Showing 1–50 of 121 items published in January 2014, most recent first.
Briefly: At the Washington Legal Foundation’s blog The Legal Pulse, Donald Earl Childress III analyzes the Court’s January 14 opinion in Daimler AG v. Bauman, in which the Court held that the car company cannot be sued for injuries allegedly caused by the actions of an Argentinian subsidiary that took place entirely outside the country.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. Brace yourself. The Court’s out for the better part of the next month, probably to give the Justices time to focus on their other professional duties.
The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins on the occasion of the publication of The Progeny: Justice William Brennan’s Fight to Save New York Times v. Sullivan (American Bar Association, 2014). Welcome, Lee and Stephen.
On February 24, the Justices will hear oral arguments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to determine that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.
Briefly: At The Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog, Jess Bravin notes that Philip Berg, who filed one of the first lawsuits challenging President Barack Obama’s qualifications for office, has resigned from the Supreme Court bar after receiving a two-year suspension from the bar in his home state of Pennsylvania.
Two days after the 2012 challenges to the Affordable Care Act were argued and three months before they were decided by the Supreme Court, Adam Teicholz wrote this in The Atlantic: “Blogs – particularly a blog of big legal ideas called Volokh Conspiracy – have been central to shifting the
For Supreme Court practitioners, or anyone else who may need to file a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court, it could be the best $495 you ever spend. Now in its tenth edition, Supreme Court Practice is regarded as a sufficiently authoritative resource on all things related to the Court that it is cited not only by lawyers who argue there but also by the Justices themselves.
Often, the Supreme Court’s Justices don’t reveal their views of a case at oral argument. But sometimes, oral argument tells you everything you need to know.
Reporting and commentary on Monday’s three opinions in argued cases continue. Writing for this blog, Cristina Tilley covers the decision in Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, in which the Court held that airlines are stripped of their immunity under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act only for statements that are materially false.
Four months into the new Term, several trends are beginning to appear in the Court’s docket. The Court is likely done granting cases for argument during the Term, it has heard more than half of all oral arguments, and about one-fifth of all opinions have already been issued.
Should the Solicitor General’s office cut back on its participation in Supreme Court cases? In a recent article, Michael Solimine argues that the Office of the Solicitor General should limit its involvement to cases in which the interests of the United States are directly affected, as opposed to cases concerning the “broader policy agenda” of the administration.
Yesterday, before beginning a recess that will last until the end of February, the Court issued three opinions in argued cases. The first opinion came in Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, a case involving immunity under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act for airlines that report suspicious behavior.
Arguing that Congress has gone too far to push aside the Supreme Court’s constitutional role in religion cases, a loose coalition of child welfare organizations, survivors of clergy child sexual abuse, and non-believers has urged the Justices to strike down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act when it rules on a new dispute over the federal health care law.
In its opinion in favor of a regional air carrier yesterday, the Court made two things clear. First, airlines cannot be stripped of statutory immunity for safety reports made to the Transportation Safety Administration unless those reports are found to be materially false, and second, once the Court gets its hands on defamation cases, it does not like to let them go.
On Friday afternoon, the Court issued its much-anticipated order in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Sebelius, giving the nuns at least a temporary victory in their efforts to avoid filing a government form to be exempt from the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that they provide their female employees with health insurance that includes access to birth control.
If a drug user dies or is seriously injured after taking in multiple substances, a dealer who supplied one of the items can get an enhanced sentence only if that one drug was the actual cause of the death or injury, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday.
The order list is here. There are no new grants. There is one CVSG in Alabama Dept of Revenue v. CSX. Texas can file original complaint in water dispute. The opinion in Air Wisconsin v. Hoeper is here. The opinion in Burrage v. United States is here.
Solicitor General at UC Hastings: On Wednesday, January 29, Rory Little will interview Solicitor General Verrilli as part of the “Legally Speaking” interview series at the University of California Hastings College of the Law.
We will be live blogging this morning as orders and opinions are issued. Please click this link to be taken to the live blog page.
On Monday the Court issued orders and three opinions. An archived version of our live blog is available here.
Nevada’s attorney general, who filed a full-scale defense of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage just four days ago, has now said publicly that the arguments she made “are likely no longer tenable” in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Analysis An emotion-laden dispute over a part of the new federal health care law is moving into its fourth week of mystery at the Supreme Court, with no hint of when the Justices will do something with it.
The Court is not scheduled to hear oral arguments again until the end of February, but coverage of this week’s oral arguments continues apace.
We expect orders at 9:30 a.m. on Monday, January 27, and one or more opinions in argued cases at 10:00 a.m. We will begin live blogging, at this link, at approximately 9:15.
The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon gave an order of Roman Catholic nuns some added protection against the enforcement of a part of the Affordable Care Act, and spared them — for now — from having to file a government form in order to be exempt.
The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s cases. The Court heard arguments this week in: Navarette v. California Harris v. Quinn Petrella v. MGM, Inc. Paroline v. United States Abramski v. United States
At its Conference on January 24, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as a civil court’s resolution of a church property dispute, a motion for new trial based on juror dishonesty in voir dire, qualified immunity from Fourth Amendment liability, and the effect of state abatement rules on Section 1983 claims.
Briefly: In The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse discusses last week’s grant in the two cell phone privacy cases, United States v. Wurie and Riley v. California, and observes that what she “find[s] most intriguing at the moment is watching how judges respond to the challenge of figuring out how old
You can be sure things won’t go well for the Federal Circuit when the Justices put a case in the “procedure” box instead of the “patents” box. And that’s what happened in the unanimous reversal of the Federal Circuit yesterday in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures.
Virginia’s newly elected attorney general notified a federal court in Norfolk on Thursday that the state will no longer defend the constitutionality of the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relisted cases. Life in Washington is slowly returning to normal as crews work to dig residents out from beneath piles of fresh powder, so that a mere thirty-six hours after a moderate snowfall, schoolchildren in the capital of the most powerful nation on Earth are back in class.
At 11 a.m. on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument on the scope of the federal law that seeks to block “straw purchasers” of guns — that is, those who buy firearms for someone else without revealing that they have done so.
A snowstorm may have shut down the federal government yesterday, but it was business as usual at the Court, where the Justices heard oral arguments in three cases.
Just one opinion, in Medtronic v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC; the Court unanimously reverses the Federal Circuit.
This week’s copyright dispute – Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. – gave the Justices a chance to debate centuries-old distinctions between “law” and “equity” – but it’s pretty clear they have little interest in extending those distinctions into the modern realm.
Analysis The Supreme Court left no doubt on Wednesday that it is willing to do its part to make sure that victims of child pornography get paid money to offset the harm done to them. But it also found itself very much in doubt about just what that part would be.
Analysis Skeptics who wonder whether Congress can handle a tough issue like gun control without mucking it up might well have felt vindicated after an argument in the Supreme Court on Wednesday morning.
The transcript from yesterday’s oral argument in Navarette v. California is here. The transcript from today’s oral argument in Paroline v. United States is here, and the transcript from Abramski v. United States is here.
We will be live blogging this morning as opinions are issued. Please click this link to be taken to the live blog page.
At 10 a.m. on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the proof needed to require a convicted pornographer trafficker to pay the victim for harms done.
On Friday the Court granted three new cases from the Justices’ private Conference earlier that day. In two of the new cases, United States v. Wurie and Riley v. California, the Court will consider the extent to which the Constitution allows police to search (and prosecutors to then use) the contents of a cellphone belonging to someone whom they have arrested.
The Supreme Court, in a one-line order without explanation, on Tuesday upheld the 2012 plan for redistricting the state legislature in Hawaii. A three-judge federal district court had rejected challenges to the plan by residents of Oahu.
In the end, it may not happen, but the demise of public employee unionism was at least on the table for lively discussion in a Supreme Court argument Tuesday morning.
Analysis A rule of thumb for a Fourth Amendment hearing at the Supreme Court: if the hypotheticals get extreme enough, even a lawyer trying to make a simple, “bright line” argument is going to have to concede something.
The transcript in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. is here. The transcript in Harris v. Quinn is here. The transcript in Navarette v. California is not yet on the Court’s website, but we will provide a link as soon as it is available.
At 1 p.m. on Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the authority of police to follow up on an anonymous tip about an unsafe driver.
In recognition of the federal holiday, the Court was closed on Monday. On Tuesday the Court issued additional orders from Friday’s Conference; no new cases were granted. (Lyle covered Friday’s grants shortly after that Conference.) On Wednesday the Court issued one opinion.
A 1o a.m. Tuesday, the Supreme Court will return to the often-disputed issue of requiring non-union workers to financially support unions that represent them.
The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent has posted audio and transcripts from this week’s oral arguments. The Court heard arguments this week in: National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison United States v. Quality Stores Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v. United States McCullen v. Coakley United States v. Castleman
Lawyers who worked for years — ultimately successfully — to clear the names of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry who were convicted of violating government detention policy during World War II are trying to persuade the Obama administration to join in wiping off the books the Supreme Court rulings of that time, upholding those detentions.