Showing 1–50 of 1008 items published in 2016, most recent first.
Briefly: At PovertyLaw, Gary Smith and colleagues review last term’s Supreme Court cases “implicating federal court ‘access,'” including decisions involving appealability of administrative actions, standing, attorney fees, arbitration and class actions.
Briefly: At Lawfare, Steve Vladeck discusses Hernandez v. Mesa, an upcoming case involving liability for a cross-border shooting, arguing that “if a rogue border patrol agent’s unjustified and unauthorized shooting of an unarmed 15-year-old boy implicates national security simply because the
In its conference of January 6, 2017, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether Alabama’s advisory-jury death-sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment; whether, in a means-of-execution suit, known and available alternatives are limited to those already provided in a
In the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh reports on the prospects for filling the Supreme Court vacancy in the new year, surveying the “reliably conservative names” on Donald Trump’s list of potential nominees.
Briefly: In The New York Times, Adam Liptak looks at Mickelson v. County of Ramsey, a pending cert petition challenging a Minnesota county’s imposition of “booking fees” on people who are arrested, even if no charges are ever filed, noting that an “unusual coalition of civil rights organizations,
John Elwood reviews the latest relists, with the musical assistance of a retired elf. Not that one. I’m dreaming of some slight relists Not like the ones we used to know Where petitions prevail and readers fail To gripe that we used this song before Our story begins late at night at the desk of a sour law clerk named Ebenezer Scotus.
The justices logged 174 events in the 2016 calendar year, seven of which took place in December. The Supreme Court justices had a light extracurricular schedule this December – with the exception of Justice Stephen Breyer, who remained active on the speaking circuit.
The Supreme Court released the argument calendar for the February sitting today. Over a two-week period, the justices will hear oral arguments in seven cases on five different days, beginning on Tuesday, February 21. (Monday, February 20 is a federal holiday.)
Yesterday the court released its argument calendar for the February sitting, which begins on Tuesday, February 21. Amy Howe reports on the schedule for this blog.
Lately, the Supreme Court seems to be sending a message to the lawyers who practice before it: Do not ask the court to grant review of an issue and then try to change the subject.
The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins on the occasion of the publication of “My Own Words” by Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Mary Hartnett and Wendy W. Williams (Simon & Schuster, 2016, pp. 400).
Linda Greenhouse warns in a column in The New York Times that the extremism of Donald Trump’s cabinet picks suggests that Trump may nominate “one of the most conservative of all federal judges,” William Pryor, to the court; she maintains that a filibuster of the nomination by Senate Democrats “may
Cecelia Chang is the director of litigation at Asian Americans Advancing Justice—AAJC. Daniel Kornstein is a partner at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP. The debate over trademark rights and free speech has a long history.
Megan Carpenter is a professor of law, and founder and co-director of the Center of Law and Intellectual Property, at Texas A&M University School of Law. The British comedy troupe Monty Python tells us to “always look on the bright side of life.” Should the same apply to trademark law?
At Law.com, (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle recap “some of the highlights and lowlights at the Supreme Court in 2016,” noting that the “court was in the headlines early and often, especially after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February and the ensuing
OCTOBER TERM 2015 — The American Justice series of timely books on a Supreme Court term began in 2014 with Garrett Epps‘ “Nine Clashing Visions on the Supreme Court.” The series, edited by Epps, continued with Steven Mazie‘s “The Dramatic Tenth Term of the Roberts Court.” These slim volumes (all under 170 pages) are released in record time, around mid-September following the term they review.
Dwayne Sam is an associate and Megan Brown a partner at Wiley Rein LLP. Representing the Rutherford Institute, they filed an amicus brief in this case in the Federal Circuit and a brief in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse in the 4th Circuit. Some First Amendment cases are hard.
Robert S. Chang is professor of law and executive director of the Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality at Seattle University School of Law I grew up in Ohio and I have vivid memories of being called the S-word.
At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that a New Mexico lawyer’s effort to compel the Senate to vote on the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court “may have reached its final point on Monday morning” when Chief Justice John Roberts denied an emergency request for an
Rebecca Tushnet is Professor of Law at Georgetown Law.
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. This essay is adapted from a brief he filed in support of Simon Shiao Tam’s quest to register “The Slants” as a trademark.
Briefly: At The Huffington Post, Cristian Farias reports that President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, got “a shout-out” from the president at the White House Hanukkah party last week; in predicting that Garland will “‘continue to serve our country with
The justices are now in recess. They will meet for their next conference on January 6. The calendar for the January sitting, which will begin on Monday, January 9, is available on the court’s website.
Today the Supreme Court issued an order in Jennings v. Rodriguez, a case that was argued on November 30, directing the parties to file supplemental briefs on three questions by January 17, 2017.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court requested supplemental briefing in Jennings v. Rodriguez, the immigration-detention case that was argued on November 30; the court asked the parties to address constitutional issues that the lower court’s ruling had avoided and that some justices had suggested at oral argument were not properly presented in the case.
Simon Tam describes himself as an “Asian-American musician, lecturer, and political activist.” In 2006, he formed a rock band that he named The Slants, to bring attention to discrimination against Asian-Americans.
Yesterday, the court added four cases to its merits docket, consolidating two. Amy Howe covers the grants for this blog.
At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston discusses this week’s Supreme Court orders, including the denials of review in two class-action cases involving challenges to a settlement between the NFL and former professional football players who suffered brain injuries linked to repeated concussions,
This afternoon the Supreme Court added four new cases to its docket, for a total of three hours of oral argument. The justices were not scheduled to meet for a conference this week, but each of the four cases in which the court granted review had been considered for the first time at the justices’ December 9 conference.
Yesterday, the court issued a unanimous opinion in Shaw v. United States, a bank-fraud case, rejecting Lawrence Shaw’s argument that he could not be found liable under the federal bank-fraud statute if he only intended to defraud a third party, not the bank itself, and remanding for consideration of questions about the jury instructions.
The line for the Jingle Ball, which took place last night at the Verizon Center in downtown Washington, stretched down 7th Street and around the corner onto F Street.
On Friday, the court added one case to its merits docket, granting cert in Honeycutt v. United States, which involves the scope of liability for a forfeiture in a drug conspiracy case. Amy Howe covers the grant for this blog.
Lawrence Shaw does not dispute that he stole over $300,000 from Stanley Hsu, a U.S. citizen living in Taiwan, by using Hsu’s personal information to move money out of Hsu’s Bank of America account into an account at another bank, from which Shaw then withdrew the money.
The Supreme Court issued additional orders from last week’s conference this morning. Last week, the justices added one new case from that conference to their merits docket for the term: Honeycutt v. United States, in which they will consider whether a co-conspirator can be held independently liable for forfeiture of the proceeds of a drug conspiracy.
The court issued additional orders from the December 9 conference on Monday. The court did not grant any new cases or call for the views of the solicitor general in any cases. The court also released its opinion in Shaw v. United States.
On Wednesday, the court extended the briefing schedule in Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., a high-profile case arising out of a transgender student’s request to use the boys’ bathroom at his high school. Amy Howe covers the development for this blog.
There was high drama at the Supreme Court last night, in the case of an Alabama death-row inmate who sought a last-minute stay of his execution, which was originally scheduled for 6 p.m. CST yesterday.
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections McCrory v. Harris Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp. Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.
This afternoon the justices issued orders from today’s private conference, adding one new case to their merits docket for the term. They agreed to review the case of Terry Honeycutt, who worked as a salaried employee at a hardware store owned by his brother, Tony.
In its conference of December 9, 2016, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether, when counsel fully concedes the client’s guilt to all charges over the client’s express objection, counsel’s performance amounts to a complete failure to subject the prosecution’s case to
In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., potentially the most important of the Supreme Court’s recent bankruptcy cases, the court appears to be on the verge of rejecting priority-skipping structured dismissals as a means of resolving Chapter 11 cases.
Today the Supreme Court announced a new briefing schedule for Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., the case of a transgender student who identifies as a boy and wants to be able to use the boys’ bathroom at his Virginia high school.
Yesterday, the court heard oral argument in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., a case involving a challenge to the use of a structured dismissal to resolve a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Daniel Bussel analyzes the argument for this blog.
A week from today, the nation will celebrate the 225th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the collective name for the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
The argument in Life Technologies v. Promega seemed to go well for the petitioners, Life Technologies, who argued that the statutory phrase “all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention” cannot refer to a single component of an invention, especially if that one component is merely a common commodity that has several non-infringing uses.
Today the court hears oral argument in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., a case involving a challenge to the use of structured dismissals to resolve Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. Daniel Bussel previewed the case for this blog.
John “The Relist Man” Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. There are classic blunders that Relist Watch readers would never commit: Never get involved in a land war in Asia. Don’t punch a kangaroo in the face.
The transcript in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corporation is here.
“It is a very tough matter,” observed Justice Stephen Breyer, summarizing the questions with which the justices were grappling today.
Today the court hears oral argument in Life Technologies v. Promega, a patent case that asks when export of a “substantial portion” of the components of a patented invention for assembly outside the U.S. creates patent infringement liability. John Duffy previewed the case for this blog.