Thursday round-up
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Glossip v. Gross, the challenge to Oklahoma’s lethal injection protocol.
April 2015 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 99 items published in April 2015, most recent first.
Symposium: When strict scrutiny ceased to be strict
The result in the Williams-Yulee case was a difficult one to predict except that it was entirely predictable that the result would be by a deeply divided Court.
Argument analysis: The easy way or the hard way to decide an untimely immigration appeal?
After Tuesday’s marathon session in the marriage cases and Wednesday’s first (and tense) argument in Glossip, one can understand if the Justices’ attention was focused elsewhere when WilmerHale partner Mark Fleming stepped to the podium representing the petitioner in Mata v. Lynch.
Symposium: A rare case indeed
Yesterday’s decision in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar was the self-described “rare” case in which a campaign finance speech restriction survived strict scrutiny.
Symposium: The Justices’ premises about judicial elections
In itself, the Supreme Court’s decision in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar probably will have limited effects. The Court’s acceptance of state rules that prohibit personal solicitation of campaign contributions by candidates for judgeships is unlikely to enhance public confidence in the impartiality of judges much, if at all.
Symposium: The distinctive character of judging
From the earliest days of the Republic, Americans have displayed an ambivalent attitude toward judges. On one hand, we regard the judicial branch as performing a function distinct from the political branches, calling for the exercise of judgment removed both from popular opinion and from the political-moral views of the individual judge.
Symposium: Much ado about nothing?
The Supreme Court’s decision in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar to uphold the state’s solicitation law comes as a surprise. Based on the Court’s recent rulings in several campaign finance cases, many scholars anticipated that the Court would find Florida’s solicitation law to be unconstitutional.
Justices debate lethal injection and the death penalty: In Plain English
First, there was hanging. Then there was the electric chair, or in some places the gas chamber and the firing squad. More recently, many states and the federal government have relied on lethal injection – administering a fatal dose of drugs – to carry out executions.
Wednesday round-up
Yesterday’s oral arguments in the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage continue to spawn coverage and commentary. Andrew Hamm rounded up initial coverage and commentary in a post last night for this blog.
Opinion analysis: A modest restraint on campaign fund-raising
Analysis In a quite modest retreat from the Supreme Court’s full support for the free and massive flow of money into American politics, the Justices split five to four on Wednesday in allowing states to bar candidates for judgeships from personally asking for campaign donations.
Argument analysis: Impatience with death-penalty resistance
Analysis For months, the Supreme Court has given no explanation as it refused to give inmates awaiting execution any chance to learn about the methods by which they would be put to death, and has said nothing as it allowed states to experiment with new lethal-drug combinations even after some of those executions were seriously botched.
In Plain English: Justices finally find speech they do not like – and it’s by (would-be) judges
In the past few years, the Roberts Court has been very supportive of the freedom of speech, ruling in favor of protests by the Westboro Baptist Church at a soldier’s funeral, violent video games for children, videos depicting dog-fighting, and lies about receiving prestigious military medals.
Foreword: Are elected state judges now “above the political fray”?
The blog is delighted to host an online symposium on today’s decision in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar. Our first post is a foreword to the symposium by Ronald K.L. Collins, who organized the event.
Live blog of opinions (Updated: Completed)
We are live-blogging this morning as opinions are issued. Join us.
Same-sex marriage, in Plain English — Part II
Two years ago, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Windsor. By a vote of five to four, with Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the Court’s four more liberal Justices to form a majority, the Court struck down a provision of the federal Defense of Marriage Act that defined marriage, for purposes of over a thousand federal laws and programs, as a union between a man and a woman.
Tuesday round-up
After much anticipation, this morning at 10 a.m. the Court will hear two-and-a-half hours of oral arguments in the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage.
Argument analysis: Justice Kennedy, hesitant but leaning
Analysis Judging, on a hugely important constitutional issue, always brings out a deep, brooding contemplation in Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy; it is not agony for him, but it is not a casual or easy thing either.
No clear answers on same-sex marriage: In Plain English
It could turn out to be a nailbiter. After two-and-a-half hours of oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases, it was not clear where Justice Anthony Kennedy – and therefore the rest of the Court – was headed. Let’s talk about the oral argument in Plain English.
A view from the Courtroom, Same-Sex Marriage Edition
It is going to be a long morning of argument at the Supreme Court on the same-sex marriage cases, but no one who has found a way into the Courtroom is inclined to complain.
SCOTUSblog on camera: School Without Walls
“It’s really our marriages that we’re talking about.” On the Monday before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear oral arguments inObergefell v. Hodges, Julia Schillo, Cassandra Dixon, Eva Dilzell and Maija Kittleson,seniors at Washington, D.C.’s School Without Walls were on the Court’s plaza to show their support for same-sex marriage.
“Super-cuts” from same-sex marriage arguments
The Court heard two-and-a-half hours of oral argument regarding same-sex marriage today. We’ve condensed that into thirty-six minutes of the most interesting and informative questions and answers.
SCOTUSblog on camera: Perry & Stier
“It almost feels inevitable at this point.” Kristin Perry and Sandy Stier, plaintiffs in the 2013 “Proposition 8″ case, Hollingsworth v. Perry, return to the Supreme Court, this time as spectators in Obergefell v. Hodges and the next stage of same-sex marriage litigation.
Evening round-up: Today’s argument in Obergefell v. Hodges
This morning the Court heard oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, in which it is considering whether states must allow same-sex marriages or recognize such marriages when they take place in another state.
Live blog: Obergefell v. Hodges oral argument updates
We are live-blogging from the Court this morning. Join us.
Monday round-up
Tomorrow’s arguments in the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage dominate coverage of and commentary on the Court.
Congress’s power to permit lawsuits at issue
The Supreme Court, moving into a basic separation-of-powers constitutional arena, agreed on Monday to spell out Congress’s authority to give someone a right to sue in federal court — even if that individual cannot show that a specific harm was done.
Argument preview: What happens when deadlines in removal proceedings are missed due to ineffective assistance of counsel?
For the better part of twenty years, the jurisdiction of the federal courts of appeals to review different decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has been something of a minefield.
Today’s transcript
The transcript in Kingsley v. Hendrickson is here.
Argument analysis: Debating excessive force in the pre-trial setting
Today, the Court heard argument in Kingsley v. Hendrickson, a case about excessive force claims raised by pre-trial detainees. The basic question is whether a subjective or objective standard should govern these claims, but the Court spent a significant amount of the argument just trying to identify the practical ramifications of this choice.
Same-sex marriage, in Plain English — Part I
April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse have lived together for ten years, own a home together, and have three children. Laws in Michigan, where they live, prevented them from jointly adopting their children, so DeBoer adopted one child on her own, while Rowse adopted the other two.
This week at the Court
On Monday the Court issued orders from the April 24 Conference, which Lyle reported on. We expect one or more opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. on Wednesday. We will be live–blogging beginning at 9:45. This is the second week of the April sitting.
Same-sex marriage: The decisive questions
Analysis Twenty-two months ago, the Supreme Court — perhaps not fully realizing that it was doing so — set off a constitutional revolution. In a decision that spoke somewhat tentatively about an “evolving understanding of the meaning of equality,” the Court in United States v. Windsor saw in that understanding a deep even if new respect in America for the dignity of same-sex couples who choose to marry.
Argument preview: Execution methods: broad or narrow look?
At 10 a.m. Wednesday, the final day of oral arguments this Term, the Supreme Court will hold a one-hour hearing on an Oklahoma death penalty case that could range widely over broad constitutional questions, or — in the alternative — focus very narrowly on one very specific execution method.
Petitions to watch | Conference of April 24
At its Conference on April 24, 2015, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as retaliation for speech and association protected by the First Amendment, the use of a firearm and handcuffs during an investigative stop, and the filing period for a constructive discharge claim under federal employment discrimination law.
Friday round-up
The upcoming arguments in the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage continue to dominate commentary on the Court.
Relist Watch
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. Apart from the release of the Court’s order list, the big news Monday was the announcement of this year’s Pulitzer Prizes. And once again, we have been cheated of our rightful gold Pulitzer medallion and $10,000 in prize money.
SCOTUS for law students: Excessive force in pretrial detention
Few subjects are more timely than the use of excessive force by law enforcement officials, and the Supreme Court on Monday will consider an aspect of that issue: how to evaluate excessive force claims made by pretrial detainees.
This week’s arguments
Oyez has posted audio and transcripts of this week’s arguments. The Court heard arguments this week in: Johnson v. United States McFadden v. United States Horne v. Department of Agriculture
View from the Courtroom: Justices sometimes face off with each other in raisin case
Oral arguments are winding down for the Term, with the major cases on same-sex marriage and death penalty protocols to close out the season next week.
Thursday round-up
Yesterday the Court heard oral argument in Horne v. Department of Agriculture, a case in which the Justices are considering the Takings Clause and the government’s regulation of the raisin market.
Opinion analysis: Clear statements, sovereign immunity, and timeliness
In United States v. Wong, decided together with United States v. June, the Court concluded, yet again, that a statute of limitations is a “claim-processing rule” and subject to equitable tolling, rather than a limit on the court’s adjudicative jurisdiction which allows for no tolling.
Argument analysis: Is the government pushing a bridge too far regarding federal drug prosecutions?
Tuesday’s argument in McFadden v. United States was conducted at such a high level of abstraction that it is hard to know how it will translate into specifics in trial courts and real-world cases.
Argument preview: Pre-trial detainees and excessive force in jail
Kingsley v. Hendrickson will be the Court’s next word on the law of excessive force. The case focuses on the relatively narrow question of what should happen when pre-trial detainees bring excessive-force claims against jail officers, but it’s impossible for the Court to answer that question without thinking about excessive force more broadly.
Wednesday round-up
Yesterday morning the Court issued two opinions in argued cases. In Rodriguez v. United States, the Court held that police officers cannot prolong a traffic stop just to perform a search for drugs using a specially trained dog.
Argument analysis: Imagery overwhelms the facts
Analysis The Supreme Court left the bench Wednesday morning emotionally drawn toward ending an old New Deal program of propping up farm prices, but unsure about how to contain the result so as not to scuttle more than that one scheme.
Opinion analysis: Scaling back federal preemption in energy markets
Good fences make good neighbors – but the boundaries between federal and state regulation of energy markets have begun to blur. In ONEOK v. Learjet, decided yesterday with little fanfare, the Court held that field preemption under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) does not extend to state antitrust suits aimed at pipelines’ price manipulation.
Re-Argument analysis: The votes are not there to sustain the residual clause
Re-Argument analysis: The votes are not there to sustain the residual clause When the residual clause of the federal Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) first came before the Court in 2007 in James v. United States, Justice Scalia called it “shoddy draftsmanship” and a “drafting failure” of Congress.
Live blog of opinions (Updated: Completed)
We are live-blogging this morning as opinions are announced. Join us.
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday the Court returned from a short recess for the April sitting. It heard oral arguments for the second time in Johnson v. United States, in which it had asked the parties to brief the additional question whether the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague.
12