Showing 1–50 of 102 items published in March 2015, most recent first.
Yesterday the Court heard oral argument in Brumfield v. Cain, a capital case from Louisiana. Lyle Denniston covered the oral argument for this blog, with other coverage coming from Edward Lee at ISCOTUSnow, who predicts the winner in the case based on the number of questions for both sides at oral argument.
Under gentle pressure from the Supreme Court not to split up the argument on single questions, the legal teams supporting same-sex marriage have settled on one lawyer to present each issue.
The transcript in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. is here. The transcript in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. is here.
We are live-blogging this morning as opinions in argued cases are announced. Join us here.
Oyez has posted audio recordings of last week’s arguments. The Court heard arguments last week in: City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. Bank of America v. Caulkett Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency
Briefly: In the Los Angeles Times, David Savage looks at a case that the Justices considered at their Conference last week, asking “whether a school official’s fear of violence justified disciplining students for wearing American flags on their shirts.” At Slate, Judith Schaeffer looks back at
The last day of the March argument calendar presents the Justices with two consumer bankruptcy cases. The second case is Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, which presents a basic fact pattern doubtless repeated in tens (if not hundreds of thousands) of bankruptcy filings this decade: a bankrupt homeowner, whose home indisputably is worth far less than the mortgage that burdens it, with few other significant debts.
Analysis The Supreme Court, supposedly, is an appeals court set up to decide issues of law, and should not have to spend its hours — no, its days — getting familiar with a factual record that may run into many volumes.
The cause of electronic privacy gained a bit in the Supreme Court on Monday as the Justices ruled that it is a search, subject to constitutional challenge, when police install a monitoring device on an individual’s body to track movements after being convicted of a crime.
The Court closes out the last day of its March argument session with the second of a pair of bankruptcy cases, Harris v. Viegelahn.
The transcript in Brumfield v. Cain is here.
At 10 a.m. Monday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the procedure to be used to determine if an individual is mentally disabled and thus cannot be given a death sentence.
At its Conference on March 27, 2015, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as equitable tolling in habeas proceedings, First Amendment rights of students, and a court’s denial of a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to testify.
Briefly: On Wednesday, the Court heard oral arguments in the challenge to an EPA rule that restricts the release of mercury and other pollutants from power plants. Writing for The Economist, Steven Mazie recaps the issues in the case and the oral argument.
The Originalist is playing at the Arena Stage in Washington, D.C. from now until May 3. John Strand, the playwright, was kind enough to answer a few questions: Question: You say that Justice Antonin Scalia intrigued you because he’s “kind of a lightning rod.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. After a customary mid-March break to allow all sentient life on Earth time to research and complete its brackets (history may view picking Villanova for the championship game as more Millard Fillmore than Abraham Lincoln), the Court is back in session, and so is the Watch.
On Monday the Court heard oral argument in Brumfield v. Cain. The Court will also issued orders from the March 27 Conference, which Lyle reported on. On Tuesday the Court heard oral argument in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises and Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems.
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in the challenge to an EPA rule that restricts the release of mercury and other pollutants from power plants.
When the curtain rose for oral argument in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, on November 3, everyone thought the issue was whether a statement of opinion that turns out to be false gives rise to liability when it is included in a registration statement in connection with a stock offering under the Securities Act of 1933.
It’s patent day at the Court on the last day of March, with a pair of arguments in patent cases. First up is Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises. You should be forgiven if the style of the case leads you to expect a copyright or trademark case involving one of Marvel’s characters. But no.
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Bank of America v. Caulkett and Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona, in which it considered whether bankruptcy courts can void a second mortgage when the first mortgage is underwater.
On Monday afternoon Justices Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer testified before the House Appropriations Committee. The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the Court’s budget for the next fiscal year and the federal judiciary, but the legislators also took full advantage of the occasion to touch on other topics as well.
The Court apparently designed its decision Tuesday in B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries to answer as narrow a question as possible and I think most readers of this blog will come away convinced that the opinion was a success, at least by that measure.
Analysis Each time the Environmental Protection Agency is before the Supreme Court these days, it gets a reminder that it is not likely to get the benefit of the doubt that it used its regulatory powers entirely legally.
It is easy to read the Supreme Court’s five-to-four decision in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama as a mostly inconsequential case giving a small, and perhaps only temporary, victory for minority voters in a dispute over the redrawing of Alabama’s legislative districts after the 2010 census.
Analysis Dissatisfied with every argument made to it, a Supreme Court majority on Wednesday on its own fashioned a new way to test complaints that employers are discriminating against workers who become pregnant.
We are live-blogging this morning as opinions are announced in argued cases. Join us here.
Shortly after 10 a.m. on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hold ninety minutes of argument on the government’s regulation of mercury and other forms of pollution from electricity-generating power plants.
This morning at 10 a.m., the Court will hear oral arguments in two cases that at first blush look like they present a fairly dry bankruptcy question. But once unpacked and translated into less technical terms, Bank of America v. Caulkett and Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona appear far more interesting and timely.
Yesterday was a busy day at the Court, as the Justices returned for the March sitting to hear oral arguments and issue orders from their March 20 Conference.
The Supreme Court’s threat of discipline for a Washington lawyer based on a nearly unintelligible filing he had submitted has ended with no punishment, but with a lesson for advocates before the Court about their professional duties.
The transcript in Bank of America v. Caulkett is here.
After today’s oral argument in Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona and Bank of America v. Caulkett, it was hard to say how the Court might ultimately rule on the question before it – whether the Bankruptcy Code allows courts to void a second mortgage when even the first mortgage is completely worthless.
We are live-blogging this morning as opinions are issued in argued cases. Join us here.
Today the Court returns for the March sitting and will hear oral arguments in two cases. First up is Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, the challenge to Texas’s specialty license-plate scheme.
Analysis From the moment that a state lawyer stood up in the Supreme Court to argue that messages on license plates are government speech, it seemed that the Justices went forward for the rest of the hour assuming that it was not — at least not always.
Analysis It is very hard to maintain one’s composure, let alone salvage one’s legal argument, when an appearance before the Supreme Court begins this way: A Justice remarks, as soon as the lawyer begins speaking, that the case is not about what the lawyer is about to argue, that the lawyer is guilty of “bait and switch,” and that maybe the Court should appoint someone else to argue the real issue.
The recurring issue of life sentences without the possibility of parole for individuals who commit murder when they were minors is back on the Supreme Court’s decision docket.
The transcript in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. is here. The transcript in City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan is here.
On Monday the Court granted two new cases: Montgomery v. Louisiana (juvenile life without parole and retroactivity) and Direct TV v. Imburgia (preemption of state arbitration law). The Court called for the views of the Solicitor General in four related energy cases.
At 11 a.m. on Monday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the duties that federal law imposes on police officers in dealing with a mentally disabled person who may be armed and violent.
At 10 a.m. Monday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the power of states to control the messages displayed on speciality license plates for cars and trucks.
In her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse urges the Court to grant review in Frank v. Walker, the challenge to Wisconsin’s voter identification law, which the Justices will consider at their Conference today.
At its Conference on March 20, 2015, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the legality of Wisconsin’s voter ID law, a court’s denial of a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to testify, and a “policy” or “custom” of Brady v. Maryland violations by the district attorney in Orleans Parish.
In the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro reports that next week a former clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall will argue on behalf of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in its challenge to Texas’s specialty license-plate scheme.
Yesterday lawyers for both sides presented the Court with proposals to divide up the two-and-a-half hours allocated for oral argument in the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage and the recognition of same-sex marriages from other states.
In the state where the law of same-sex marriage remains the most confused, an Alabama judge has asked the state’s highest court to get ready to promptly allow such marriages if the Supreme Court rules in their favor, avoiding “foot-dragging or other forms of resistance.” Hinting at the state’s
Briefly: At The Hill, Ralph Tyler predicts that in King v. Burwell, the challenge to the availability of tax subsidies for individuals who purchase their health insurance on an exchange operated by the federal government, “the federal government will prevail . . ., perhaps by a reasonably
If the Supreme Court agrees to plans made by lawyers involved in the same-sex marriage cases, seven attorneys will take turns at the lectern for the two-and-a-half-hour hearing on April 28.
King v. Burwell, the challenge to the availability of tax subsidies for individuals who purchase their health insurance on an exchange operated by the federal government, and the constitutional avoidance doctrine, continues to garner commentary.