Showing 1–50 of 150 items published in April 2014, most recent first.
At its Conference on May 2, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the class-wide resolution of entitlement to punitive damages, the threshold of eligibility under the Whistleblower Protection Act, and the loss of workers’ compensation benefits as an injury under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
At 10:00 a.m. the Justices will hear the last oral argument of the October Term 2013, Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. Ronald Mann previewed the argument for this blog.
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, both of which involve challenges to the warrantless searches of an arrestee’s cellphone. Lyle Denniston reported on the argument for this blog, and I did the same in Plain English.
Nearly two weeks ago, Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg made an unusual joint appearance at the National Press Club to chat with the veteran TV journalist Marvin Kalb.
The transcript in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. is here.
The Justices started their last week of the Term considering a foundational problem of patent law – how to determine whether a patent is so “indefinite” that it is invalid.
It was a series of events straight out of the children’s book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie – the Law and Order edition. The storyline goes something like this: If you are driving a car with expired tags, the police might pull you over. If they do, they will ask to see your driver’s license.
This morning the Court will hear oral arguments in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, a pair of challenges to the warrantless searches of an arrestee’s cellphone.
This morning at 10:00 a.m. we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will begin live-blogging at 9:45 a.m. at this link. Following opinions, the Justices will hear oral arguments in Riley v. California, followed by United States v. Wurie.
The opinion in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation is here. The opinion in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. is here. The opinion in Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc. is here.
Analysis Trying to imagine all of the things that an individual might keep stored on a cellphone, and trying to decide how much privacy — if any — each item ought to have, the Supreme Court on Tuesday reached for a new digital-age constitutional formula for police searches of those ubiquitous devices, but found that maddeningly elusive.
The Court on Tuesday morning issued the first two opinions from its February sitting, Octane Fitness v. Icon Health & Fitness and Highmark v. Allcare Health Management Systems.
The transcript in United States v. Wurie is here. The transcript in Riley v. California is here.
Quoting from the Bible — not the usual source of legal wisdom — the Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a government rule that will parcel out the duty to stop or at least reduce dirty air from blowing from one state into another.
The Eleventh Circuit’s brief per curiam opinion in Lane v. Franks held that Edward Lane, an employee at a community college program, had no First Amendment protection for his subpoenaed testimony. In oral argument, there was little support for that conclusion.
After two hours of oral arguments in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, both of which involve challenges to the search of an arrestee’s cellphone without a warrant, it seemed likely that the Justices are headed for some sort of middle ground: there did not seem to be five votes for
We are live blogging this morning as opinions are issued. Please click this link to be taken to the live blog page.
This morning at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the April 25 Conference. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference is here. At 10:00 the Justices will hear oral arguments in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., which Ronald Mann previewed for this blog.
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., mercifully brings to a close the Supreme Court’s year-long session on patent law, which has featured five substantive patent-law cases in the last three months of the Term.
Tomorrow the Court will hear oral argument in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, two cases arising out of the warrantless search of an arrestee’s cellphone. Lyle Denniston previewed the cases for this blog, while Steve Wermiel examined the cases in his column for law students.
The Supreme Court turned aside on Monday an attempt to challenge the constitutionality of a 2011 law that sought to reinforce the president’s authority to order the capture and long-term detention of individuals suspected of ties to terrorism — including, potentially, U.S. citizens.
The Court has granted two new cases today: Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, involving the Truth in Lending Act, and Yates v. United States (limited to the first question). The Justices did not act on the Second Amendment case Drake v. Jerejian.
The transcript in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. is here. The transcript in Lane v. Franks is here.
A plea by state officials in Michigan to put their appeal on the same-sex marriage issue on a faster track was denied on Monday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The denial of the request to send the case to the full court, instead of to a three-judge panel, was unanimous.
On Monday the Court granted two new cases. Lyle covered the orders here. On Tuesday the Court issued three decisions; an archived version of the live blog is here. This is the second week of the April sitting. On Friday the Justices will meet for their May 2 Conference.
Next Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court will hold back-to-back, one-hour hearings on cases testing the authority of police to search the contents of cellphones they take from people they have arrested. The cases are not consolidated. At 10 a.m., the Court will hear a state case, Riley v. California.
Coverage of the Court’s decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, upholding Michigan’s ban on the use of affirmative action in public universities, continues with an analysis from Lisa Karen Atkins at the Ogletree Deakins blog.
What guidance should be given to district courts that must decide whether the recipient of an IRS summons has raised a sufficient question about the government’s “improper purpose” to merit an evidentiary hearing?
Oyez has posted argument audio for this week’s cases. The Court heard arguments this week in: POM Wonderful, LLC v. The Coca-Cola Company Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. United States v. Clarke CTS Corp. v. Waldburger
In recent years, the Supreme Court has wrestled with cases involving the technology of video games, GPS tracking, Internet television, and artificial DNA. Now the Justices must tackle the privacy interests in the contents of cellphones.
Yesterday the Court issued decisions in two cases: Paroline v. United States, involving restitution for victims of child pornography; and White v. Woodall, a habeas case.
On Wednesday, in White v. Woodall, the Court reversed a grant of habeas relief by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Was Congress legally sophisticated enough to distinguish between “statutes of limitations” and “statutes of repose” when it amended the “Superfund” legislation (known as CERCLA) in 1986?
On Monday, April 28, the Court will hear oral arguments in Lane v. Franks on the First Amendment protections for a public employee who testifies in court.
Before Tuesday’s oral arguments in American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo, Justice Kennedy announced the Court’s much-anticipated decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, upholding Michigan’s state constitutional ban on the use of affirmative action by state universities.
At its Conference on April 25, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the vesting of retiree health-care benefits in collective bargaining agreements, the liability of police officers who failed to stop a sexual assault, and certification of a civil RICO class action based on alleged fraud.
Analysis Starting with one unproved claim from an unknown source, letting it lead to a supposition, and then allowing it to justify taking action, the Supreme Court in a closely divided ruling Tuesday gave police broad new authority to turn anonymous tips into traffic stops, and then, often, into arrests.
Today the Court heard oral argument in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus and American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo. Writing for this blog, Mark Walsh provides an “‘view’ from the Court” for this big day.
This morning, a divided Court upheld an amendment to the Michigan constitution that prohibits the use of affirmative action by public universities in admissions. Justice Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court in an opinion that was joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Alito.
Yesterday was a big day at the Court, with two opinions and two arguments in high-profile cases. In Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, the Court upheld Michigan’s ban on the use of affirmative action by public universities there.
Yesterday, the nine Justices of the Supreme Court convened in a packed courtroom to hear oral arguments in two high-profile cases.
The opinion in Paroline v. United States is here. The opinion in White v. Woodall is here.
Analysis Each individual — among hundreds and maybe thousands — found guilty of keeping and looking at images of a child being sexually abused must pay the victim something more than a “trivial” sum, but none of them can be required to pay for all that the victim has lost, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in a five-to-four decision.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. We begin this week’s edition with speculation about a possible shift in Supreme Court practice that may launch scrutiny of Supreme Court relists from its current tidal eddy of obscurity into . . . well, a slightly larger but equally obscure eddy.
The transcript in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger is here. The transcript in United States v. Clarke is here.
We are live blogging this morning as opinions are issued. Please click this link to be taken to the live blog page.
On the morning of May 1, Constitutional Accountability Center will host a “Home Stretch at the Supreme Court” panel at the National Press Club, reviewing the Term’s decisions and the blockbusters to come.
Today the Court will hear oral arguments in two highly anticipated cases. In Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, the Court will consider a First Amendment challenge to an Ohio law that criminalizes false political statements. Lyle Denniston previewed the case for this blog.
The opinion in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is here. The opinion in Navarette v. California is here.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will conclude its penultimate week of oral argument for the October Term 2013 by hearing an environmental case which poses a question of statutory interpretation that may not be as simple as it first appears.