Showing 1–50 of 163 items published in June 2014, most recent first.
Believe it or not, the end is almost here. Today the Justices are scheduled to issue orders from their June 26 Conference at 9:30, followed by opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. We will start our live-blog coverage at 9:15 a.m. There are only two undecided cases left.
The order list is here. The Court has granted five new cases and called for the views of the Solicitor General in one case. In Harris v. Quinn the Court limits the power to compel contributions to public employee unions, but does not forbid it.
[Update July 3, 2014, 9:00 AM: We have updated the Stat Pack to reflect orders and a summary reversal released on Tuesday, July 1. The links below will send you to the new Stat Pack and the takeaways below have been updated to reflect the new information.]
UPDATE 9:22 p.m. Over the dissents of two Justices, the Supreme Court on Monday evening temporarily barred enforcement of the birth-control mandate against Wheaton College, a non-profit religious institution in Illinois.
Analysis In an opinion filled with strongly implied invitations to file a new case to go even further, the Supreme Court, dividing five to four, ruled on Monday that public employees cannot routinely be required to join labor unions or to support them by paying dues.
The Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby takes pains to emphasize that it is resolving only the dispute before it, but the principles it has adopted will have an obvious impact in other kinds of religious freedom claims in other contexts.
The Supreme Court refused on Monday to step in to save the Mt. Soledad Christian cross that stands on a hilltop north of San Diego, choosing to let the long-challenged monument’s future be examined first by a federal appeals court.
It’s the last day of June, and we know the Court is sitting for its last day of opinions this Term. June 30 is the latest the Court has sat since 1996, when the Justices took the bench on July 1 to issue just a single opinion, United States v. Winstar.
It was déjà vu all over again. On the last day before its summer recess, we expected the Court to rule on a challenge to the Affordable Care Act, the president’s signature legislative achievement. Lines to get into the courtroom formed early, and crowds gathered outside.
Ayesha N. Khan is Legal Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. She served as lead counsel for the plaintiffs in Town of Greece, filed an amicus brief in support of the government in Hobby Lobby, and represents female students defending the ACA regulations’ accommodation for religious non-profits against a challenge brought by the University of Notre Dame.
Dr. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, and former Dean, at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law. He is also the founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, which participated as an amicus curiae in this case.
We are 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 the final opinions of Term, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn. Our menu of coverage from Monday is archived here. On Tuesday the Court issued orders. Our Tuesday coverage is archived here.
With profit-making businesses waiting to learn within days whether the Supreme Court will spare them, for religious reasons, from having to provide birth-control care for their female workers, several R0man Catholic non-profit entities on Friday asked the Court for similar legal protection.
In National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the Supreme Court (by a vote of five to four) rejected two major structural challenges to the recess appointments power, but all the Justices invalidated the recess appointments at issue in the case by accepting a third argument.
For those who care primarily about partisan politics, labor law, or the narrative of executive overreach, the Court’s decision yesterday in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning is a unanimous one.
There’s been a lot of talk recently about the high degree of unanimity at the Supreme Court this Term. But while today’s decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning may have been nine-zero as to the judgment, it was in reality a five-four decision, with the Justices disagreeing sharply over the proper scope of the Recess Appointments Clause.
“[W]e must hesitate to upset the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of Government have reached,” writes Justice Stephen Breyer in his majority opinion in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning.
In National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the Supreme Court unanimously concluded that three NLRB members were unconstitutionally appointed by President Obama under the guise of his recess appointment power.
Symposia: [Updated: 1:45] Our symposium on the Court’s decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning continues here. Our symposium on Riley v. California is here. [Updated: 2:18] Our symposium on American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo is here.
As many people predicted, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).
Yesterday morning, the Court issued its decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, holding (in a unanimous opinion by Justice Breyer) that “the Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during the recess—intra-session or inter-session—of
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. For most in the Northern Hemisphere, summer is officially here. Beaches are open, England’s football team (did I say that?
Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, reacts to the Supreme Court’s decision in McCullen v. Coakley, striking down a Massachusetts law establishing a thirty-five-foot “buffer zone” around reproductive health centers.
Kate Starr, a women’s rights activist and intern in Washington, D.C., reacts to the Supreme Court’s decision in McCullen v. Coakley, striking down a Massachusetts law establishing a thirty-five-foot “buffer zone” around reproductive health centers. [Please note: Ms. Starr is an intern at the National Organization for Women.
Throughout much of the Supreme Court Term, we publish an interim Stat Pack that keeps everyone up to date on developing trends at the Court and the state of the Court’s docket. But every year at the end of the Term we get to publish something a bit more robust: the End-of-Term Stat Pack.
At 9:30 a.m. on Monday we expect orders from the June 27 Conference, followed by the opinions at 10:00 a.m. We will begin live-blogging at this link at approximately 9:15. The only remaining undecided cases of the Term are Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn.
John Neiman is Chair of the Appellate Group at Maynard, Cooper & Gale P.C. As the former Solicitor General of Alabama, he was counsel of record for the amicus brief 17 States filed supporting the respondents in Noel Canning. The views below are his own.
Mitch Stoltz is a Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation Wednesday’s decision in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo raises a big question about the right sources of interpretive authority in copyright cases.
In 2007, Massachusetts passed a law that makes it a crime to stand on a public road or sidewalk within thirty-five feet of any abortion clinic in the state.
The petitions of the day are: Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey 13-1148 Issue: (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard does not facially discriminate against interstate commerce; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard is not an extraterritorial regulation.
It will turn out to be technology day at the Supreme Court today. But first, our morning coffee. There was a discussion in the opinions in Loughrin v. United States on Monday about purchasing convenience-store coffee. (We’ll spare you the specifics of the nuanced point of the exchange.)
If you think your cable bill is too high, you probably don’t want to read this. The Supreme Court yesterday put a stake in the heart of a start-up that delivered network television on the cheap.
This morning, the Court issued its decision in Riley v. California, holding (in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts) that “police generally may not without a warrant search digital information on the cellphone seized from an individual who has been arrested.” Lyle Denniston covered
Today’s opinion in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer rejects the rule – embraced by most of the courts of appeals – that fiduciaries of employer stock ownership plans (“ESOPs”) are entitled to a “presumption of prudence” in connection with their decisions to buy or hold the employer’s stock.
Yesterday was the kind of day that we’d been waiting for here at SCOTUSblog, with the Court issuing opinions in three argued cases, two of which were the blockbusters American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo and Riley v. California.
Today’s opinion coverage: An archived version of today’s live blog is here. The opinion in NLRB v. Noel Canning is here. Lyle’s coverage of the opinion in Noel Canning is here. [New: 3:13] Amy’s coverage of Noel Canning “In Plain English” is here.
The Court holds in NLRB v. Noel Canning that recess appointments during pro forma sessions of the Senate are invalid. In McCullen v. Coakley the Court strikes down buffer zone law.
Anthony S. Barkow and Eric Del Pozo are attorneys at Jenner & Block LLP In simplest terms, the Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unwarranted and unreasonable government intrusions on privacy.
Adam Gershowitz is a a Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School. He filed an amicus brief in support of Riley and Wurie. This week the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie that forbids law enforcement officers from searching cell phones incident to arrest without a warrant.
Peter S. Menell is Koret Professor of Law and Director, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, University of California at Berkeley. David Nimmer is Professor from Practice, UCLA School of Law; Of Counsel, Irell & Manella LLP. They filed an amicus brief in support of the broadcasters.
Analysis Leaning heavily upon a long history of Congress and presidents finding ways — sometimes clumsy — to make the federal government work, and perhaps silently wishing for a day when they might do so again, a sharply divided Supreme Court on Thursday embraced a practical constitutional solution to filling temporary vacancies in U.S. government posts.
Adam McDuffie, a student at Wake Forest University, talks about waiting for the decision in Hobby Lobby, and Noel McHardy, a teacher from Bloomfield, Michigan, talks about the exciting opportunity to see the Justices at work.
There’s a lot to love in Riley v. California, and privacy specialists will be celebrating this one for a long time. In a nearly unanimous opinion packed with references to gigabytes, apps, and the cloud, Chief Justice John Roberts proved that the Justices get it.
Mason C. Clutter is the National Security and Privacy Counsel at the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Some thought the Supreme Court in Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, the two cellphone searches incident to arrest cases this Term, would split the baby.
Matt Schruers is VP, Law & Policy at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, which submitted a brief in support of Aereo, its member, in this case.
We’re down to four pretty big cases for decision. That means the bar section of the courtroom is filling up with attorneys who have some connection to the remaining cases.
Analysis The Supreme Court, leaving a clear impression that foes of abortion have at least a limited constitutional right to succeed in having close, one-on-one encounters with patients seeking that medical service, struck down on Thursday a seven-year-old Massachusetts law that created a “buffer-zone” around every abortion clinic in the state.
Terry Hart is Director of Legal Policy for the Copyright Alliance and blogs on his own behalf at Copyhype.com The highly anticipated opinion in American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc. finally answered the question whether the start-up performed copyrighted works to the public.
With only four decisions remaining when the Justices took the bench today, we knew we would have to get something good: all four decisions had the potential to be blockbusters.