Showing 1–50 of 97 items published in January 2016, most recent first.
The Court is now in recess. The next sitting will begin on February 22. The calendar for that sitting is available here. The Justices will not meet Friday for their February 19 Conference because of the ceremony at the Court in honor of the late Justice Antonin Scalia; our list of “petitions to watch” that had been scheduled for that Conference is available here.
The Supreme Court released on Friday the argument calendar for its March sitting, showing that the seven cases challenging the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate are set for a ninety-minute hearing on March 23. There will be one more argument sitting, in April.
Briefly: At In A Crowded Theater, Erica Goldberg urges the Court to grant review in Electronic Arts v. Davis, “a Ninth Circuit case involving whether a football video game manufacturer is liable for using the numbers and likenesses of retired football players.” In The Washington Post, Juliet
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. With the Iowa caucuses just days away, you’re probably wondering if Relist Watch is endorsing a primary candidate. And having surveyed the field and studied the candidates’ positions on the issues in detail, our answer is: What’s a caucus? Sounds NSFW.
In a recent essay, William Baude attempts to articulate a unifying theory for the Court’s sovereign-immunity jurisprudence, building on a theory first proposed by Stephen Sachs.
At Verdict, Michael Dorf echoes Justice Elena Kagan’s skepticism in the recent oral argument in Heffernan v. City of Paterson about the possibility of sharply distinguishing (for First Amendment purposes) between rules and reasons.
UPDATED 5:15 p.m. The Chief Justice has called for a response from EPA, due by 3 p.m. next Thursday, February 4. Meanwhile, a group of sixty utility companies or energy industry trade groups have filed a second application for a stay of the Clean Power Plan, also submitted to the Chief Justice.
There is more commentary on Monday’s opinion in Montgomery v. Louisiana, holding that Miller v. Alabama – the Court’s 2012 decision prohibiting mandatory sentences of life without parole for juvenile offenders – applies retroactively to cases on state collateral review.
SCOTUSblog is – as we explain in more detail elsewhere on the site – an impartial, journalistic entity that seeks to provide readers with objective information about the Supreme Court and its cases.
As seemed clear to me from the oral argument, the Court yesterday unanimously ruled for the government on two questions of federal criminal law. Justice Clarence Thomas’s crisp fourteen-page opinion for the Court carefully avoids controversy.
Yesterday the Court released orders from its January 22 Conference and four opinions in argued cases. Molly Runkle rounded up early coverage for this blog.
It has been a week since the Court announced that it would review United States v. Texas, the challenge to the Obama administration’s deferred-action policy for undocumented immigrants.
No juvenile who commits murder or another serious crime can be sentenced to life without parole unless it is clear that the youth is doomed to a life of crime — that is, is so “corrupt” as to lack any capacity for reform, the Supreme Court ruled by a six-to-three vote on Monday.
The Supreme Court on Monday gave full approval to a new federal approach to lowering electricity rates and avoiding power blackouts, rejecting state governments’ strong protests that a U.S. agency was pushing its regulatory mission into their territory.
For the second time in a week, the Supreme Court on Monday appeared to be signaling that it is not ready to reconsider one of the basic protections it has provided women seeking abortions.
With a blizzard forecast for the Eastern Seaboard, the Supreme Court announced on Friday that opinions could be expected on Monday, the last day scheduled public session before a four-week recess. As the blizzard arrived on schedule at 2 p.m.
This morning’s order list included something of a surprise: a summary reversal in a civil case that involved neither arbitration nor qualified immunity.
It is commonly said that you can never be sure how a case will come down based on what the Justices say at the argument. But that doesn’t mean you can never get any reliable information from the argument.
This morning the Court released orders and four opinions.
We are live blogging this morning as the Court issues orders and opinions. Join us.
On Monday the Court issued orders from its January 22 Conference; it did not add any new cases to its merits docket, but it did release per curiam decisions in Amgen v. Harris and James v. City of Boise.
The oral argument in Sturgeon v. Frost confirmed our suspicions that it is a complicated and difficult case. Throughout the argument, the Justices stumbled over their questions, and the back and forth among the Justices and the lawyers was hard to follow even for those steeped in the issues and law of the case.
On December 7, Justice Stephen Breyer was featured as part of the Aspen Institute’s Alma and Joseph Gildenhorn Book Series in Washington, D.C., where he discussed his latest book, The Court and the World. The Aspen Institute has posted video and a review of the event online.
Tuesday’s opinion in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, holding that an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case, continues to garner coverage and commentary.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relisted cases. There are two types of people in D.C.: those who can’t handle a little bit of snow; and those who enjoy ridiculing them.
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The Court heard arguments this week in: Heffernan v. City of Paterson Americold Realty Trust v. Conagra Foods Nebraska v. Parker Sturgeon v. Frost
In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the Court agreed to review a Ninth Circuit decision that allowed a class action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) to proceed against a government contractor, petitioner Campbell-Ewald Company.
This morning brought us a strong candidate for this year’s award for “case that breaks the least new ground.” To the surprise of few, the Court disposed of Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan with a wholly pedestrian opinion that treated the case as
Yesterday the Justices heard oral arguments in Nebraska v. Parker, in which they are considering a dispute over land on the Omaha Indian reservation in Nebraska. Lyle Denniston covered the case for this blog, with other coverage coming from Mark Walsh of Education Week.
In Tuesday’s argument in Heffernan v. City of Paterson, the Justices considered a case that Justice Samuel Alito called a law school hypothetical — whether a public employee can show a violation of his right to political association when he was demoted explicitly because his employer believed he
Today the Justices will hear oral arguments in two more cases – the final two cases of the January sitting. In Nebraska v. Parker, they will consider a dispute over land on the Omaha Indian reservation in Nebraska.
The image of an Indian tribe, ominously hovering on the edge of town with ambitions to take over. Or the picture of a pitifully small Indian tribe wanting only to hang onto a heritage of lands it can call home.
The transcript in Nebraska v. Parker is here; the transcript in Sturgeon v. Masica is here.
In recent years, issues relating to the death penalty have often been an acrimonious topic at the Supreme Court. In June of last year, the Justices ended their 2014-2015 Term by upholding Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol, but four Justices dissented from that decision – including, most notably, Justice Stephen Breyer, who suggested that the death penalty itself may be unconstitutional.
We arelive blogging as the Court issues opinions. Join us.
Today the Justices will hear oral arguments in two cases. In Heffernan v. City of Paterson, they will consider whether the First Amendment prohibits the government from demoting an employee based on a supervisor’s perception that the employee supports a political candidate.
The Obama administration’s sweeping change of deportation policy for undocumented immigrants will get a thorough review by the Supreme Court, including the question of whether it violates the Constitution, the Court announced Tuesday.
The transcript in Heffernan v. City of Paterson is here; the transcript in Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. is here.
In the summer of 2014, efforts to pass new laws to overhaul the country’s immigration system seemed to be on a slow road to nowhere.
With so much attention on pointed and inhospitable comments in last Term’s opinions, the argument in Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods was a welcome interlude, with the Justices about as close to consensus as possible.
This morning the Court granted review in United States v. Texas, in which it is considering a challenge to the Obama administration’s changes to deportation policy for undocumented immigrants.
The Court issued additional orders from the January 15 Conference on Tuesday, adding four new cases to its merits docket. On Wednesday the Court released its opinions in Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, Kansas v. Carr, and Duncan v. Owens.
In its Conference of January 22, 2016, the Court will consider petitions considering issues such as whether Congress has created a right to federally funded counsel in state capital post-conviction proceedings before completing federal habeas litigation, and whether the Employee Retirement Income
Earlier this week the Court heard oral arguments in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, in which the Justices are considering whether Puerto Rico and the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The Court heard arguments this week in: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association Molina-Martinez v. United States Duncan v. Owens Bank Markazi v. Peterson Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle
Taking no action on the Obama administration’s plea for approval of its new immigration policy, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review the claim by former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell that he is innocent of corruption or fraud because he did not take any official action to benefit a friend and benefactor.
Yesterday the Court heard oral argument in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, in which the Justices are considering whether Puerto Rico and the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
John Elwood commences countdown of Monday’s relisted cases. Welcome Young Americans to another installment of the country’s most Prestige-ous semi-humorous and largely factual Supreme-Court-docket-tea-leaf-reading feature, Relist Watch. Also, the only one.
It is unlikely that Ammon Bundy and friends, currently illegally occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, planned their protest against federal land management policies in the West to coincide with the upcoming Supreme Court argument in Sturgeon v. Frost, but the standoff in Oregon and the issues in this case spring from the same well.
UPDATE Thursday, 2:40 p.m. The facts about the community of Pender have changed since this lawsuit was originally filed. See the note at the end of the post.