Friday round-up
Following Monday’s Supreme Court ruling largely lifting the injunctions against enforcement of the administration’s entry ban, the modified ban took effect last night.
June 2017 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 131 items published in June 2017, most recent first.
Summer reading for court watchers
Now that October Term 2016 is over and the history of the Supreme Court has turned another page, there’s time to relax and savor the riches of a good book related to the court. Below is a list, by no means comprehensive, of mostly recent books.
Immigration symposium: Prelude to a turning point
Charles Roth is the Director of Litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. NIJC filed or joined amicus briefs in seven of the cases discussed below. Most deportation orders are entered in obscurity, without counsel, without even an immigration judge to do the honors.
Immigration symposium: Immigration nuggets from October Term 2016 – What do they foreshadow?
John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, and former Dean, at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, and a Senior Fellow at the Claremont Institute. The Supreme Court’s October Term 2016, just concluded, might justifiably be described as fairly lackluster.
Thursday round-up
At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston reports on the court’s Tuesday orders, including its decision to send several cases involving aid to private schools operated by religious organizations back for reconsideration in light of Monday’s decision limiting “the power of states under their state
Immigration symposium: On immigration matters, the court’s watchwords are caution and deference
Richard Samp is Chief Counsel of the Washington Legal Foundation, which filed a brief in Ziglar v. Abbasi on behalf of five former attorneys general and two former FBI directors, and a brief in Jennings v. Rodriguez on behalf of 31 members of Congress.
Death-penalty symposium: In search of predictability
Joseph Tartakovsky is the Deputy Solicitor General of the state of Nevada. He was counsel of record for the 30 amicus states in Davila v. Davis. Vantage determines one’s approach to death-penalty cases, the most fraught of all legal contests.
Immigration symposium: The future of immigration exceptionalism
David S. Rubenstein is Professor of Law and Director, Robert J. Dole Center for Law & Government, Washburn University School of Law. For anyone still wondering how President Donald Trump’s travel ban is possibly constitutional, “immigration exceptionalism” is the reason.
Death-penalty symposium: A court increasingly uncomfortable with the death penalty
Stephen McAllister is the Solicitor General of Kansas and the E.S. & Tom W. Hampton Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Kansas School of Law.
Symposium: Playground resurfacing case provides soft landing for state “no aid” provisions
Alice O’Brien is general counsel for the National Education Association. She filed an amicus brief in support of the state in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer.
Wednesday round-up
Yesterday the court accepted six new cases for next term, for a total of five hours of oral argument. Amy Howe covers the orders list for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog.
Death-penalty symposium: Incremental victories for capital defendants but no sweeping change
Jordan Steiker is the Judge Robert M. Parker Endowed Chair in Law and Director of the Capital Punishment Center at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law.
Immigration symposium: Lessons for the Jennings reargument from the Supreme Court’s unanimous rejection of the government’s position in Esquivel-Quintana
Nancy Morawetz is Professor of Clinical Law at NYU Law School. Unanimous decisions might seem less noteworthy than holdings that divide the Supreme Court. But unanimous and otherwise lopsided rulings about substantive immigration law are significant for more than the issues they resolve.
Death-penalty symposium: Supreme Court marks time for a term on capital punishment
Kent Scheidegger is the legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. He filed amicus briefs in support of Texas in Davila v. Davis and Moore v. Texas. The Supreme Court has often been the epicenter of the continuing debate over capital punishment, but it was not in October Term 2016.
Final Stat Pack for October Term 2016 and key takeaways
You can now download the final SCOTUSblog Stat Pack for October Term 2016 here. This year, the 43-page Stat Pack includes information about, among other things, the rate of unanimity, the opinions written by Justice Gorsuch in his first term, agreement among different justices, which justices asked the most questions at oral argument, and the advocates who argued the most frequently during the term.
Opinion analysis: Divided court holds firm on deadlines for investors opting out of securities class actions
Involving as it does a relatively technical question about class action procedures, California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities did not look like a probable candidate for the final day of the term.
Opinion analysis: In Texas capital case, divided court limits scope of “nested” ineffective-assistance claims
In one of the last decisions of its October 2016 term, a sharply divided Supreme Court yesterday ruled against a Texas prisoner facing a death sentence, declining to extend its 2012 ruling in Martinez v. Ryan.
Menu of today’s content
Here is an overview of today’s case coverage: 6:24 a.m.: Howard Wasserman analyzed the court’s opinion in Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board. 11:51 a.m.: Amy Howe covered the court’s opinion in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii. 1:37 p.m.: Amy Howe analyzed
Symposium: The justices reach broad agreement, but on a narrow question
Fred Yarger is the solicitor general of Colorado. He filed an amicus brief for the state in support of the church in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer. Although it represents a significant victory for religious liberty, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer does not appear to alter fundamentally how the First Amendment will be understood and applied in cases involving claims of religious freedom.
Symposium: The Constitution provides a level playing field for people of faith
Hillary Byrnes is Assistant General Counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. She filed an amicus brief for the conference and other organizations in support of the church in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer.
Symposium: The crumbling wall separating church and state
Erwin Chemerinsky is Dean and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law at University of California, Irvine School of Law.
Symposium: Trinity Lutheran and Zelman – Saved by footnote 3 or a dream come true for voucher advocates?
Frank S. Ravitch is Professor of Law and Walter H. Stowers Chair in Law & Religion at Michigan State University College of Law. On its face, Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer does not appear to have anything to do with school vouchers.
Immigration symposium: Delays, detentions and due process – Why Jennings matters
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia is the Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and founding director of the Center for Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Penn State Law-University Park and the author of “Beyond Deportation: The Role of Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Cases.” On June 26, the Supreme Court ordered
Today’s orders (part 2)
This morning at 9:30 am the justices released orders from last week’s private conference. I covered some of the highlights from those orders in an earlier post, but today’s orders also included an unusually high number of separate opinions regarding the cases in which the court acted – including three by the court’s newest justice, Neil Gorsuch.
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday, on their last day on the bench for October Term 2016, the justices agreed to review two challenges to the Trump administration’s entry ban in October and partially lifted the injunctions against enforcement of the ban.
Today’s orders
Yesterday the justices of the Supreme Court released several decisions in cases that were argued on the merits and announced that they would add several new cases – including, most notably, the litigation over the president’s “travel ban” – to their docket for next term.
Death-penalty symposium: Evolving standards for “evolving standards”
Dominic Draye is the solicitor general of Arizona, which filed a brief for 16 states in support of the respondents in Moore v. Texas. In 1952, the Supreme Court took up the case of a soldier who deserted his unit during World War II. As punishment, the soldier lost his citizenship.
Death-penalty symposium: In bad year for death-penalty abolitionists, Justice Stephen Breyer solidified position as court’s leading opponent of capital punishment
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science and Associate Dean of the Faculty at Amherst College. The past year was, in many ways, a disappointing one for those seeking to end the death penalty in America.
Death-penalty symposium: The court keeps treating a fatally diseased death penalty
Brian Stull is a senior staff attorney with the Capital Punishment Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. He filed an amicus brief in support of Bobby Moore in Moore v. Texas.
Death-penalty symposium: Even with this conservative court, some progressive wins remain possible
Brianne Gorod is Chief Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. She filed an amicus brief in support of defendant Duane Buck in Buck v. Davis.
Live blog of orders (Update: Completed)
We live-blogged this morning as the court released orders. The transcript is available at this link.
Opinion analysis: Majority sides with employee in civil service argument, but Gorsuch announces his presence with authority
The late Justice Byron White used to say that every new justice created a “new” Supreme Court. Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, decided on Friday, may be remembered as the opening salvo in the battle over statutory interpretation on the “new” Roberts court featuring Justice Neil Gorsuch (who, appropriately, clerked for White).
Monday round-up
This morning the court will release orders from its final scheduled conference of the term last Thursday, as well as opinions in any remaining cases in which it has reached a decision. Amy Howe highlights the six cases left from this term’s argument docket for this blog.
Justices agree to weigh in on travel ban, allow parts of it to go into effect
Today the Supreme Court agreed to review rulings by two lower courts blocking the implementation of President Donald Trump’s March 6 executive order, popularly known as the “travel ban.” Citing national-security concerns, the order imposed a freeze on new visas from six Muslim-majority countries (Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen).
Opinion analysis: Church prevails in funding dispute
Before Justice Antonin Scalia died last year, the Supreme Court agreed to review a church’s challenge to Missouri’s denial of the church’s application for a grant to resurface its playground.
Afternoon round-up: Today’s orders and opinions
This morning the court issued final opinions of the term and orders in a number of cases, including the travel-ban cases. In Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, the court held that the state cannot deny a church a public benefit because of its religious status.
Relist Watch: Retirement Watch Edition
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. We don’t have time to linger over the fact that the court set a new record by granting cert in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 16-111, after 14 relists, thus unseating the previous champ, District of Columbia v. Wesby, 15-1485 (granted after eight relists).
A “view” from the courtroom: A day for drama on the bench
Even in a Supreme Court term that many would agree is the first non-blockbuster in a good five years, the justices have managed to build up some suspense for their season finale this morning. As we await the justices, Lyle Denniston has joined us in the press section.
No decision in two immigration-enforcement cases
President Donald Trump has made immigration enforcement a top priority. Two immigration-enforcement cases looked likely to have a big impact on the Trump administration’s plans. Both were argued before the confirmation of Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Opinion analysis: Court sends cross-border shooting lawsuit back to lower court
It has been a little over seven years since 15-year-old Sergio Hernandez was shot by Jesus Mesa, a U.S. Border Patrol agent, while Hernandez was standing on the Mexican side of the border.
Symposium: Putting some limits on the “play in the joints”
Erin Morrow Hawley is Associate Professor of Law and the University of Missouri School of Law. She filed an amicus brief for the General Council of the Assemblies of God in support of the church in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer.
Symposium: Bad news from Trinity Lutheran – Only two justices support the establishment clause
Leslie C. Griffin is William S. Boyd Professor of Law at the UNLV Boyd School of Law. Seven of nine Supreme Court justices voted for Trinity Lutheran Church today, in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer.
Symposium: Court ruling bolsters religious liberty… beyond the playground
Nathan J. Diament is the Executive Director for Public Policy of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. He filed an amicus brief on behalf of the union in support of the church in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer.
Today’s orders (part 1)
It was a busy day at the Supreme Court today, with the justices’ release of decisions in argued cases and their order allowing at least part of the so-called “travel ban” to go into effect.
Live blog of orders and opinions (Update: Completed)
We live-blogged this morning as the court released orders and opinion. The transcript is available at this link.
This week at the court
The court released its order list from the June 22 conference on Monday. The court granted certiorari in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers, and it released a per curiam opinion in Pavan v. Smith.
Opinion analysis: In regulatory takings case, court announces a new test
Under the doctrine of regulatory takings, government regulation that goes “too far” in burdening property rights counts as a taking under the Fifth Amendment, entitling the owner to “just compensation.” In deciding such claims, courts often must deal with a tricky preliminary question: How should they define the bounds of the property that the government has allegedly taken?
And then there were nine – the remaining decisions
The justices are expected to take the bench tomorrow at 10 a.m. to issue opinions in argued cases. There are nine decisions still outstanding, involving everything from cross-border shootings and property rights to the death penalty and public funding for playgrounds at religious preschools.
Friday round-up
As the Supreme Court term draws to a close, the justices have stepped up their output, holding an extra session yesterday to release opinions in three cases. Mark Walsh provides a “view” from the courtroom for this blog.
Opinion analysis: Immigrant who received bad advice gets another shot at staying in the U.S.
Yesterday the Supreme Court sent the case of a Bosnian Serb woman who was stripped of her citizenship for lying to immigration officials back to the lower courts.