Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: Holtz v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 16-1536 Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.
July 2017 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 62 items published in July 2017, most recent first.
Monday round-up
Briefly: At the Human Rights at Home Blog, Jeremiah Ho weighs in on Matal v. Tam, in which the court struck down a bar on registration of disparaging trademarks; he observes that “[i]f trademarks that disparage can be permitted in the marketplace, then negative, anti-progressive sentiments, such as
In Recess #1: “Crushing Negs”
This episode is the first entry in our summer series, which we’re calling “In Recess.” We talk about our exciting new partnership with SCOTUSblog, introduce new listeners to the show, and receive some harsh feedback on our theme music.
The justices return to cellphones and the Fourth Amendment: In Plain English
In 1976, in United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court ruled that the bank records of a man accused of running an illegal whiskey-distilling operation were not obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, even though law-enforcement officials did not have a warrant, because the bank records
Supreme Court unveils new website (UPDATED)
(UPDATED: This post was updated at 12:08 p.m. EDT on Thursday, August 3, to include the PIO’s press release about electronic filing.) Late Friday evening the Supreme Court released a new version of its website (www.supremecourt.gov).
Friday round-up
As the justices engage in their summer travels, their remarks from around the globe are drawing attention.
SCOTUSblog announces partnership with First Mondays
As SCOTUSblog approaches its 15th birthday in October, we have been reflecting on how we might be able to expand the blog’s offerings. Many of our readers have asked why we don’t offer a regular podcast to update our audience on the doings of the Supreme Court.
Thursday round-up
Briefly: At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger weighs in on yesterday’s execution of an Ohio death-row inmate, carried out after the Supreme Court denied the inmate’s petition for a stay, in which the inmate had challenged the state’s lethal-injection protocol; he argues that “[w]e spend far
Symposium: Dusting off corporate liability in Jesner – Why there is no international consensus and why courts lack authority to innovate on the issue
Kristin A. Linsley is a partner at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. The views expressed herein are solely hers and do not necessarily represent the views of Gibson Dunn.
Symposium: It’s just a tort case
Richard Herz is a senior litigation attorney at EarthRights International. ERI filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC. Corporate legal personhood is a bedrock tenet of our law (and every other nation’s).
No stay for Ohio executions
Over a dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor that was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court last night declined to block the executions of three Ohio men.
Wednesday round-up
Last night the Supreme Court, over a dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, declined to block the executions of three Ohio men, including one who is scheduled to be put to death this morning. Amy Howe covers the court’s ruling for this blog.
Symposium: A federal-common-law approach to corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute
Anton Metlitsky is a partner at O’Melveny & Myers LLP. He filed an amicus brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and other organizations in support of neither party in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC.
Symposium: Combating terrorist financing through corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute
Michael Barr is the Roy F. and Jean Humphrey Proffitt Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School. He filed an amicus brief for financial regulation scholars and former government officials in support of the plaintiffs in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC.
Symposium: The lessons of Nuremberg
Beth Van Schaack is the Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor in Human Rights at Stanford Law School. She is also the executive editor of Just Security. As the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the question of whether the Alien Tort Statute supports claims against corporations in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, the scope of corporate liability during the World War II era has assumed renewed relevance.
Tuesday round-up
In The Washington Post, Spencer Hsu reports that “[f]ive protesters who disrupted a session of the U.S. Supreme Court by shouting disapproval of its rulings on campaign finance law were sentenced to one or two weekends in prison Monday after losing a bid to overturn a 1949 law restricting public
Symposium: After “universality” – Emphasizing territory and nationality in a world of increasingly competitive sovereign powers
Kenneth Anderson is a professor of law at Washington College of Law, American University.
Monday round-up
Briefly: In The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall reports that a “reflective Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg offered something of a lament Saturday night for the polarized state of national politics, speaking to a theater audience following a play about her late friend and ideological sparring
An introduction to the Alien Tort Statute and corporate liability: In Plain English
Founded in Jerusalem nearly a century ago, Jordan’s Arab Bank now has over 600 branches on five continents. The bank describes itself as “an active and leading partner in the socio-economic development” of the Middle East – a description borne out by its work with the U.S. Agency for International Development, Oxfam, Save the Children and Catholic Relief Services.
Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: Lagos v. United States 16-1519 Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) covers costs for reimbursement under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act that were “neither required nor requested” by the government, including costs incurred for the victim’s own purposes and unprompted by any official government action.
Friday round-up
In The Economist, Steven Mazie reports that the Supreme Court’s entry-ban ruling on Wednesday was “a win for family members in Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and Yemen seeking visas to visit relatives in America,” but “a loss for resettlement organisations that have already expended time,
Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: Hernandez v. Crespo 16-1458 Issue: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts a state law that dictates onerous terms and conditions which must be included in private arbitration agreements between physicians and patients, and invalidates all agreements that do not contain those terms and conditions.
Court releases October calendar
The Supreme Court term that ended in late June may have lacked the high-profile cases found in many of the terms that preceded it, but the new term will have no shortage of blockbusters.
Thursday round-up
Yesterday the Supreme Court left in place a district judge’s ruling allowing entry into the United States by close relatives of people in the U.S., such as grandparents, but put a hold on the portion of the judge’s order that loosened the government’s restrictions on entry by refugees, pending disposition of the government’s appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: Correctional Medical Services, Inc. v. Glisson 16-1406 Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit’s en banc majority opinion substantially departed from the Supreme Court’s precedents established by Monell v. Department of Social Services by
Wednesday round-up
Yesterday, Hawaii filed its response to the government’s request that the Supreme Court clarify its June 26 order partially reinstating the administration’s executive order on immigration, and the government filed a reply. Amy Howe covers these developments for this blog.
Court hands each side a partial victory in dispute over scope of travel ban
On the same day that it scheduled oral argument in the dispute over President Donald Trump’s March 6 executive order, the Supreme Court turned down a request by the federal government to clarify exactly what it meant when it said that individuals with a close family relationship could continue to
Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: Supreme Court of New Mexico v. United States 16-1323 Issue: Whether Rule 16-308(E) of the New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct is pre-empted with respect to federal prosecutors in the context of grand jury proceedings.
Tuesday round-up
At Education Week’s School Law Blog, Mark Walsh reports that when Justice Neil Gorsuch filled in yesterday for Justice Anthony Kennedy at the annual conference of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, Gorsuch “joined the list of his colleagues—both current and retired justices—who have
Hawaii urges justices to deny motion for clarification on travel ban, and the government responds (UPDATED)
(UPDATED: This post has been updated to include the government’s reply to Hawaii’s opposition, filed on Tuesday night.)
Academic highlight: Shaw on presidential speech and the courts
Should judges rely on a president’s public pronouncements to resolve cases? Cardozo Law School professor Kate Shaw has authored the first article systematically addressing the role that a president’s statements should play in court.
Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro 16-1362 Issue: Whether service advisors at car dealerships are exempt under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(A) from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime-pay requirements.
Monday round-up
After a Hawaii district judge ruled that the federal government’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s June 26 ruling partially reinstating the president’s executive order on immigration was unduly restrictive, the federal government on Friday asked the Supreme Court to clarify the June 26 ruling.
Federal government asks Supreme Court to clarify order in travel ban litigation (UPDATED)
(UPDATE: The Supreme Court has ordered the challengers to respond to the government’s motion for clarification by 12 p.m. on Tuesday, July 18.)
Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: Bahlul v. United States 16-1307 Issues: (1) Whether military commissions’ assumption of the federal courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction over wholly domestic crimes, such as conspiracy, violates Article III’s reservation of the “trial of all crimes” to the judiciary;
Legal challenges to Trump's entry banSummer symposium on Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii
Symposium: Could this be the end of plenary power?
Margo Schlanger is the Wade H. and Dores M. McCree Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School and the former head of the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
Legal challenges to Trump's entry banSummer symposium on Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii
Symposium: What would Hippocrates do?
Frank Trinity is the chief legal officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. The AAMC filed an amicus brief opposing the government’s stay applications in Trump v. IRAP and Trump v. Hawaii.
Legal challenges to Trump's entry banSummer symposium on Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii
Symposium: The stays – a practical victory, a legal concern
Lee Rudofsky is the solicitor general of Arkansas. Arkansas, through its Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, submitted an amicus brief in support of the federal government in these cases. We are all familiar with the old adage that hard cases make bad law.
Friday round-up
At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that a federal judge in Hawaii yesterday held that “the Administration is interpreting too narrowly the Supreme Court’s June 26 decision on who among foreign travelers and refugees are entitled to enter the country under President Trump’s March 6
Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: Brown v. Haas 16-1373 Issues: (1) Whether a twenty-five month delay, during which the government negligently forgot about the defendant and lost important evidence, gives rise to a presumption of prejudice under Doggett v. United States; and (2) whether, to establish
Thursday round-up
Briefly: At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman analyzes the citations to Supreme Court cases in the justices’ signed majority opinions last term, noting, among other things, that “three justices – Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Alito — cited Justice Scalia’s opinions more than those from any other justice
Legal challenges to Trump's entry banSummer symposium on Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii
Symposium: When (if ever) may we consider religion at the border?
Christopher J. Hajec is the director of litigation for the Immigration Reform Law Institute. He filed an amicus brief in support of the government’s cert petition in Trump v. IRAP.
Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: Currier v. Virginia 16-1348 Issue: Whether a defendant who consents to severance of multiple charges into sequential trials loses his right under the double jeopardy clause to the issue-preclusive effect of an acquittal.
Wednesday round-up
In The Economist, Steven Mazie reports that “one salvo” in the Democrats’ battle “to stanch the huge redistricting advantage Republicans grabbed after the 2010 census” “is coming to the Supreme Court when the justices reconvene in the autumn: Gill v Whitford, a case challenging Wisconsin’s
Legal challenges to Trump's entry banSummer symposium on Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii
Symposium: Understanding the Supreme Court’s equitable ruling in Trump v. IRAP
Josh Blackman is a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law Houston, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and the author of “Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, and Executive Power.” In Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, the Supreme Court stayed, in part, the judgments of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th and 9th Circuits.
Legal challenges to Trump's entry banSummer symposium on Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii
Symposium: How the acting solicitor general (sort of) saved the travel ban
Steve Vladeck is a professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law.
Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: Nosal v. United States 16-1344 Issue: Whether a person who obtains an account holder’s permission to access a computer nevertheless “accesses a computer without authorization” in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when he acts without permission from the computer’s owner.
Tuesday round-up
Briefly: At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and Frank Garrison urge the court to grant a cert petition challenging public-sector-union “agency fees,” which they maintain give non-union “workers a Hobson’s choice: Either sacrifice your First Amendment rights and fund
Legal challenges to Trump's entry banSummer symposium on Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii
Symposium: The mootness games
Leah Litman is an assistant professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. She signed an amicus brief that opposed the government’s stay applications to the Supreme Court.
Term round-ups
MoloLamken has compiled its annual “Supreme Court Business Briefing,” concluding that the Supreme Court during the October Term 2016 “spent most of the year taking an incremental approach, with few decisions that fundamentally changed the business landscape.” Sullivan & Cromwell LLP has published its own “Supreme Court Business Review,” providing concise summaries of key cases in the commercial sphere.
12