U.S. appeals sweeping ethics ruling by Texas judge (UPDATED)
UPDATED 9:54 p.m. Judge Hanen on Tuesday evening issued a brief order on the government’s plea for a postponement of his ethics order, setting a hearing for 10 a.m. in a week — on June 7.
May 2016 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 73 items published in May 2016, most recent first.
Tuesday round-up
Coverage relating to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to succeed him comes from Tony Mauro, who in The National Law Journal (subscription or registration may be required) reports that, “as loudly as advocates lament the plight of an eight-justice
Today’s orders: One new grant, one CVSG, two summary reversals
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from last week’s Conference, adding a False Claims Act case to its merits docket for next Term and asking the federal government to weigh in on a case involving the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Afternoon round-up
This morning the Court issued orders from last Thursday’s Conference and one opinion in an argued case. In United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Inc., the Justices ruled that an approved “jurisdictional determination” by the Army Corps of Engineers is a final agency action subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Live blog of orders and opinions (Update: Completed)
We are live-blogging this morning as the Court issues orders and opinions. Join us.
This week at the Court
On Tuesday, the Court issued orders from its May 26 Conference. It granted review in State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby and called for the views of the Solicitor General in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District.
Solicitor General responds to the Court’s invitations
It’s a sure sign that the end of the Term is drawing closer: briefs filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, at the Court’s invitation, expressing the views of the United States in cases in which the Court is considering whether to grant review.
Petitions of the day
The petitions of the day are: Ziglar v. Turkmen 15-1358 Issue: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals, in finding that Respondents’ Fifth Amendment claims did not arise in a “new context” for purposes of implying a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, erred by
Friday round-up
Coverage relating to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the nomination of Chief Judge Merrick Garland to succeed him comes from Mike DeBonis of The Washington Post, who reports that a Utah newspaper mistakenly published Sen. Orrin Hatch’s op-ed on his meeting with Garland before the meeting took place.
Relist Watch Redux
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. It’s the Friday before Memorial Day, which means if you’re reading skimming this post, you’re probably experiencing an interminable wait in an airport security line, wearing a neck pillow, and actively loathing the family of four ahead of you.
Polly Price on the Chinese Exclusion Case and immigration in the Progressive Era
In 1875, Chae Chan Ping left San Francisco for China with a certificate promising him re-entry upon his return. Congress had recently banned new laborers from China, but it had made an exception for previous residents who held certificates like Ping’s.
Thursday round-up
In the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh analyzes the Court’s recent decision in Luis v. United States, in which the Court held that the pretrial freeze of a criminal defendant’s untainted assets violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice.
SCOTUS for law students: Retired Justices
When is retirement not really retirement? Just ask Justices David Souter, Sandra Day O’Connor, and John Paul Stevens. The three Justices may have retired from the Supreme Court but not from public life.
SCOTUS Map: April and May 2016
April and May were busy months for the Supreme Court Justices, as they crossed the country to adjudicate moot courts, deliver commencement speeches, and give remarks at judicial conferences.
Petitions to watch | Conference of May 26
In its Conference of May 26, 2016, the Court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether and under what standard a corporation or other organization may be deemed to have “knowingly” presented a false claim, or used or made a false record, in violation of Section 3729(a) of the False
Wednesday round-up
More commentary on Monday’s opinion in Foster v. Chatman, holding by a vote of seven to one that the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision that the defendant failed to show purposeful race discrimination in the selection of his jury was clearly erroneous, comes from Anna Roberts at Casetext and Alan Williams at NCADP Blog.
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday the Court issued three rulings in argued cases. Molly Runkle rounded up early coverage and commentary for this blog. NPR‘s Nina Totenberg had an overview of all three cases.
Monday round-up
More commentary relating to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees comes from Kenneth Jost, who at Jost on Justice characterized the list as a “sop to conservatives.” The editorial board of The Washington Post also weighs in, describing the list as
Opinion analysis: Racial gerrymandering case ends
Without further clarifying when state legislatures make too much use of race in drawing new election district maps, the Supreme Court on Monday ended Virginia Republican pleas to revive a 2012 plan — no longer in effect — for the state’s eleven congressional districts.
Opinion analysis: Telltale files on race-based jury selection
Analysis The Supreme Court made a new effort on Monday to restrict prosecutors’ power to strike black jurors in a racially sensitive case, but the result was so tightly focused on what happened at just one trial that it was doubtful that the new ruling would do much to end the practice.
Afternoon round-up: Today’s opinions
This morning the Court released its opinion in Foster v. Chatman, holding by a vote of seven to one that the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision that the defendant failed to show purposeful race discrimination in the selection of his jury was clearly erroneous.
Opinion analysis: Pro-plaintiff ruling in federal employment discrimination case
Today the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of Marvin Green, a former employee of the United States Postal Service who alleges that he was the victim of racial discrimination on the job.
Live blog of orders and opinions (Update: Completed)
We are live-blogging this morning as the Court issues orders and opinions. Join us.
This week at the Court
On Monday, the Court issued orders from its May 19 Conference. It did not add any new cases to its merits docket for next Term or call for the views of the Solicitor General in any cases. The Court also released its opinions in three cases.
Opinion analysis: An emerging divide over text vs. context in interpreting federal immigration law?
Congress has defined the term “aggravated felony” to include state and foreign crimes that are “described in” certain federal statutes, such as the arson offense codified at 18 U.S.C. § 844(i), which makes it a federal crime to “maliciously damage[] or destroy[], or attempt[] to damage or destroy,
Opinion analysis: “Speedy trial” guarantee does not apply to sentencing
The price of unanimity on an ideologically divided Court is, as we are learning in Justice Antonin Scalia’s absence, narrow opinions that reserve difficult issues for future consideration.
Judge in immigration case issues sweeping new order
The federal judge who first shut down President Barack Obama’s sweeping immigration policy gave himself another controversial role on Thursday: overseeing required ethical schooling of every Washington-based Justice Department lawyer who appears in any court — federal or state — in twenty-six states over the next five years.
Friday round-up
The Justices issued three opinions in argued cases yesterday. Writing for this blog, Ross Runkel covered the decision in CRST Van Expedited v. EEOC, in which the Court ruled that a favorable ruling on the merits is not a necessary predicate to find that a defendant is a prevailing party for purposes of an award of attorney’s fees under Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Relist Watch Returns
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. We are really sorry.
Petitions to watch | Conference of May 19
In its Conference of May 19, 2016, the Court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether, for federal habeas purposes, California’s procedural rule generally barring review of claims that were available but not raised on direct appeal is an “adequate” state-law ground for rejection of
Thursday round-up
Yesterday’s coverage of the Court was dominated by the announcement, by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, of a list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
SCOTUSblog is hiring
SCOTUSblog is looking for a new editor, to start work in September 2016. The editor’s responsibilities will include (among other things) a careful edit of each post that is published on the blog, drafting a daily round-up of news and commentary related to the Supreme Court, and working with the blog manager to identify authors for case coverage and symposia, as well as possible topics for symposia.
Opinion analysis: Title VII defendants can recover attorney’s fees without prevailing “on the merits”
In suits involving Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party … a reasonable attorney’s fee.” A defendant seeking attorney’s fees in a Title VII case must show that (1) it is a prevailing party and (2) the plaintiff’s claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
Live blog of opinions (Update: Completed)
We are live-blogging this morning as the Court issues opinions. Join us.
Wednesday round-up
More coverage of Monday’s ruling in Zubik v. Burwell, the challenge to the Obama administration’s birth-control mandate and the accommodation offered to religious non-profits, comes from NPR’s Nina Totenberg and Tierney Sneed at Talking Points Memo.
Menu of today’s coverage
Here is an overview of today’s case coverage: 11:46 a.m.: Lyle Denniston analyzed today’s opinion in Zubik v. Burwell. 12:53 p.m.: Ronald Mann analyzed today’s opinion in Sheriff v. Gillie. 2:35 p.m.: Mark Walsh provided a “view” from the Courtroom this morning. 6:45 p.m.: Amy Howe analyzed today’s opinion in Spokeo v. Robins.
Opinion analysis: Justices apply traditional “arising under” standard to preserve role for state courts in securities litigation
The most important thing to happen in securities litigation in the last twenty years is the stark narrowing of the relief available in federal courts.
Symposium: Punting on substantial religious burden, the Supreme Court provides no guidance for future RFRA challenges to anti-discrimination laws
Caroline Mala Corbin is Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law. The legal question Does filing paperwork in order to obtain a religious exemption from a law constitute a substantial burden on religious liberty? That was the main question posed by Zubik v. Burwell.
Symposium: The future of accommodation
Richard W. Garnett is Paul J. Schierl / Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame. He signed an amicus brief of constitutional law scholars in support of the petitioners in Zubik v. Burwell. What just happened?
Symposium: Workers remain at risk post-Zubik v. Burwell
Leslie C. Griffin is William S. Boyd Professor of Law at the UNLV Boyd School of Law. Exemption. That’s the dangerous word that snuck into the Court’s conflicted order in the contraceptive benefit requirement cases.
Symposium: Zubik and the demands of justice
Nelson Tebbe is a professor of law at Brooklyn Law School and visiting professor of law at Cornell Law School. Richard C. Schragger is Perre Bowen Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday was a busy day at the Court, as the Justices issued both orders from their May 12 Conference and opinions in several argued cases. Andrew Hamm rounded up early coverage of yesterday’s events for this blog.
Opinion analysis: Justices adopt broader reading of the phrase “actual fraud” in bankruptcy law
For many Supreme Court watchers, yesterday’s decision in Husky International Electronics v. Ritz may have been overshadowed by some of the other, higher-profile rulings in cases involving (among other things) the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate and Article III standing.
Monday round-up
Briefly: BuzzFeed reports on last week’s denial of Alabama’s request to vacate a lower-court stay of Vernon Madison’s execution, which had been scheduled for Thursday. The James Wilson Institute recently hosted a “Friends of Nino” panel (video) to pay tribute to the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Opinion analysis: A compromise, with real impact, on birth control
Analysis Without settling any legal issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate, the Supreme Court on Monday nevertheless cleared the way for the government to promptly provide no-cost access to contraceptives for employees and students of non-profit religious hospitals, charities, and colleges, while barring any penalties on those institutions for failing to provide that access themselves.
Opinion analysis: Justices reject claim that “special” outside counsel mislead borrowers when they send collection letters on attorney general letterhead
Monday brought us the results of the Justices’ encounter with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Court’s opinion in Sheriff v. Gillie displays a Court dubious about the readiness of lower courts to see deception in what would pass for routine correspondence in a conventional business environment.
A “view” from the Courtroom: Something we can live with
With arguments over for the Term since late last month, the Justices are now focused on “bringing down” the pending decisions. There are thirty-six as the morning begins, but the Court will make a dent in that number.
Symposium: Into the weeds
Over the next day or two, the blog is hosting an online symposium on Monday’s ruling in Zubik v. Burwell, the challenge by religious non-profits to the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate. Lyle Denniston analyzed the decision for this blog.
Afternoon round-up: Today’s decisions
This morning the Court released six decisions. In Zubik v. Burwell, the Court did not decide whether the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, instead remanding the cases to the federal courts of appeals.
Symposium: The return of Chief Justice Roberts
Erin Morrow Hawley is Associate Professor of Law and the University of Missouri School of Law. She filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Independent Women’s Forum (where she is now a legal fellow) in support of the petitioners in Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell.
12