early because of the presidential inauguration, the justices granted cert in two cases. Amy Howe covers the grants for this blog.
The petition of the day is: Jankovic v. International Crisis Group 16-683 Issues: (1) Whether, for a defamation plaintiff to be deemed a limited-purpose public figure, the defamatory statement must be directly related (or “germane”) to the plaintiff’s voluntary involvement in the particular public
In 2011, Simon Tam tried to register The Slants, the name of his rock band, as a trademark – a word, name or symbol used to identify a product and to identify its source.
Yesterday the court heard two hours of oral argument. The first hour featured Lee v. Tam, a First Amendment challenge to a government refusal to trademark a disparaging name. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog.
When walking into a play titled Roe, one might expect a dry analysis of a legal case or a fiery pro-choice rally. Instead, Roe delivered a clever, often comic portrayal of the two women at the center of the story behind the controversial Supreme Court abortion decision — Sarah Weddington, the young lawyer who argued the case, and Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe — and their divergent recollections of events.
With the Supreme Court closed tomorrow for the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump, the justices met today, one day early, for their private conference.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lynch v. Dimaya, a criminal-removal case. The court has taken up several of these in recent years, including Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch, which the justices will hear next month.
Tuesday morning’s argument in Midland Funding v. Johnson was a tale of two benches, with two groups of justices taking remarkably different approaches.
In its conference of January 19, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether Texas’ voter-ID law “results in” the abridgment of voting rights on account of race; whether a plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate to a defendant’s forum activities when there is no
Today the court hears oral argument in two cases. First up is Lee v. Tam, a First Amendment challenge to a government refusal to trademark a disparaging name. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog.
Wednesday’s lone opinion, Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., firmly rejects the extension of federal jurisdiction over cases involving the Federal National Mortgage Association.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relists There is a point in bleak midwinter when hope is at its lowest ebb and despair at its zenith. I’m talking, of course, about the rerun season that predates the February sweeps. And rerun season is where we find ourselves now.
The transcript in Lee v. Tam is here; the transcript in Ziglar v. Abbasi is here.
When Acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn took the lectern today in Ziglar v. Abbasi, he attempted to paint a portrait of déjà vu all over again.
We live-blogged this morning as the court issued opinions.
The petition of the day is: Magee v. Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc. 16-668 Issue: Whether Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 applies only to physical spaces that people can enter.
Today the court hears oral argument in two cases. First up is Lynch v. Dimaya, a void-for-vagueness challenge to an immigrant-removal statute. Kevin Johnson previewed the case for this blog.
Last week the justices added a whopping 16 new cases to their merits docket when they issued orders from the January 13 conference. When the justices returned from the holiday weekend this morning, they issued more orders from that conference, including a call for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in a pair of related cases, but did not grant any new cases.
The transcript in Lynch v. Dimaya is here; the transcript in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson is here.
Last Wednesday President-elect Donald Trump said that he will nominate the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement within two weeks of taking office. If Trump wants a new justice on the bench before the April sitting begins, the Senate would likely need to hold hearings in March.
For the fourth time in as many Congresses, a bill has been introduced to compel the Supreme Court to televise its proceedings. Earlier versions of the bill, which was sponsored in the House of Representatives by members from both sides of the aisle, have failed to become law.
The court issued additional orders on Tuesday from the January 13 conference. It called for the views of the solicitor general in two related cases. On Wednesday the court released its opinion in Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corporation. The court also heard oral arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Neil Gorsuch was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit by President George W. Bush on May 10, 2006, and confirmed shortly thereafter.
At The Economist, Steven Mazie discusses Wednesday’s argument in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, in which the court considered what level of educational benefit students with disabilities must receive, observing that it “now falls on the justices to decide whether to endorse the 10th
Update at 4:36 p.m., January 13: This post has been expanded to include summaries of all the cases the court agreed today to review. Last week the justices held their first private conference of 2017.
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman Goodyear Tire v. Haeger Endrew F. v. Douglas City School District Nelson v. Colorado Lewis v. Clarke
Yesterday the court heard oral argument in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, in which the justices considered what level of educational benefit students with disabilities must receive. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists Happy New Year, everyone! 2016 was such a trainwreck of a year, right up to the bitter (and I mean bitter) end; 2017 will surely be better!
Raymond Gruender, who is 53, was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit by President George W. Bush in 2004, after working in private practice and serving as a prosecutor in the Eastern District of Missouri, first as an assistant U.S. Attorney and then as U.S. Attorney.
Ahmer Abbasi (Center for Constitutional Rights) It has been more than 15 years since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, but litigation related to the attacks and the U.S. government’s response continues to wind its way through the courts.
In its conference of January 13, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether a criminal defendant charged with an offense punishable by incarceration is denied due process when he is tried by a non-lawyer judge and when the defendant has no opportunity for a de novo
The oral argument yesterday morning in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman brought the justices face to face with the battle between merchants and credit-card networks over the “interchange” fees that merchants pay when they accept cards in retail transactions.