Argument preview: Measuring mental handicap
At 10 a.m. next Monday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the authority of states to define mental handicap in determining eligibility for a death sentence.
February 2014 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 88 items published in February 2014, most recent first.
Friday round-up
Although the Court did not hear oral arguments yesterday, oral arguments were nonetheless the big news relating to the Court yesterday, with the online release of bootleg videos – believed to be the first ones ever – taken at the Court.
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Executing the intellectually impaired
In 2002, in Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute persons who were mentally retarded – a condition for which mental health organizations now use the term “intellectually disabled.” On Monday in the case of Hall v. Florida, the Justices will consider how states should determine when a defendant in a capital case is intellectually disabled.
Opinion analysis: Scope of federal preclusion of state law actions
In the recently decided Chadbourne & Parke v. Troice decision, the Supreme Court – in an opinion by Justice Breyer – held that federal law does not preclude the state-law-based actions (filed in Louisiana and Texas) filed against those who allegedly assisted in some capacity (including insurance brokers and law firms) in the fraudulent sales of Stanford International Bank certificates of deposit.
Editor’s Note
On Monday at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the February 28 Conference. On both Tuesday and Wednesday we expect one or more decisions in argued cases; we will be live blogging both days beginning at 9:45 a.m.
Symposium: Accommodations, religious freedom, and the Hobby Lobby case
The following contribution to our contraceptive mandate symposium comes from Richard Garnett, professor of law at Notre Dame Law School. Every law student learns and every lawyer knows that there is more to “doing law” than simply looking up or even arguing for the right answers.
Argument recap: Justices hard to read in twin disputes about attorney’s fees in patent litigation
The Justices spent their Tuesday morning considering when prevailing parties can recover attorney’s fees in patent cases.
Thursday round-up
Perhaps the biggest news out of the Court yesterday was created by Noah Newkirk of Los Angeles, who interrupted the oral arguments to protest the Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Symposium: Under a straight-forward reading of constitutional text and history and fundamentals of corporate law, Hobby Lobby’s claims fail
The following contribution to our contraceptive mandate symposium comes from Elizabeth B. Wydra, Chief Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center.
Argument report: Justices skeptical of mortgage fraudster
The Justices seemed uncharacteristically out of sync at the argument Tuesday in Robers v. United States.
Relist Watch
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. The Court, like first-run television programming, is finally back from its Olympic break. And so is Relist Watch, refreshed (though never truly relaxed) from our own stay in paradise.
Today at the Court: February 26, 2014
This morning at 10:00 a.m. we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will begin live blogging at 9:45 here. Following opinions, the Justices will hear oral arguments in Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Fitness and Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Management Systems, Inc., both of which Ronald Mann previewed for this blog.
Wednesday round-up
Coverage of, and commentary on, the Court focused on the three opinions in argued cases that the Court issued yesterday. In Fernandez v. California, the Court held – by a vote of six to three – that, even if one occupant of a dwelling objects, police may still search that dwelling if another occupant consents after the objecting occupant has been removed.
Breaking News
The opinion in Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice (consolidated with two other cases) is here. The opinion in United States v. Apel is here.
Opinion analysis: Setting military boundaries
Once the government sets up a military base, and defines its boundaries, the military is in charge of all of the base’s property even if it allows the public to make some use of it, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.
Five thoughts on Fernandez v. California
Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court decided Fernandez v. California, a Fourth Amendment case on third-party consent. My colleague Rory Little explained the facts and reasoning of Fernandez here. In this post, I’ll offer some commentary on the decision.
Today’s transcripts
The transcript in Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. is here. The transcript in Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. is here.
Opinion analysis: The boundaries of specific jurisdiction
What happens in Las Vegas may stay in Las Vegas, but the inverse is also true. In Walden v. Fiore, decided yesterday, the Court unanimously concluded that a pair of professional gamblers from Nevada could not force a Georgia law enforcement agent to litigate against them in Nevada, because the agent had never had connections to that state.
Texas ban on same-sex marriage nullified
Lengthening the list of federal trial judges’ rulings striking down state bans on same-sex marriage, a federal judge in San Antonio on Wednesday ruled unconstitutional the 2005 voter-approved ban in Texas, along with state laws reinforcing the ban.
Live blog of opinions | February 26, 2014 (Sponsored by Bloomberg Law) (Updated: Completed)
We will be live blogging this morning as opinions are issued. Please click this link to be taken to the live blog page.
Today at the Court: February 25, 2014
This morning at 10:00 a.m. we expect one or opinions in argued cases. We will begin live-blogging at 9:45 here. Following opinions, the Justices will hear oral arguments in Robers v. United States, which Ronald Mann previewed for the blog.
Petitions to watch | Conference of February 28
At its Conference on February 28, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as “trade or business” status under ERISA, the time limitation in Section 13 of the Securities Act, whether state wage rates supersede collectively-bargained wage rates, and whether campaign contributions are bribery absent an “explicit” quid pro quo.
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in the six cases collectively known as the greenhouse gas cases, which challenge the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases from stationary sources.
Symposium: In a battle of semantics, the family businesses win with scientific facts
The following contribution to our contraceptive mandate symposium comes from Mailee R. Smith, Staff Counsel at Americans United for Life (Counsel of Record for Drury Development Corporation et al. in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius).
Today’s transcript
The transcript in Robers v. United States is now available.
Opinion analysis: The Court narrowly limits a precedent allowing co-occupant objections to warrantless consent searches
Unsurprisingly (see my post-argument analysis here), this morning the Court ruled in Fernandez v. California that Georgia v. Randolph is a “narrow exception” to the normal rule that “police officers may search jointly occupied premises” without a warrant “if one of the occupants consents.” In
Opinion analysis: No right to challenge probable cause finding underlying asset freeze – even to pay your lawyers
In 2007, Kerri Kaley and her husband, Brian, were indicted on charges arising from a plan to steal and then re-sell prescription medical devices. Based on the indictment, the federal government also got a restraining order to freeze their assets.
Briefing set for Virginia marriage appeal
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Tuesday set a briefing schedule for the appeal testing the constitutionality of Virginia’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Live blog of opinions | February 25, 2014 (Sponsored by Bloomberg Law) (Updated: Completed)
We will be live blogging this morning as opinions are issued. Please click this link to be taken to the live blog page.
Today at the Court: February 24, 2014
This morning at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the February 21 Conference. We will report on the orders as soon as they become available. At 10:00 the Justices will hear oral arguments in Utility Air Regulator Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (consolidated with six other cases).
Symposium: How to understand Hobby Lobby
The following contribution to our contraceptive mandate symposium comes from Marty Lederman, professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center. It is hard to recall a Supreme Court case that has been so commonly misunderstood, in so many respects, as the “contraception coverage” cases that the Court will consider on March 25, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.
Monday round-up
Today the Justices return to the bench for the February sitting. This morning at 10 a.m. they will hear arguments in the consolidated cases collectively known as the greenhouse gas cases, challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate the emissions of such gases from stationary sources.
Court denies gun rights cases (UPDATED)
UPDATED 1:37 p.m. This post on this morning’s orders by the Court has been significantly expanded. ———– The Supreme Court refused on Monday, as it has done repeatedly in recent years, to settle the issue of whether Second Amendment rights to have a gun extend beyond the home.
Breaking News
The Court did not grant any new cases, nor did it call for the views of the Solicitor General in any new cases. The Court denied review in the trio of ‘washing machine’ cases (Nos. 13-138, 13-430, & 13-431) and in the trio of gun rights cases (Nos. 12-1401, 13-137, & 13-390).
Argument preview: Justices to assess attorney’s fees in patent litigation (twice in one day!)
In their constant quest to leave no important doctrine articulated by the Federal Circuit unreviewed, the Justices decided last fall to hear two separate cases arising out of a single section of the Patent Act (§ 285), which is the provision that specifies when attorney’s fees are awarded in patent cases.
Argument recap: Five — the number that counts
Analysis The Supreme Court spent ninety-six minutes on Monday trying to sort out numbers that could affect government controls on climate change — tons of air pollution emitted per year, differing numbered sections of a federal law, eighty-three-percent coverage versus eighty-six percent, zero precedents to guide the outcome.
Today’s transcript
The oral argument transcript in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (consolidated with five other cases) is now available.
Symposium: Mandates make martyrs out of corporate owners
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute. He filed an amicus brief supporting Hobby Lobby and Conestoga in their respective cases before the Supreme Court.
This week at the Court
The Court issued orders on Monday; the Court did not grant any new cases, nor did it call for the views of the Solicitor General in any new cases. Lyle’s post on the orders is here. On Tuesday the Court issued three opinions; an archived version of our live blog is available here.
Argument preview: Curbing greenhouse gases
At 10 a.m. next Monday, the Supreme Court will hold ninety minutes of oral argument on six consolidated challenges to the government’s authority to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases from industrial facilities.
Symposium: Hobby Lobby and Conestoga: The most difficult-to-answer question
The following contribution to our contraceptive mandate symposium comes from John Bursch, a partner at Warner, Norcross and Judd. From February 2011 to December 2013 Mr. Bursch served as Michigan’s Solicitor General. “[A]round the world[,] freedom of religion is under threat. . . .
Friday round-up
Briefly: In The New York Times, Adam Liptak previews next week’s oral arguments in the greenhouse gas cases, observing that in the process of deciding “whether the Obama administration went too far in trying to regulate emissions from stationary sources like power plants,” the Justices “are likely
Argument preview: Justices to assess penalties for subprime mortgage fraud
The Court has considered surprisingly few cases arising directly out of the subprime mortgage crisis, but it will get one in February in Robers v. United States, in which it will consider the proper amount of restitution due from a defendant convicted of wire fraud related to a home mortgage loan.
Court calls for new briefs on child porn (UPDATED)
UPDATED 2:50 p.m. The post has been updated and expanded to fill in the background behind the Court’s new briefing order. ———— The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon indicated it has an interest in whether its view on the scope of the legal duty of users of child pornography to pay the victims might be affected by a ruling it made last month in criminal drug case.
Editor’s Note
On Monday at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the February 21 Conference. We will report on the orders as soon as they become available. On both Tuesday and Wednesday we expect one or more opinions in argued cases; we will begin live blogging at 9:45 a.m. each day.
Symposium: The contraceptives coverage controversy — what’s old is new again
The following contribution to our contraceptive mandate symposium comes from B. Jessie Hill, professor of law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. Watching the recent controversy over insurance coverage for contraceptives, feminists may feel like they are in a time warp.
Thursday round-up
Briefly: In his column for The Atlantic, Garrett Epps suggests that if the Court’s more conservative Justices follow the Court’s precedent, “Hobby Lobby and the other challengers don’t even get out of the starting gate.” He argues that “[t]he Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts Courts have all been
Symposium: Why is RFRA still valid against the federal government?
The following contribution to our contraceptive mandate symposium comes from Michael C. Dorf, the Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law at Cornell University Law School; he blogs at Dorf on Law.
Looking back: Earl Warren’s extra-judicial assignment
This post is the latest in an occasional series from the Supreme Court Historical Society looking back at events in the Court’s history – here, the recent fiftieth anniversary of the Warren Commission.
12