Showing 1–50 of 123 items published in January 2015, most recent first.
UPDATE: After a twenty-seven minute procedure, Robert Ladd was pronounced dead at 7:02 p.m. Central time. ————– The Supreme Court on Thursday evening cleared the way for Texas to execute death-row inmate Robert Charles Ladd, a new indication that the Justices will leave states with wide leeway to carry out the death penalty.
Another merits case seems likely to drop off the Court’s docket. As Lyle Denniston reported yesterday for this blog, George Toca – who had asked the Court to consider whether its 2012 decision limiting life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of murder applies retroactively – was released yesterday from a Louisiana prison.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. The newspapers were right: snow was general all over New England this week … though, perhaps not as general as some meteorologists had feared.
Yesterday the Court granted Oklahoma’s request to delay the executions of three death-row inmates; the Court had agreed to take on those inmates’ challenge to the state’s lethal-injection protocol last Friday.
Rendered Perspective Clarence Thomas Center Chapel (Hillary Johnson, SCAD student) The Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD) has recently completed its restoration of the Clarence Thomas Center for Historic Preservation at SCAD.
(UPDATED 6:11 p.m.) George Toca has now been released, his lawyers said in a statement. A Louisiana prison inmate whose life sentence is under review by the Supreme Court was on the verge of being released on Thursday, according to news accounts in New Orleans.
The death penalty is at the forefront of coverage of and commentary on the Court right now. Writing for this blog, Lyle Denniston reports on yesterday’s order by the Court allowing Georgia to execute inmate Warren Hill, while at USA Today Richard Wolf looks at the Court and capital punishment issues more broadly.
It looks like 2015 might be the year of books on the Justices, mainly the female members of the Supreme Court. Cambridge University Press has just released a book on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Without a noted dissent, the Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon delayed the scheduled execution of three Oklahoma death-row inmates, whose case the Justices will hear in late April.
Yesterday the Justices issued one opinion in an argued case, vacating and remanding the decision of the Sixth Circuit in M&G Polymers v. Tackett, a dispute between an employer and its retired employees over the vesting of health-care benefits.
Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer on Tuesday refused to order a quick release of the Court’s new ruling in the Copaxone drug patent case, but he left open the option for the generic companies to ask another Justice to take the step.
Beginning on February 1, the Supreme Court will publicly disclose documents on actions it is considering or taking to discipline lawyers who are members of its bar, a process long shielded in privacy, the Court announced on Tuesday.
UPDATED 8:25 p.m. Georgia completed the execution of Warren Hill, with death pronounced at 7:55 p.m. —————- In two brief orders allowing the state of Georgia to execute a man whose lawyers claim he is intellectually disabled, the Supreme Court gave a strong signal on Tuesday evening that it is not undertaking a general review of capital punishment this Term.
On Friday afternoon the Court issued grants from its January 23 Conference. Its announcement that it would review a challenge by a group of Oklahoma death-row inmates to the state’s lethal-injection protocol drew the most attention.
The orders are here. There are no new grants or CVSGs. The decision in M&G Polymers v. Tackett is here.
FURTHER UPDATED Monday 5:23 p.m. The three inmates’ lawyers have now filed a response, urging the Court to delay the execution until after it decides the case on the merits; they do not support cutting off a stay if Oklahoma adopts a new protocol. ———– UPDATED Monday 2:46 p.m.
FURTHER UPDATE Monday 4:52 p.m. The generic companies have now filed their reply brief, arguing that Teva has not actually taken any significant step — and may not be able to do so — in the trial court, so the Supreme Court should go ahead and send down its ruling. ————— UPDATE: This new dispute will be submitted initially to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, instead of to the Chief Justice.
Monday’s decision in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett resolves a dispute about the vesting of health-care benefits under a collective bargaining agreement.
We are live blogging this morning as orders and opinions are issued. The live blog is here.
On Friday the Court granted two new cases from its January 23 Conference. Lyle covered those orders here. On Monday the Court issued additional orders and one opinion, M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett.
The Court was not in session yesterday, but coverage of and commentary on the Court’s actions this week continue. On Wednesday, the Court heard oral arguments in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, in which it is considering whether the Fair Housing Act provides a cause of action based on disparate impact.
Oyez has posted audio recordings of this week’s oral arguments. The Court heard arguments this week in: Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project Rodriguez v. United States
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday afternoon to hear the appeal of three Oklahoma death-row inmates who are challenging the three-drug protocol the state now uses for executions.
At its Conference on January 23, 2015, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as judicial immunity under Section 1983, a general appeal waiver in a challenge to a restitution order, and the interpretation of the term “habitual residence” in the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
Yesterday was a big day at the Court, with two oral arguments and three opinions in argued cases. But yesterday will be best remembered as the day that eight people, on the fifth anniversary of the Court’s decision in Citizens United, were arrested for disrupting the Court’s proceedings.
The Supreme Court has heard a lot of preemption suits, but Tuesday’s arguments in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center suggest that the Court has not yet agreed on what exactly the formal underpinnings of those suits are. The case features a debate about the intersection of two lines of precedent.
“License, registration, and dog sniff, please?” After a somewhat frustrating argument Wednesday morning, Justice Elena Kagan finally expressed concern about the possibility that the federal government’s position in Rodriguez v. United States would “lead to . . . 40 minutes of free time for police
Yesterday the Supreme Court did something that it didn’t get to do in two other recent cases involving the Fair Housing Act: it heard oral arguments. As I noted in my preview of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, the previous two cases had settled before the oral argument.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. If the past week is any guide, 2015 is going to be a year of incredible efficiency for the Roberts Court. The Justices cleared out an enormous number of relists this week.
Prior decisions of the Supreme Court addressing the constitutionality of the use of narcotics-sniffing dogs versus other law enforcement techniques have been on a theoretical collision course for years.
Today is the final day of the January sitting. The Court will hear argument first in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, in which the question presented is whether the Fair Housing Act allows claims based on disparate impact.
If there is one thing that the Roberts Court seems consistently willing to protect, it’s speech – even controversial or unpopular speech like violent video games, protests at the funeral of a fallen soldier, lies about receiving military medals, and dog-fighting videos.
The opinion in Hana v. Hana is here. Per J. Sotomayor, trademark tacking is a jury question. The opinion in Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp. is here. Per J. Ginsburg, dismissal of an action in multidistrict litigation triggers a right to appeal.
Analysis An observer who left the Supreme Court chamber halfway through Wednesday’s argument in a major civil rights case could easily have concluded that Justice Antonin Scalia is ready to give the law in that case a much broader scope to protect racial and other minorities as they seek places to live.
UPDATE (4:00 p.m.): Kathleen L. Arberg, the Court’s public information officer, said eight individuals were arrested in Wednesday’s disturbance. Seven have been charged with violating a federal law against making “a harangue or oration, or utter[ing] loud, threatening, or abusive language in the Supreme Court Building,” as well as with violating two Court regulations.
Given how the November 4 oral argument unfolded, the Supreme Court’s seven-to-two decision on Wednesday to side with a former air marshal-turned-whistleblower in Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean should hardly come as a surprise.
The transcript in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., is here. The transcript in Rodriguez v. United States is here.
Two things stand a good chance of happening when the Supreme Court resolves cases dealing with procedure and jurisdiction. One is that the Court will be unanimous or close to unanimous in its decision. The other is that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will write for the Court.
A morning of déjà vu – as Justice Sonia Sotomayor announced her opinion for a unanimous Court in Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank. The Court heard oral argument in three intellectual property cases this fall.
We are live blogging this morning as opinions are announced. The live blog is available here.
On Wednesday morning, after opinions are released at ten o’clock, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the issue of how difficult it will be to prove discrimination in home sales or rentals, in the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project.
There is more coverage of and commentary on Friday’s announcement that the Court will take up the same-sex marriage issue.
In 2009, Lanell Williams-Yulee sent out a letter announcing that she was running for county court judge in Hillsborough County, Florida. The letter from the Tampa lawyer, which was also posted on her campaign website, asked for contributions of as much as five hundred dollars to fund her campaign.
The orders list is here. There are no new grants or CVSGs. Review denied on battlefield contractors and generic drugs. The opinion in Holt v. Hobbs is here; prison may not prohibit 1/2 inch beard compelled by religious beliefs. The summary reversal in Christesen, a capital case, is here.
On Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will begin live blogging at 9:45 a.m. at this link.
Analysis Florida used to have a tawdry reputation for corrupt judges, but one of the state’s key remedies for that may have gone too far. That, at least, was the impression that emerged from an hour of argument Tuesday on the constitutionality of a flat ban on personal pleas for campaign donations by candidates for judicial seats.
You had to know that the result was foreordained when the first page of Justice Stephen Breyer’s opinion in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz summarized the question presented as whether the Federal Circuit should review fact findings that a trial judge makes in the course of construing the claims
The transcript in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc. is here. The transcript in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar is here.
Opening the federal courthouse door slightly to state death-row inmates whose lawyers sloppily miss a deadline, the Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that a new lawyer ought to be available to take up the cause, even if that is years later.
Last fall, the Court heard oral arguments in Holt v. Hobbs, an Arkansas prisoner’s challenge to a state prison policy that prohibits him from growing the beard that he believes his religion – Islam – requires.