Showing 1–50 of 110 items published in March 2014, most recent first.
Tuesday’s arguments in Loughrin v. United States will present a persistent and important — but highly technical — circuit split about the details of permissible federal bank fraud prosecutions. Although the “plain language” of the relevant statute seems clear, the outcome is not.
This morning the Court will hear oral arguments in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, in which the Justices will consider whether the Patent Act authorizes patents on software.
On Wednesday we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will begin live blogging on Wednesday at 9:45 a.m.
The order list is here. The Court has granted Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
The Supreme Court, continuing its close interest in patent law, agreed on Monday to spell out the power of the special federal appeals court to review trial court rulings on the scope of invention claims in a patent dispute.
A dispute over state regulation of political speech serves as the backdrop for an important case about when First Amendment claims are ripe for judicial decision.
The transcript in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International is available here.
On Monday the Court issued orders from its March 28 Conference, including granting one new case. Lyle’s post on the orders is here. On Wednesday we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. On Wednesday the Court issued two opinions, including McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
UPDATE: Saturday 2:05 p.m. The government’s new brief is now available and can be read here. ———— The Obama administration, urging the Supreme Court to turn aside a new challenge to presidential power to detain individuals suspected of terrorism links, chose not to support a years-long campaign to get the Court to repudiate one of its most heavily criticized opinions from the World War II era.
UPDATE Friday, 11:10 a.m. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Friday that the federal government will formally recognize and provide marital benefits under federal law to some 300 Michigan same-sex couples who were married last weekend while a lower court ruling was in effect, striking down the state’s ban on such marriages.
In a ruling that seems likely to be tested in the Supreme Court, a federal appeals court on Thursday upheld new restrictions on women’s access to abortions in Texas that have been in effect for almost five months and that have led to the closing of many clinics in the state.
Commentary on the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate continues to dominate Court-related news.
On April 2, the Court will hear argument in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer.
On Monday at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the March 28 Conference. On Wednesday we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will begin live blogging on Wednesday at 9:45 a.m.
The Court’s consideration of LexMark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. puts the Court at the epicenter of a “sprawling litigation” (to use the Court’s words), involving a variety of claims under state and federal law, to say nothing of LexMark’s persistent efforts against all who attempt to interfere with its efforts to erect a practical monopoly over refilling cartridges for its printers.
Many lawyers come to the law for its deep philosophical questions—questions of morality, jurisprudence, and the public good. These people usually think that patent law is exclusively for dorks, and that they should avoid it like the plague (in its generic, metaphorical sense—they aren’t really interested in the microbiology).
The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent has posted recordings from this week’s oral arguments. The Court heard arguments this week in: Clark v. Rameker Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. Wood v. Moss
At its Conference on March 28, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the proof required to justify removal to federal court, the scope of the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board’s review of claims, and the level of detail required for False Claims Act complaints.
The Court heard oral arguments in one case yesterday and issued an opinion in another, but the big news out of the Court continues to be Tuesday’s oral argument in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases Who doesn’t love March Madness? Every year it’s the same – running around the yard in a pink bathrobe, assaulting squirrels with a broken plunger. I understand that there also is a sporting event of some sort going on this time of year. I kid, I kid.
One day after oral arguments in a high-stakes battle over whether a corporation must comply with laws and regulations that violate the religious beliefs of the family that owns the company, the Court’s nine Justices were back at work again yesterday morning.
A federal appeals court ruling that had appeared to make it harder for states to justify a ban on same-sex marriage, by raising the constitutional barrier to laws based on sexual orientation, may now be given a new look.
It felt a bit like 2012 in the Supreme Court chamber on Tuesday as spectators and reporters filed in for the arguments in a case involving the Affordable Care Act.
As might be expected, yesterday’s oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, the challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, garnered extensive coverage.
Bradley W. Joondeph is the Inez Mabie Distinguished Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Santa Clara University School of Law. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court handed down two opinions in appeals from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The opinion in United States v. Castleman is here.
When Justice Antonin Scalia offers a lawyer before the Supreme Court two simple ways to win a case, and makes it clear he is very devoted to both, it may be smart to resist one, but is there some risk in not embracing either?
The transcript in Wood v. Moss is available here.
We will be live blogging this morning as opinions are issued. Please click this link to be taken to the live blog page.
Today the Court will hear oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.
The opinion in United States v. Quality Stores is here. The opinion in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. is here.
The Supreme Court, in a one-hour, twenty-eight-minute session Tuesday, staged something like a two-act play on a revolving stage: first the liberals had their chance and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy gave them some help, and then the scene shifted entirely, and the conservatives had their chance — and, again, Kennedy provided them with some support.
The transcript in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores (consolidated with Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius) is here.
This morning the Court heard oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s “contraceptive mandate.” Lyle reported on the argument for this blog.
Almost two years ago to the day, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, which requires virtually everyone in the United States to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
We will be live blogging this morning as opinions are issued. Please click this link to be taken to the live blog page.
Tomorrow the Court will hear oral arguments in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that businesses provide their female employees with health insurance that includes access to contraceptives.
The Court has granted one new case, Jennings v. Stephens, in which it will consider when a habeas petitioner must seek a certificate of appealability to challenge a part of a lower court ruling on which he lost.
The Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for the public and the press to sit in on arbitration of business disputes in Delaware, when a state judge acts as the arbitrator.
On Monday the Court granted one new case and called for the views of the Solicitor General in two cases. Lyle reported on the orders here. On Tuesday the Court issued two opinions in argued cases. An archived version of the live blog is here.
UPDATE Saturday 5:31 p.m. After same-sex couples began to obtain marriage licenses and were married, the Sixth Circuit on Saturday afternoon temporarily blocked the judge’s order permitting those marriages.
With the oral arguments (now expanded to ninety minutes) in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate less than a week away, the two cases are the subject of extensive coverage and commentary.
At 10 a.m. next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on pleas by two Secret Service agents for immunity from a lawsuit claiming that they had put demonstrators protesting presidential policies at a disadvantage because of their political views.
On Monday at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the March 21 Conference. On both Tuesday and Wednesday we expect opinions in argued cases. We will begin live blogging both days at 9:45 a.m.
At 10 a.m. next Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hold ninety minutes of oral argument on the government’s authority to require private businesses to provide birth control and other pregnancy-related services to their employees under the Affordable Care Act.
Briefly: In the Los Angeles Times, David Savage looks at a group of “potentially powerful” First Amendment cases pending at the Court this Term, observing both that “all of them com[e] from groups on the right” and that, “in nearly every case, liberal groups . . . are taking the opposing side,
The Justices have danced around the question for years. Critics (including a decided majority of academic analysts) have bemoaned the drag on innovation for decades.
Commentators continue to respond to Erwin Chemerinsky’s op-ed (which we covered in Monday’s round-up) urging Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who turned eighty-one over the weekend, to retire to allow President Obama to nominate her successor.
Clark v. Rameker is the kind of case every judge should love. It presents a clean and straightforward question of statutory interpretation, with no looming shadow of oppressive media scrutiny. The briefs on both sides are lucid and persuasive. And the parties even agree on what the question is.