Showing 1–50 of 78 items published in October 2016, most recent first.
The court’s November sitting begins today with oral arguments in two cases. The first is Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, which stems from a school district’s refusal to allow a disabled child to bring her service dog to school; Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog.
After granting review in five new cases last Friday, the Supreme Court issued additional orders from its October 28 conference this morning. The justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket for the term.
The most famous goldendoodle in America was outside the Supreme Court today, accompanied by some of his service dog friends. A Michigan school district’s refusal to allow Wonder, a trained service dog, to go to school with E.F., a student who was born with cerebral palsy and whose mobility is impaired, was the catalyst for the first oral argument of the day, in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools.
The transcript in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools is here; the transcript in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. is here.
The court issued additional orders from its October 28 conference on Monday. It called for the views of the solicitor general in one case, and it granted, vacated and remanded in the cases of five Arizona inmates sentenced to life without parole as juveniles.
Supreme Court coverage and commentary continue to focus on the prospect of a Republican blockade of future nominees to the court in a Democratic administration.
If they had their druthers, Supreme Court justices would probably prefer to avoid deciding election disputes. Resolving election law cases draws the justices closer than they like to the political stage. Lately, however, the justices seem to be encountering election law disputes at every turn.
[Update at 5:29 p.m.: This post has been expanded to include a discussion of all today’s grants.] The Supreme Court added five new cases to its docket this afternoon.
Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal law enacted in 1976, foreign countries normally cannot be sued in U.S. courts unless one of only a few specific exceptions applies.
In The Washington Post, David Weigel reports that Sen. Ted Cruz said yesterday “that there was ‘precedent’ for a Supreme Court with fewer than nine justices — appearing to suggest that the blockade on nominee Merrick Garland could last past the election.” Additional coverage of Cruz’s remarks comes
“There’s always hope,” Justice Clarence Thomas said last night at the Heritage Foundation in Washington in response to a question about whether the confirmation-hearing process is “broken.” “But this city is broken in some ways,” the justice continued. “I think that we have become very comfortable
On November 17 at 3:30 p.m., the Section of Litigation of the American Bar Association will host the DC Appellate Regional CLE Program. The topic is the current vacancy on the Supreme Court.
Briefly: In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin remarks that during Justice Clarence Thomas’ 25 years on the court, the justice has never been assigned to write a majority opinion in a controversial case, perhaps because “Thomas is not a conservative but, rather, a radical—one whose entire career on the
In its conference of October 28, 2016, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether a state court can evade the pre-emptive force of the Federal Arbitration Act by framing its refusal to enforce an arbitration agreement as a product of supposed defects in “contract formation”
When the Chicago Cubs return to Wrigley Field this weekend for their home games in the World Series against the Cleveland Indians, retired Justice John Paul Stevens will be in the stands. “I’m in Florida now but I will be in Chicago to see the fourth game, Saturday,” Stevens, 96, a lifelong Cubs fan, said in an interview today.
The petitions of the day are: Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP 16-366 Issue: Whether the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act permits the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instead of the Director to make inter partes review institution decisions.
Petrella II. Or is it? That’s a pretty good summary of the briefing in the big patent case from the November argument session, SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products.
The first week of the November session brings the justices once again to the False Claims Act, with Tuesday’s argument in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby.
At the Associated Press, Mark Sherman reports on the intersection between the current vacancy on the Supreme Court and the upcoming election, noting that “the stakes are even higher when the president has a chance to put a like-minded justice on the court to take the place of an ideological
Last week the court released its calendar for the December sitting. As Amy Howe reports for this blog, three controversial cases that the court agreed to review last January, before the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, were notably absent.
Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands presents the justices with a classic intellectual-property problem: the use of copyright to protect functional objects.
In the court of public opinion, Stacy and Brent Fry have probably already won. Who would deny their adorable daughter, who was born with cerebral palsy, the opportunity to bring her equally winsome service dog to school with her, to help her with everything from opening and closing the doors to using the bathroom independently?
The November sitting will begin on Monday, October 31; the calendar for that sitting is available on the court’s website. On Friday, the justices met for their October 28 conference; they granted certiorari in five cases.
Coverage of Wednesday night’s discussion of the Supreme Court at the final presidential debate comes from Amy Howe for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Matt Ford at The Atlantic, Sean Higgins at The Washington Examiner, Tamar Hallerman at AJC.com, David Cohen at Rolling Stone, and Todd Ruger at Roll Call.
Kristen Eichensehr is an assistant professor of law at the UCLA School of Law. Last term, in RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, the Supreme Court considered whether the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act applies extraterritorially, or outside the borders of the United States.
The Supreme Court released its December calendar today. During their December sitting, which begins on November 28, the justices will hear eight hours of oral argument over six days: two one-hour arguments on both Monday, November 28, and Monday, December 5, and one one-hour argument on each of the four remaining days – November 29-30 and December 6-7.
The Supreme Court was the first topic at last night’s third and final presidential debate.
When the third and final presidential debate began last night in Las Vegas, anticipation among Supreme Court watchers was high: The Commission on Presidential Debates had announced that fifteen of the debate’s ninety minutes would be devoted to the court.
John Elwood (barely) reviews Mondays’ suspected relists. From time to time, our day jobs intrude and keep us from fully executing our important responsibilities for SCOTUSblog. When duty calls, we don’t have time to gloat about the things we got right, or obsess about the things we got wrong.
“My favorite justice, beyond a doubt, it’s Justice Brandeis,” Justice Elena Kagan said last night at the Supreme Court (“of justices she never met personally,” she qualified).
At Think Progress, Ian Millhiser discusses Sen. John McCain’s assertion in an interview on Monday (later softened by a statement from McCain’s office) that Senate Republicans will block any Supreme Court nominee if Hillary Clinton wins in November, arguing that the “tactic that McCain is proposing
Picking up where the last SCOTUS Map left off: Justice Anthony Kennedy gave the keynote speech at the International Bar Association’s Rule of Law Symposium on September 23, where he told audience members that a judge’s willingness to re-examine prior premises is “not a sign of weakness of your
Yesterday the Supreme Court declined to review a death penalty case, Elmore v. Holbrook, that it had considered at eight prior conferences. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a strong dissent, which was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Amy Howe covers the decision for this blog.
Last week, the Supreme Court issued a summary reversal to enforce its own clear and on-point precedent. In doing so, the court reminded the lower courts of how authoritative it is.
On Monday the federal government filed, at the court’s invitation, a brief in Howell v. Howell, a dispute between a divorced couple over the wife’s share of the husband’s military retirement pay.
The vacant seat on the Supreme Court continues to elicit broad comment.
The justices could be on the verge of adding another patent case to their merits docket for this term. Last week the federal government recommended that the court grant review in Impression Products v. Lexmark International, a case involving the scope of the “patent exhaustion” doctrine.
The Supreme Court issued orders from its October 14 conference this morning. The justices did not add any new cases to their merits docket for this term, and they did not act on a Virginia school board’s request for review of a lower court’s decision that would allow a transgender student who identifies as a boy to use the boys’ bathroom at his high school.
The court issued orders from its October 14 conference on Monday. The court did not grant any new cases. The November sitting will begin on Monday, October 31; the calendar for that sitting is available on the court’s website.
Ronald Mann provides this blog‘s analysis of Tuesday’s oral argument in Samsung Electronics v. Apple, a high-stakes dispute over the proper scope of a damages award for design patent infringement.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relisted cases. Six years we have written Relist Watch. And six years we have awoken early on an appointed October morn, brewed a pot of coffee, and waited by the phone for a pre-dawn call that always rings elsewhere. This year some fool from Minnesota got it instead.
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado Manrique v. United States
Today the Supreme Court issued a revised argument calendar for its November session, which begins on October 31. Ivy v. Morath, which had originally been scheduled as the second case on Monday, November 7, was removed from the calendar, leaving only one case – National Labor Relations Board v. SW General – on that day.
Michael Kimberly is a partner at Mayer Brown LLP and co-director of the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic. John Elwood is a partner at Vinson & Elkins and teaches the University of Virginia School of Law’s Supreme Court litigation clinic. Ralph Mayrell is an associate at Vinson & Elkins.
The justices were cautious at Tuesday morning’s argument in Samsung Electronics v. Apple, seemingly unsure about how to resolve the high-stakes dispute between Samsung and Apple over the design of Samsung’s cell phones.
Coverage of Tuesday’s oral arguments continues.
For most of Tuesday’s 53-minute oral argument in Manrique v. United States, the Supreme Court seemed caught between two very different ways of looking at the question presented — whether a notice of appeal from an initial judgment of conviction and sentence in a federal criminal case can also
In its conference of October 14, 2016, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether a sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion not to impose a death sentence is the functional equivalent of the findings required under Montgomery v. Louisiana to impose a sentence of life
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases. First up was Samsung Electronics v. Apple, a dispute over the proper scope of a damages award for design patent infringement.
Today the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in three cases. First on the schedule is Samsung Electronics v. Apple, a high-stakes dispute over the proper scope of a damages award for design patent infringement.