Ask the authors: When “Machiavellian” is a compliment
The following is a series of questions on the occasion of the publication of Ronald Collins and David Skover’s “The Judge: 26 Machiavellian Lessons” (Oxford University Press, 2017).
November 2017 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 82 items published in November 2017, most recent first.
Thursday round-up
Yesterday the justices heard oral argument in Carpenter v. United States, which asks whether the government must obtain a warrant before obtaining cell-site-location information from cellphone service providers. Amy Howe has this blog‘s argument analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court.
Argument preview: Who should pay attorneys who win on behalf of prisoners?
Petitioner Chris Murphy was a prisoner at the Vandalia Correctional Center in Illinois, where respondents Robert Smith and Gregory Fulk were guards. One day in 2011, Murphy noticed some food and water on his assigned seat in the prison cafeteria and reported it to Smith.
Petitions to watch | Conference of December 1
In its conference of December 1, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether orders denying state-action immunity to public entities are immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine; whether Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado created a new constitutional claim;
Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: Sprint Communications Company, LP v. CenturyTel of Chatham, LLC 17-627 Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred by rejecting the Federal Communications Commission’s determination that failure to pay a tariffed charge is not a violation of
Argument analysis: Justices frustrated by “gibberish” in statutes limiting state-court adjudication of securities class actions
The key word in today’s argument in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund was “gibberish” – the characterization by several of the justices of the text Congress provided in the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.
Argument analysis: Don’t just whistle while you work – Dodd-Frank whistleblowers may need to pucker up for the SEC
The backdrop Digital Realty Trust hired Paul Somers in 2010 and fired him in 2014, allegedly in retaliation for reporting to senior management that his supervisor had eliminated internal controls in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Wednesday round-up
This morning the justices will hear oral argument in a high-profile Fourth Amendment case, Carpenter v. United States, which asks whether the government must obtain a warrant before obtaining cell-site-location information from cellphone service providers. Amy Howe had this blog’s preview.
Argument analysis: Drawing a line on privacy for cellphone records, but where?
The Supreme Court heard oral argument this morning in an important privacy-rights case. The defendant in the case, Timothy Carpenter, was convicted and sentenced to 116 years in prison for his role in a series of armed robberies in Michigan and Ohio.
Argument transcript
The transcript in Carpenter v. United States is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
Argument analysis: Justices hesitant to invalidate congressional scheme for re-examination of patents by Patent and Trademark Office (Corrected)
The justices opened their December argument sitting with a pair of patent cases, both raising questions about the inter partes review process that Congress adopted in 2011 as part of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
Argument analysis: Justices debate Patent and Trademark Office’s rules limiting scope of inter partes review
The second case of yesterday’s Supreme Court patent day was SAS Institute v. Matal. I would not have been surprised if this little statutory case had been a letdown after the constitutional concerns with which the justices began their morning in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group.
Argument preview: Justices to consider immunity in terrorism cases
Over 20 years ago, three suicide bombers detonated explosives on a Jerusalem pedestrian mall, killing themselves and five passers-by. Nearly 200 other people were injured, several of them seriously.
Argument preview: Wedding cakes v. religious beliefs?
[Editor’s note: An earlier version of this post ran on September 11, as an introduction to the blog’s symposium on Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, as well as at Howe on the Court, where it was originally published.]
Argument preview: What limits tax law obstruction-of-justice charges?
Without hearing anything from the Internal Revenue Service, a taxpayer destroys business records that show cash receipts, cash outlays and failure to pay income tax or remit withholding tax. Can he be found to have “corruptly” “obstruct[ed] the due administration of” the tax law, which is a felony?
Tuesday round-up
Today the court will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, which asks whether state courts have jurisdiction to hear Securities Act class action lawsuits under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.
Challengers respond in latest travel-ban dispute
Challengers in Hawaii and Maryland responded today to the government’s request to have the Supreme Court intervene in the ongoing litigation over President Donald Trump’s effort to restrict travel to the United States by nationals from certain countries, often known as the “travel ban.” The
Relist Watch
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. Just two new relists this week. If you were trying to come up with a case caption that could make complete strangers blanch in horror and dread, this week’s first relist would be hard to beat: It takes a special person not to wince when confronted with a name like Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. SolarCity Corp., 17-368.
Argument transcripts
The transcript in Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers is also available.
Monday round-up
This morning, the first day of the December argument session, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, a challenge to the constitutionality of inter partes review, a process used to determine the validity of existing patents.
OT2017 #7: “Keys to a Valet”
It’s finally here: Carpenter v. United States. For months, we’ve been eagerly awaiting the argument in this hugely important case about whether the Fourth Amendment restricts the government’s ability to get location information from cellphone service providers.
Argument preview: The 10th Amendment, anti-commandeering and sports betting
[Editor’s note: An earlier version of this post ran on August 14, as an introduction to the blog’s symposium on Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, as well as at Howe on the Court, where it was originally published.]
No new grants, court denies review in gun-rights cases
The Supreme Court issued orders from its November 21 conference today. The justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket for the term, but they did deny review in several high-profile cases.
Argument transcripts
The transcript in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC is available on the Supreme Court’s website; the transcript in SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal is also available.
This week at the court
The Supreme Court released orders from the November 21 conference on Monday. It did not grant certiorari in any new cases. The justices heard oral argument on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. The calendar for the December sitting is available on the court’s website.
Friday round-up
Briefly: In Episode 210 of SCOTUS 101, Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates talk about “what they’re thankful for and the Federalist Society convention.” At his eponymous blog, Ross Runkel looks at Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers, which involves the whistleblower protections of the Dodd-Frank Act and which will be argued next week.
Wednesday round-up
At Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro reports that “Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Michael Dreeben will detour from special counsel Robert Mueller’s legal team next week to argue before the U.S. Supreme Court in high-profile privacy case,” Carpenter v. United States, which asks whether the government must obtain a warrant for cell-site-location information.
Argument preview: The justices return to cellphones and the Fourth Amendment
[Editor’s note: An earlier version of this post ran on July 31, as an introduction to the blog’s symposium on Carpenter v. United States, as well as at Howe on the Court, where it was originally published.]
Argument preview: Plain talk about Dodd-Frank whistleblowing
Thar she blows In 2010, Congress was all about reforesting the new wasteland of American finance created by the 2008 financial crisis; the result was the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which transformed the banking and financial-services industry.
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday the U.S. government asked the Supreme Court to allow all the provisions of President Donald Trump’s September 27 entry ban to go into effect while the government appeals a nationwide injunction issued by a district court judge in Hawaii that now blocks enforcement of key portions of the ban.
Argument preview: Justices to consider limits on securities class actions in state courts
Securities litigators have spent the last two decades working out the implications of two statutes Congress passed in the closing years of the last century, both designed to limit securities class actions. The first was the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, known as the PSLRA.
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to intervene in travel-ban dispute (UPDATED Tuesday, 12:07 p.m. and 6:46 p.m.)
UPDATES: The justices have asked the challengers to file a response to the government’s filing. The response is due on Tuesday, November 28, by 12 p.m.
Monday round-up
For USA Today, Richard Wolf and Gregory Korte report that “President Trump added five names Friday to his list of potential Supreme Court justices.” Additional coverage comes from Kevin Liptak and Ariane de Vogue at CNN, Louise Radnofsky for The Wall Street Journal, Dave Boyer at The Washington
Argument preview: Justices to consider constitutional limits on adjudicatory authority of Patent and Trademark Office
It will be patent day at the Supreme Court when the justices return to the bench next Monday for their December sitting. The morning brings a pair of cases considering the “inter partes review” process that Congress added to the patent law in 2011 as part of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
Argument preview: Justices to consider propriety of the Patent and Trademark Office’s rules limiting scope of inter partes review
The second case of the Supreme Court’s patent day next Monday is SAS Institute v. Matal. That case should be a relief; after considering the weighty constitutional concerns summarized in my preview in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, the justices will turn to a straightforward question of statutory interpretation.
This week at the court
On Tuesday the justices met for their November 21 conference; our list of “petitions to watch” for that conference is available at this link. The calendar for the December sitting, which begins on November 27, is available on the Supreme Court’s website.
Friday round-up
Briefly: In the National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Marcia Coyle reports that Fane Lozman “has been a thorn in the side of the city council of Riviera Beach, Florida, for more than a decade[, a]nd now—for the second time in five years—his legal battles with the city have
Petitions to watch | Conference of November 21
In its conference of November 21, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether Congress possesses plenary power over Indian affairs and, if so, whether the plenary power expands the Indian commerce clause to authorize the displacement of state rights to territorial
SCOTUS for law students: The roles of the chief justice
When Chief Justice John Roberts takes his place in the middle seat on the bench, he is performing his most visible and widely known duty: presiding over the Supreme Court. But the chief justice also has a number of other roles, both within the judiciary and outside the court.
Justices release January calendar
Today the Supreme Court released the calendar for its January sitting, which begins on January 8. The justices will kick off the new year with not one but two interstate disputes over water: Texas v. New Mexico, involving the apportionment of the waters of the Rio Grande River, and Florida v. Georgia, involving the allocation of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin.
Thursday round-up
For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[w]hen a Colorado ‘cake artist’ who refuses to serve same-sex weddings brings his case to the Supreme Court next month [in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission], he’ll have a tight-knit fraternity of florists, bakers and memory makers in
SCOTUS Map: October and November 2017
Justice Breyer embarked on a NAFTA tour this past month.
Wednesday round-up
Briefly: Subscript offers a graphic explainer for SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, which asks whether the board adjudicating challenges to existing patents via the inter partes review process must issue a final written decision with regard to all of the claims raised by a challenger.
Academic highlight: Vázquez and Vladeck on the constitutional right to post-conviction review
Did the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana implicitly hold that some prisoners have a constitutional right to post-conviction habeas review?
Status Quo Watch
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. Monday’s order list was a fitting one as the nation approaches the Thanksgiving holiday: It began with a flurry of excitement, followed by torpor.
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday the Supreme Court added three cases to its docket for October Term 2017: National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a First Amendment challenge to a California law regulating pregnancy-crisis-center disclosures; Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, which asks whether a
Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: State of Alaska v. Ross 17-118 Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Legal scholarship highlight: Justice Scalia’s textualist legacy
Jonathan R. Siegel is Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School. The late Justice Antonin Scalia left his mark on the law in many ways, but perhaps his greatest legacy is that he changed the way we think about statutes.
Monday round-up
At the Associated Press, Mark Sherman reports that the Supreme Court “is making new legal filings available online starting [today], years behind the rest of the federal court system.” For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that the court “is developing its own online system, rather than
OT2017 #6: “Year of Munsingwear”
The Supreme Court’s November sitting might be finished, but we’re still going. Ian returns to wrap up by recapping last week’s arguments with Dan. But first, there’s the matter of a very unusual certiorari petition that the Department of Justice filed in a hot-button case that involves both abortion and undocumented immigrants.
12