Showing 1–50 of 80 items published in November 2016, most recent first.
Yesterday’s oral argument in Beckles v. United States found the justices wrestling with retroactivity and vagueness in the context of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
Today the first-argued case of the term yielded the first full opinion of the term.
A figure from the patent involved in the case.
In overviews of the Supreme Court’s current term, the conventional wisdom is that the court is mostly shying away from controversial cases and topics, as it waits to learn when it will have a ninth justice and who that justice will be.
Today’s argument docket features Jennings v. Rodriguez, a class-action due-process challenge to the prolonged detention of immigrants. Kevin Johnson previewed the case for this blog.
In its conference of December 2, 2016, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act pre-empts a state court’s order directing a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for a reduction in the former spouse’s portion of the
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., set for argument on December 7, involves a challenge to the increasingly fashionable use of “structured dismissal” to resolve Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. Structured-dismissal practice is unlikely to emerge from the case unscathed.
The transcript in Jennings v. Rodriguez is here.
Today, the court will hear oral argument in Moore v. Texas, which asks whether Texas can rely on an outdated standard in determining whether a defendant’s intellectual disability precludes him from being executed. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog.
It was, as attorney Clifford Sloan – who represents Texas death-row inmate Bobby James Moore – said, a “vitally important, life-or-death” issue: Does the scheme that Texas uses to determine whether an inmate is intellectually disabled, and therefore cannot be executed, violate the Constitution?
The transcript in Moore v. Texas is available here.
Today, the court will hear oral argument in Beckles v. United States, which asks whether the residual clause of the sentencing guidelines is unconstitutionally vague. Nora Demleitner previewed the case for this blog.
The transcript in Beckles v. United States is here.
The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins on the occasion of the publication of “Business and the Roberts Court” (Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 342), edited by Jonathan H. Adler.
The court issued orders from the November 22 conference on Monday. It did not grant any new cases. The court called for the views of the solicitor general in one case, an original action between New Mexico and Colorado. On Tuesday, the court released its decision in Bravo-Fernandez v. United States.
In Slate, Lara Bazelon suggests that Donald Trump’s “ability to turn the Supreme Court into a rubber stamp for the right wing rests on two unknowns: whether he will have the opportunity to make a second appointment to replace a member of the court’s liberal wing and, if so, whether Chief Justice
In recent years, the U.S government has aggressively used detention of immigrants as a tool for enforcing the immigration laws. Immigration detention became national news in 2014 when the Obama administration detained tens of thousands of Central American women and children fleeing violence in their native lands.
Should a single district court judge issue a nationwide injunction against the federal government? That question was front and center in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s tie vote in United States v. Texas, which left in place a nationwide preliminary injunction barring the Obama administration from granting a temporary reprieve from removal to certain unauthorized immigrants.
The petitions of the day are: Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association 16-476 Issue: Whether a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeers the regulatory power of states in contravention of New York v. United States.
In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes answers three common questions about the Supreme Court in a Donald Trump administration, noting, among other things, that judicial ethics experts say “federal laws would not prohibit Trump from nominating” his sister to the court.
In 2002, in Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment bars the execution of individuals who are intellectually disabled.
Last Thursday, the court issued a rare order dismissing two of the cases on its December docket, Visa, Inc. v. Stoumbos and Visa, Inc. v. Osborn, which had been consolidated for argument on December 7, and which involve class action antitrust suits against Visa and MasterCard over fees charged for using ATM machines.
In 2015, in Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court struck down the “residual clause” of the Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA) as unconstitutionally vague, ruling that the provision did not give ordinary people adequate notice of what conduct was prohibited by the statute.
Most lectures organized by the Supreme Court Historical Society take place in the courtroom – literally and, in terms of their content, figuratively. The lecturer may provide some context for landmark cases – bakeries in New York or slaughterhouses in New Orleans – but those locales aren’t where the action happens.
On Tuesday the justices met for their November 22 conference; our list of “petitions to watch” for that conference is available here. The December sitting will begin on Monday, November 28; the calendar for that sitting is available on the court’s website.
In its conference of November 22, 2016, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether, when the owner of a vacant home informs police that he has not authorized entry, an officer assessing probable cause to arrest those inside for trespassing may discredit the suspects’
Yesterday, Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opening remarks at a Federalist Society convention honoring the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Andrew Hamm covered the event for this blog.
UPDATE: After this entry was posted, the court issued an order moving one of the two arguments that had been scheduled for Monday, November 28, Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., to fill the December 7 argument slot left vacant by this dismissal.
As in prior terms, the majority of the justices’ events during October Term 2016 take place in the Washington area. The Supreme Court’s days as an eight-member court may soon be drawing to a close.
For CNN, Ariane de Vogue reports that in an interview on Tuesday evening, Justice Sonia Sotomayor sidestepped a question about whether she was apprehensive about the results of last Tuesday’s election, stating that “‘We can’t afford to despair.'” Molly Runkle covered the event for this blog.
Speaking to the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention shortly after Donald Trump’s election increased expectations that a conservative jurist would replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Samuel Alito did not mention the election, the president-elect, the society’s reported role in shaping Trump’s list of potential nominees, the current eight-member court or a future conservative majority.
Coverage and commentary center on Donald Trump’s likely pick to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court.
At the start of an interview with Justice Sonia Sotomayor last night at the Hill Center, Bill Press alluded to the “800-pound gorilla in the room,” asking the justice whether she was apprehensive about the results of last Tuesday’s election.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. It’s been another quiet week in Lake Swampbegone, with absolutely nothing noteworthy happening that might provide fodder for a semi-humorous or even topical introduction.
Allison Orr Larsen is a Professor of Law and Neal Devins is the Sandra Day O’Connor Professor of Law at William & Mary Law School. We are living in the age of the Supreme Court amicus.
Commentary on the election and the court comes from Ryan Owens, who observes in The Washington Post that “Chief Justice Roberts had a very, very good election night,” and that he “could become the first chief justice in modern history to be both the chief and the median justice — the ‘swing
Coverage and commentary on the implications of Donald Trump’s election for the Supreme Court, and the federal judiciary more broadly, continue.
The court issued orders from its November 10 conference on Monday. It did not add any new cases to its merits docket, and it did not call for the views of the solicitor general. The December sitting will begin on Monday, November 28; the calendar for that sitting is available on the court’s website.
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments at the Supreme Court. The court heard argument this week in: NLRB v. SW General, Inc. Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami (and the consolidated case Wells Fargo & Co. v. City of Miami) Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp. Lynch v. Morales-Santana
Yesterday the court heard oral argument in Lynch v. Morales-Santana, an equal protection challenge to a federal nationality statute that sets different standards for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad to unmarried parents depending on whether the mother or the father was a U.S. citizen.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists. The feeling of disbelief is palpable. Win or lose, you’re lying if you say you expected this. And yet it’s a decision we all must accept, and we must come together as a nation and move on.
In 2013, the city of Miami filed what seemed to many to be an ambitious lawsuit against Bank of America and Wells Fargo. It argued that the two banks had discriminated against African-American and Latino borrowers in issuing mortgages that were particularly likely to lead to foreclosure.
Lightfoot v Cendant Mortgage Corp. takes the justices back to one of their core responsibilities, assessing the boundaries of the jurisdictional power of the lower federal courts.
The transcript in Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami and Wells Fargo & Co. v. City of Miami is here; the transcript in Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corporation is here.
This morning the court will hear oral argument in Lynch v. Morales-Santana, an equal protection challenge to a federal nationality statute that sets different standards for transmitting citizenship to a child born abroad to unmarried parents depending whether the mother or the father was a U.S. citizen.
The transcript in Lynch v. Morales-Santana is here.
Only hours after Donald Trump was declared the winner in last night’s presidential election, it was business as usual in at least one Washington institution: the Supreme Court of the United States.
By the rhythms of its calendar, at least in recent years, the Supreme Court always holds arguments during election week, including on Election Day and the day after. This year was no different.
This morning the court will hear two hours of oral argument. First on the schedule are two consolidated cases, Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami and Wells Fargo & Co. v. City of Miami, which involve the scope of the federal Fair Housing Act. Amy Howe previewed the cases for this blog.
In its conference of November 10, 2016, the court will consider petitions involving issues such as whether, when the owner of a vacant home informs police that he has not authorized entry, an officer assessing probable cause to arrest those inside for trespassing may discredit the suspects’