Showing 1–50 of 117 items published in March 2017, most recent first.
At Politico, Josh Gerstein and Seung Min Kin report that Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch “submitted 76 pages of answers Thursday to written questions senators asked after the conclusion of the nominee’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings last week, but remained cagey about his personal
The blog and Goldstein & Russell, P.C., are looking for someone to serve as both the firm manager for Goldstein & Russell, P.C., and the deputy manager of SCOTUSblog.
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC Lee v. United States Turner v. United States Honeycutt v. United States
I think that neither the merchants nor the card networks will be jubilant about the Supreme Court’s narrow decision yesterday in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, which does little except prolong the litigation about the constitutionality of a New York statute that prohibits merchants from charging a surcharge to customers who use credit cards.
The law of asset forfeiture has become intricate and complicated since Congress enacted and subsequently amended several forfeiture statutes, beginning in 1970. Some of those complexities were explored in Wednesday morning’s argument in Honeycutt v. United States.
Yesterday the court heard oral argument in two cases. The first was Turner v. United States, which involves the scope of the prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under the Brady rule in a 1984 Washington, D.C., murder case. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. In the old days when I had nothing but time, I would have found it impossible to resist the temptation to speculate about the serial relist in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 16-111.
At the oral argument Monday morning in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, the justices finally got their chance to weigh in on one of the Federal Circuit’s most controversial rules – its longstanding conclusion that corporate patent defendants are subject to suit in any district in which they do business, as opposed to only the state in which they are incorporated.
In its conference of March 31, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the Alien Tort Statute categorically forecloses corporate liability; whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his
Today the court will hear oral argument in two cases. First up is Turner v. United States, which involves the scope of the prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under the Brady rule. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog.
Most oral arguments at the Supreme Court focus heavily on principles of law.
The transcript in Turner v. United States is here; the transcript in Honeycutt v. United States is here.
We live-blogged this morning as the court released opinions. The transcript is available at this link.
Christopher Turner (photograph provided by the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project) In 1984, there were 175 murders in the District of Columbia. But the October 1984 murder of Catherine Fuller, a 48-year-old mother of six, was particularly infamous.
Monday’s argument in Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton took the justices back to their roots, with a straightforward textual question about the breadth of coverage under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. ERISA imposes a variety of requirements on the plans to which it applies.
Today the court will hear oral argument in Lee v. United States, an ineffective assistance of counsel case in which the lower court held that the defendant could not prove that he was prejudiced by his attorney’s erroneous advice to plead guilty, which resulted in mandatory deportation, because the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming.
A Texas death-row inmate will get a shot at a new sentence after the Supreme Court ruled today that a state court applied the wrong standards to conclude that he was not intellectually disabled and therefore could be executed.
This morning the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Jae Lee, a Korean immigrant who was charged with possession of ecstasy with intent to distribute it. Lee accepted a plea bargain after his attorney told him that he would not be deported.
The transcript in Lee v. United States is here.
We live-blogged this morning as the court released opinions. The transcript is available at this link.
Today the court hears oral argument in two cases. The first is Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton (consolidated with two other related cases), which asks whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s exemption for church plans applies to pension plans maintained by church-affiliated organizations.
The blog and Goldstein & Russell, P.C., are looking for someone to serve as both the firm manager for Goldstein & Russell, P.C., and the deputy manager of SCOTUSblog.
The transcript in Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton is here; the transcript in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC is here.
This morning the justices issued orders from last week’s private conference. They added two new cases to their merits docket for next term and asked the Acting Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in a third case.
The court issued orders from its March 24 conference on Monday. It granted certiorari in two cases and called for the views of the solicitor general in one more. On Tuesday, the court released its opinion in Moore v. Texas.
Over 95% of criminal cases in the federal system end in a plea bargain, rather than going to trial. One such case is that of Jae Lee, who in 2009 pleaded guilty to possession of ecstasy with the intent to distribute it.
Yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee wrapped up its hearing on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. A round-up of early coverage of and commentary on the proceedings, including the possibility of a filibuster by Democratic senators, appeared in this blog.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. In a week where there was no shortage of bigly stories for court-watchers, it’s hard to know where to begin. The really tough questions the Senate threw at Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch this week?
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Murr v. Wisconsin Howell v. Howell Microsoft Corp. v. Baker Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. County of Los Angeles v. Mendez Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon
In its conference of March 24, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K creates a duty to disclose that is actionable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5; whether
It’s the kind of case my colleagues who teach copyright law might spend an entire class session analyzing, pondering the pros and cons of copyright protection for industrial designs.
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. is the latest battleground in a 150-year struggle over whether senior creditors whose liens exhaust a bankruptcy estate, and junior creditors or equity holders with control over the bankruptcy proceeding, can combine to use bankruptcy processes to implement a division of value that skips over otherwise out-of-the-money intervening creditors over their objection.
It’s not often that a unanimous Supreme Court decision on special education makes national headlines. But that’s exactly what happened yesterday, when the justices issued their ruling in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.
Yesterday’s argument in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez was, in a word, unsatisfying. The question of governmental liability for a law enforcement shooting of innocent individuals is extremely fact-intensive, and the law in this area is unsettled enough that assembling a majority for general Fourth Amendment rules on this record presents quite a challenge.
On Wednesday, the court heard oral argument in Water Splash v. Menon, a case about the meaning of the Hague Service Convention. In particular, the dispute concerns Article 10 of the Convention, which has three parts.
Yesterday the court heard oral argument in two cases. The first was County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, a Fourth Amendment case stemming from a police search that resulted in a shooting. Ryan Lockman discusses the case in an interview on WNYC’s The Takeaway.
The confirmation hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch continues today, as senators hear from a variety of witnesses who are testifying for and against Gorsuch’s nomination to fill the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
The Senate Judiciary Committee concluded its confirmation hearing for Judge Neil Gorsuch this afternoon. After undergoing two days of questioning, the nominee himself was not present at today’s proceedings, which featured a variety of witnesses.
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted the fourth and final day of its hearing on Gorsuch nomination, which featured testimony of witnesses for and against the nomination.
We live-blogged the fourth day of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The transcript is available at this link.
Shortly after his inauguration, President Donald Trump named Washington lawyer Noel Francisco as the principal deputy solicitor general – the only deputy solicitor general who is a political appointee, rather than a career lawyer.
This morning the court will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, a Fourth Amendment case stemming from a police search that resulted in a shooting. Rory Little previewed the case for this blog.
The transcript in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez is here; the transcript in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon is here.
The argument next Wednesday in Honeycutt v. United States presents a seemingly simple statutory question. The federal forfeiture statute for narcotics conspiracies requires that a convicted defendant be ordered to forfeit the “proceeds the person obtained” from the crime.
Today the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding the third day of its hearing on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
We live-blogged the third day of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The transcript is available at this link.
At yesterday’s oral argument in Murr v. Wisconsin, the justices discussed a longstanding dilemma in the field of regulatory takings.
We often refer to the Supreme Court as a “hot bench”: Questions fly fast and furious from all the justices, often allowing the lawyers to get out only a few sentences (if that many) before fielding the next question.
This morning the court hears oral argument in two cases. The first is Microsoft v. Baker, in which the justices will consider the options available for plaintiffs when a district court determines that a case is not suited for adjudication as a class action.
The refrain is in some ways familiar. The Federal Circuit early on adopts a patent-specific rule grounded in the particularities of patent procedure and practice. Decades pass, in which the rule is applied without serious challenge to dozens (hundreds?) of cases.