Showing 1–50 of 77 items published in February 2015, most recent first.
At 11 a.m. Monday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument to continue to explore the constitutional right of an accused person to confront at trial the witnesses for the prosecution.
Oyez has posted audio recordings and transcripts of this week’s arguments. The Court heard arguments this week in: Coleman v. Tollefson Kerry v. Din Tibble v. Edison International Henderson v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Baker Botts, LLP v. ASARCO, LLC
Scholars are now analyzing Supreme Court opinions for their style as well as their substance. Keith Carlson (a computer scientist), Michael A. Livermore (a law professor), and Daniel Rockmore (a mathematician) have just posted on SSRN a quantitative analysis of the writing style of all Supreme Court opinions between 1791 and 2008.
All eyes are on next week’s oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the challenge to the availability of tax subsidies for individuals who purchase their health insurance on a marketplace created by the federal government.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. It has been a rough month since our last installment. Much of the country, from the Dakotas to Dallas, has seen record low temperatures, causing pipes to burst, and creating icy roads and massive pile-ups.
At 10 a.m. Monday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument on the power of voters to take away from state legislatures the task of drawing new election district maps.
Whether deservedly or not, an opinion by Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt granting habeas relief to a state prisoner notwithstanding the deferential approach mandated by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) is often fodder for terse – if not summary – reversals by the Supreme Court.
The Court has announced that it will be posting the merits briefs in the same-sex marriage cases: Obergfell v. Hodges, Tanco v. Haslam, DeBoer v. Snyder, and Bourke v. Beshear.
It looks like the Justices are firmly committed to deciding Tibble v. Edison International, even though the parties now agree on the big issue on which the Justices granted review: whether the fiduciaries of an ERISA plan have a continuing duty of prudence that requires periodic monitoring of investments, or is the duty instead measured at the single point in time when the investment is made.
At its Conference on February 27, 2015, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as Article III standing in class actions, exemption from California’s campaign finance disclosure requirements, and the retroactive application of Miller v. Alabama.
Today the Court heard oral arguments in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, in which the federal government is suing the retail giant for its refusal to hire Samantha Elauf, a Muslim teenager who wore a headscarf. (I previewed the case in Plain English yesterday.)
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, the federal government’s challenge to a retail store’s refusal to hire a Muslim teenager because she wore a headscarf. Lyle Denniston covered the oral argument for this blog, and I did the same in Plain English.
Scott Dodson, editor, The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Cambridge University Press, 2015 (336 pp., cloth, $29.99) Scott Dodson, the editor of this volume, has brought together an impressive group of law professors, lawyers, historians, and journalists to write about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy.
It looked bleak for petitioner Baker Botts from the earliest moments of the argument yesterday in Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC. The issue in the case is whether the fees that a law firm (Baker Botts) spends defending a fee application in bankruptcy can be compensated out of the estate, and the Justices who showed much interest in that question seemed hesitant (at best) to allow compensation.
Religion has been a hot topic at the Supreme Court recently. Last year, the Justices ruled that a town council could start its meetings with a prayer and also that a corporation owned by a devoutly religious family cannot be required to provide its female employees with health insurance that includes access to birth control that the employer equated with abortion.
The February sitting is now well underway. Yesterday the Court issued its opinion in the water rights dispute Kansas v. Nebraska.
The opinion in Yates v. US is here. The Court rejects prosecution of fisherman for discarding undersized fish, 5-4. The opinion in North Carolina Bd. of Dental Examiners v. FTC is here.
When the government has a dog of a case, someone has to draw the short straw and argue it. In Henderson v. United States, Assistant to the Solicitor General Ann O’Connell drew that straw.
Analysis If it is true that lawyers can make a simple proposition into something bewilderingly complex, it may also be true that judges sometimes prefer the simple, and go with that instead.
Analysis In opinions using a boatload of fishing metaphors, a divided Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a federal criminal law against destroying corporate records cannot be used against a commercial fisherman for throwing undersized fish overboard to avoid prosecution.
The transcript in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. is here. The transcript in Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC is here.
Eric M. Fraser practices appellate, antitrust, and intellectual property law at Osborn Maledon, P.A. State licensing boards composed of market participants do not enjoy automatic immunity from antitrust laws, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.
We are live blogging this morning as opinions are issued; please click here to be taken to the live blog.
Analysis Shortly after 10 a.m. on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the scope of an employer’s legal duty to make room in the workplace for individuals with religious beliefs that may conflict with job needs.
The Court returned for the February sitting yesterday, hearing arguments first in Kerry v. Din, in which the Court is considering whether a U.S. citizen has a right to judicial review of a consular officer’s denial of her husband’s visa application. Coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the much-anticipated immigration case of Kerry v. Din. In that case, the U.S. government – in the face of strong academic commentary to the contrary — steadfastly defends the doctrine of consular non-reviewability and its bar to the judicial review of visa decisions of Department of State consular officers.
The opinion in Kansas v. Nebraska and Colorado (water rights allocation) is here.
We expect one or more opinions in argued cases on Wednesday at 10 a.m.; we will be live blogging at this link at approximately 9:45.
The transcript in Henderson v. United States is here. The transcript in Tibble v. Edison International is here.
Answering a question from a member of Congress, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell said on Tuesday that the Obama administration would have no way to fix “the massive damage” if the Supreme Court were to strike down the current system of subsidies for those who need financial help to buy health insurance.
We are live blogging this morning as opinions are issued; please click here to be taken to the live blog.
Good morning! Today the Court begins its February sitting, starting with orders at 9:30 a.m. and oral arguments at 10. First up is the immigration case Kerry v. Din, in which the Court will consider whether a U.S. citizen has a right to judicial review of a consular officer’s denial of her husband’s visa application.
The orders are here. There are no new grants or CVSGs.
On Tuesday at 10:00 a.m. we expect one or more opinions in argued cases; we will be live-blogging at this link at approximately 9:45. We also expect one or more opinions in argued cases on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
The Supreme Court’s hesitancy about ruling on challenges to the government’s massive electronic wiretapping program continued on Monday, as the Justices refused, without comment, to hear the constitutional case of a young Illinois man awaiting trial for an alleged bombing plot in Chicago.
Just when the Justices might have thought they had decided their share of attorney’s fees cases – with the twin decisions last April in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems resolving questions about attorney’s fees in patent cases – the
If two states have already split payment of fees and costs running well into six figures to keep a case going before the Supreme Court, but it could be resolved now for a final five-figure amount, is it worth continuing?
Nearly three years ago, the Supreme Court decided a huge challenge to President Barack Obama’s signature legislature achievement, the Affordable Care Act. The question was whether the Constitution allowed Congress to require everyone to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
When the Supreme Court took the bench this morning after its monthlong winter recess, Justice Sonia Sotomayor was sporting a hard cast on her right arm.
The transcript in Kerry v. Din is here. The transcript in Coleman v. Tollefson is here.
From early on in Monday’s oral argument in Coleman-Bey v. Tollefson, it was quite clear that the Justices were unpersuaded that the so-called “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA) – which bars prisoners from filing fourth or successive civil suits absent
On Monday the Court issued orders, which Lyle covered here. No new cases were granted. On Tuesday the Court issued its opinion in Kansas v. Nebraska. On Wednesday the Court issued two opinions, Yates v. United States and North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC.
Next month’s oral argument in King v. Burwell, in which the Court will consider whether tax subsidies are available to individuals who purchase their health insurance on an exchange established by the federal government, continues to dominate coverage of and commentary on the Court.
When the Supreme Court hears argument Monday morning in Coleman-Bey v. Tollefson, it will confront yet another in a long line of complicated procedural questions created by the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA).That provision generally precludes courts
On Monday at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the February 20 Conference. On Friday, the Court issued an initial set of orders from that Conference, but it did not grant any new cases.
In an anxious plea not to be given a career-threatening punishment by the Supreme Court, a Washington, D.C., attorney — speaking through a high-profile Court advocate — argued this week that a frankly flawed petition he filed at the Court was the result of a difficult client’s demand to be the primary author, using the client’s own strange vocabulary.
There’s still more commentary on King v. Burwell, in which the Court will consider whether tax subsidies are available to individuals who purchase their health insurance on an exchange established by the federal government.
Next Tuesday, the Court will hear argument in Henderson v. United States, a complex case that offers a blend of criminal law, property, and remedies, with soft accents of constitutionalism.
Briefly: At the Blog of Legal Times (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports on an appearance by Justice Clarence Thomas at Yale Law School.
The well-established doctrine of consular non-reviewability precludes judicial review of the visa decisions of State Department consular officers. It is a first cousin of immigration law’s exceptional “plenary power” doctrine, which generally immunizes from judicial review the substantive immigration decisions of Congress and the executive branch.