Showing 1–50 of 85 items published in October 2017, most recent first.
This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, in which the justices will consider the appropriate standard of review for determining non-statutory insider status in a bankruptcy proceeding.
David Patchak probably never thought his complaint about the decision of the secretary of the Department of the Interior to take a tract of land near his home into trust for the benefit of a Michigan group known as the Gun Lake Tribe of Indians would net him two Supreme Court cases and a federal statute.
Something odd happened during Monday’s 59-minute oral argument in Ayestas v. Davis, a widely anticipated capital habeas case about funding levels for federal habeas petitions brought by indigent defendants: Justice Anthony Kennedy said nary a word.
When a state appeals court affirms a lower-court ruling without an opinion, is it endorsing the decision below? Is it rejecting it? Does the answer depend upon the nature of the lower-court ruling? Does it vary by state?
The transcript in U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge is available at this link.
For the first-ever First Mondays live show, we traveled to the University of Michigan (go Blue), where we were joined by alumna Leah Litman. From Ann Arbor, we ring in the November sitting, which we think is somewhat more exciting than the popular coverage might have you believe.
When the justices hear oral argument next Monday in Merit Management Group v FTI Consulting, they will finally be turning their attention to one of this century’s most prominent disputes about how to read the Bankruptcy Code.
This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in two criminal-procedure cases. The first is Ayestas v. Davis, which involves the standards for funding an investigation establishing an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim in a capital case. Steve Vladeck previewed the case for this blog.
Two weeks ago, Justice Elena Kagan called Justice Thurgood Marshall “the greatest lawyer of the 20th century.” Here’s another one for the folks at Guinness: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the “most important woman lawyer in the history of the republic,” doing for women’s rights what Marshall did for the rights of people of color, said Judge Ann Claire Williams yesterday.
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from its conference last Friday, but the justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket for the term.
The transcript in Ayestas v. Davis is available at this link; the transcript in Wilson v. Sellers is available at this link.
On Monday the Supreme Court released orders from its October 27 conference but did not add any cases to its merits docket. The court heard oral argument on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The calendar for the November sitting is available on the court’s website.
For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that six Harvard Law School graduates who also happen to be current or retired Supreme Court justices convened in Cambridge, Massachusetts, yesterday to help celebrate the law school’s 200th anniversary.
The Supreme Court’s November sitting – which begins on Monday, October 30 – shrank today to six cases, which will be argued over five days. Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, a challenge to the procedure that Ohio uses to remove inactive voters from its voter-registration lists, had been scheduled for oral argument on Wednesday, November 8, but it will be postponed to a later, as-yet-undetermined date.
Briefly: At Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro asks several “Supreme Court practitioners for their current thinking on why so few women argue before the Supreme Court, and what can or should be done about it.” More Perfect (podcast) looks at Jesner v. Arab Bank, in which the
What makes an American is not the name or the blood or even the place of birth, but the belief in the principles of freedom and equality that this country stands for. — Antonin Scalia (1986) If one would know Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, one must read his memorable speeches, especially his Civil War addresses.
Yesterday the Supreme Court dismissed the second of the two challenges to President Donald Trump’s March 6 entry ban, Trump v. Hawaii, vacating the judgment and remanding the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit with instructions to dismiss it as moot.
In its conference of October 27, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the Supreme Court’s precedents clearly establish that a prisoner is incompetent to be executed for a murder because he does not remember or acknowledge committing it; whether a law requiring
Artis v. District of Columbia, which is set for argument next Wednesday, reminds us that much of the Supreme Court’s work is decidedly unglamorous. The court’s task will be to determine how long a tolling provision in the federal supplemental jurisdiction statute gives litigants to pursue certain claims in state court.
The sole item on next Tuesday morning’s argument agenda, U.S. Bank National Association v. The Village at Lakeridge, is a bankruptcy case in name only.
Briefly: At The World and Everything In It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in Class v. United States, which asks whether a guilty plea waives a defendant’s right to appeal the constitutionality of the law of conviction, and Jesner v. Arab Bank, in which the justices will decide whether corporations are liable under the Alien Tort Statute.
John Elwood reviews yesterday’s relists. For the first time during October Term 2017, we have had a week off between Supreme Court conferences. That’s great – everyone has had a little more time to chi–ll–ax and focus on what really matters.
The Supreme Court formally removed the second of two challenges to President Donald Trump’s March 6 executive order from its docket today. The March 6 order, sometimes known as the “travel ban,” had blocked travel to the United States by nationals of six Muslim-majority countries and suspended the admission of refugees into the United States.
For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that Chief Justice John Roberts has met with criticism for suggesting during the oral argument in partisan-gerrymandering case Gill v. Whitford “that forcing the court to make … decisions” about “when normal politics became unconstitutional bias”
As part of the Criminal Justice Act, Congress has provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) that federal courts in capital cases involving indigent defendants (including suits for post-conviction relief) should fund “investigative, expert, or other services [that] are reasonably necessary for the
In its 2011 decision in Harrington v. Richter, the Supreme Court held that even a summary ruling by a state court can count as an adjudication “on the merits” to which federal habeas courts must defer under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
On Tuesday the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Trump v. Hawaii and remanded the case to the court of appeals with instructions to dismiss it as moot.
Briefly: Subscript offers a graphic explainer on Wilson v. Sellers, which asks whether a federal court in a habeas case should “look through” a summary state-court ruling to review the last reasoned state-court decision.
In Texas v. White in 1869, Chief Justice Salmon Chase famously wrote for the Supreme Court that the “Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.” Chase’s opinion rejecting state secession may seem today like a foregone conclusion, an unsurprising legal corollary to the Union’s victory on the battlefield.
Briefly: At Lawfare, Anthony Bellia and Bradford Clark, the authors of scholarship cited by Justice Neil Gorsuch during last week’s oral argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, which asks whether corporations are liable under the Alien Tort Statute, point out that the court has never considered “whether
Yesterday the court removed securities-fraud case Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System from the November argument calendar.
The petitions of the day are: Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Naugle 17-400 Issues: (1) Whether, when there is no way to tell whether a prior jury found particular facts against a party, due process permits those facts to be conclusively presumed against that party in subsequent litigation; and (2)
Yesterday the Supreme Court added four cases to its merits docket for the current term. Amy Howe has this blog‘s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court.
Justice Elena Kagan momentarily hedged her bets yesterday afternoon in front of an audience of law students at Chicago-Kent College of Law. But after struggling to find proper qualifiers, she didn’t hold back: “I don’t see how anyone could disagree with this: Thurgood Marshall was the greatest lawyer of the 20th century.
At Just Security, William Dodge discusses last week’s oral argument in Jesner v. Arab Bank, in which the justices considered whether corporations are liable under the Alien Tort Statute, explaining that “the Justices seemed to be looking at the question in two steps: (1) whether customary
The October sitting has ended—and we’re here to wrap it up for you. On this episode, we begin by discussing the biggest news of the month: our new microphones, brought to you courtesy of our Patreon supporters.
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from its October 13 conference. The justices added four new cases to their merits docket for the term, and several justices commented on some of the cases in which the court denied review.
On Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the October 13 conference. The court added four new cases to its merits docket: United States v. Microsoft Corp., Ohio v. American Express Co., Currier v. Virginia and Dahda v. United States.
On Wednesday the justices heard oral argument in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, which will determine the venue for challenges to Clean Water Act rules. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.]
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
The scope of the federal government’s regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act has long been controversial. Stretch it too far, and it appears that the federal government can regulate every puddle in the nation; narrow it too much, and the government is left unable to protect the quality of interconnected waters.
In its conference of October 13, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient
Yesterday the justices heard oral argument in two cases. The first was in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, which will determine the venue for challenges to Clean Water Act rules. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.]
[Editor’s note: This post has been updated to include two additional relists, Oliver v. Florida and Tharpe v. Sellers.] John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relists.
Tuesday’s argument in Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago was unique in several respects. Justice Stephen Breyer did not ask any questions; Justices Anthony Kennedy and Neil Gorsuch, ordinarily active participants in arguments who stake out staunch positions, asked about one issue each.
The Supreme Court was divided today on whether corporations can be held liable in U.S. courts under a federal law dating back over two centuries.
One of the challenges to President Donald Trump’s March 6 executive order, often known as the “travel ban,” came to an end at the Supreme Court today, at least for now.
Yesterday evening the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, sending the case back to the lower court with instructions to dismiss it as moot.
The transcript in National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense is on the court’s website, as is the transcript in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC.
With the entry-ban cases off the calendar, today the justices will hear only one oral argument, in Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, in which they will consider whether appellate time limits are jurisdictional. Howard Wasserman previewed the case for this blog.