Showing 1–50 of 135 items published in October 2014, most recent first.
Few procedures at the Supreme Court are more mysterious than the decision to reargue a case. Rearguments are rare among the approximately seventy cases that are argued each Term. Even rarer is any discussion or explanation of the process by the Court or its members, present or past.
Happy Halloween! Next week the Court resumes oral arguments, starting with Zivotofsky v. Kerry, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, upon request, to record the birthplace of a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem as “Israel.” The impending argument has drawn a flurry of commentary.
The legal issue the Justices will confront on Tuesday when they hear oral argument in Department of Homeland Security v. MacLean is easy enough to describe: When a federal statute bars whistleblowers from making disclosures that are “specifically prohibited by law,” does that bar also apply to
On Monday at 9:30 a.m. we expect the Court to issue orders from the October 31 Conference; we do not expect the Justices to issue any decisions on the merits. Our list of “Petitions to watch for that Conference is here.
Briefly: In the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews next week’s oral argument in Yates v. United States, in which the Court will consider the case of a commercial fisherman convicted of violating the anti-shredding provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for the destruction of several undersized fish.
The Supreme Court has long ignored Justice Felix Frankfurter’s warning to stay out of the political thicket. It regularly hears challenges to redistricting cases (not to mention lots of other types of election cases), raising issues from the one-person, one-vote rule to vote dilution under the Voting Rights Act, to racial and partisan gerrymandering claims.
A recitation of the facts in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans suggests a scenario typical of the most fact-bound petition imaginable, bound for prompt denial because of its technicality. A borrower receives a mortgage loan.
Briefly: At Greenwire, Jeremy P. Jacobs profiles Peter Keisler, “a go-to guy for industry on Clean Air Act cases at the Supreme Court.” At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Joan Biskupic explains why she wrote her newest book, on Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the increased prominence of Hispanics in U.S. politics.
The connections among liberty, government power, speech, campaign finance, technology,and privacy. “People ask, Why did you pick constitutional law?I mean, come on.Who, with a real opportunity to dig into a subject of law would not wantthat to be constitutional law?It has everything.It has
Bradley W. Joondeph is the Inez Mabie Distinguished Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the Santa Clara University School of Law. How broad is the states’ power to impose personal income taxes on their own residents?
Briefly: At The Huffington Post, Zach Carter reports on recent comments by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who in an interview over the weekend argued that, if Democrats lose their Senate majority in the midterm elections, the Supreme Court could block Democratic policy initiatives for years to come.
At its Conference on October 31, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as a judge’s mandatory duty of self-disqualification under the federal recusal statute, proof of causation in an antitrust action, and the availability of federal tax subsidies to individuals who purchase health insurance on an exchange operated by the federal government.
Assessing the Roberts Courts divergent tack on race and gay rights. “People ask, Why did you pick constitutional law?I mean, come on.Who, with a real opportunity to dig into a subject of law would not wantthat to be constitutional law?It has everything.It has history.It has moral philosophy.The
Five Puerto Rican same-sex couples and a gay rights advocacy group on Tuesday began an uncertain trip to a federal appeals court, where a potential obstacle to their marriage plea may await them.
The Obama administration’s attempt last summer to find a new way to give religious non-profit groups an exemption from the new health care law’s mandate for birth-control services did not go far enough, a federal judge in Florida decided in a temporary ruling on Tuesday.
Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins on the occasion of the publication of Judging Statutes (Oxford University Press), by Chief Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Welcome, Chief Judge Katzmann.
The Supreme Court’s decision not to weigh in on challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage continues to spur coverage and commentary. In the ABA Journal, Debra Cassens Weiss summarizes a recent interview with President Barack Obama, who – among other things – described the Court’s denial of review as the Court’s best decision during his time in office.
Coercion versus a wink and a nudge.
On Friday the Justices will meet for their October 31 Conference. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference is here. The November sitting begins November 3.
Keeping up with the expanding list of states where same-sex marriages are now being performed, Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Saturday that the federal government now officially recognizes such unions in thirty-two states, plus Washington, D.C. The statement added six new states to the
Coverage of the Court’s release of a revised version of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in the Texas voter ID case (on which Lyle reported for this blog on Wednesday) continues.
The inspiration and aspiration for Uncertain Justice and the rewards of working with Joshua Matz, a co-author fifty years his junior. “People ask, ‘Why did you pick constitutional law?’ I mean, come on.
John Elwood finally reviews Monday’s relisted cases. Under the principle that weather and sports must always be saved until the end of the news to keep weary eyes watching those local ads, I should be burying this lede.
As Lyle reported for this blog yesterday, the Court released a revised version of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent from the Court’s order allowing Texas to implement its voter identification law.
Two important cases — Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia (public access to trials) and Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc. (the First Amendment Establishment Clause and a church’s power to control a liquor license) — in a long career and assessing the problem and real impact of the Supreme Court taking on Bush v. Gore. “People ask, ‘Why did you pick constitutional law?’ I mean, come on.
Applying the Supreme Court’s June decision that raised a major new legal threat to Internet rebroadcast of copyrighted TV programs, a federal judge in NewYork City on Thursday ordered Aereo, Inc., to refrain from relaying video to paying customers while any part of the original show is on the air.
Relying mainly on two legal points that federal courts have repeatedly rejected over the past sixteen months, a federal trial judge in San Juan ruled Tuesday that Puerto Rico’s ban on same-sex marriage survives constitutional challenge.
Briefly: At the WLF Legal Pulse, Richard Samp urges the Court to rule on the merits of Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, in which it heard oral argument earlier this month,, rather than dismissing it as improvidently granted. 3rd Block With Brian Williams (video) covers recent remarks by
From birth in Shanghai, China during World War Two to a summa in math at Harvard to a long and distinguished career in legal academe and Supreme Court advocacy. “People ask, ‘Why did you pick constitutional law?’ I mean, come on.
Three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit listened closely, but noncommittally, on Wednesday to a broad constitutional attack on the system of war crimes tribunals now operating at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has issued a new version of her dissent, released early Saturday morning in a Texas voting rights case, to fix an error about one kind of ID card that voters can use to qualify to vote. The revised dissenting opinion, in full, can be read here.
UPDATED 5:54 p.m.
Last Term, the Supreme Court issued a higher percentage of unanimous decisions than in any Term since 1940. The Court was unanimous 62% of the time, and there were dissenting opinions in only 39% of the cases. Was the 2013 Term an outlier, or is it a harbinger of a new consensus among the Justices?
Saturday’s pre-dawn order in the Texas voter identification case continues to garner coverage and commentary.
With the filing Tuesday of a one-paragraph notice by state officials in a federal courthouse in Casper, Wyoming, and the release of a two-page order by a federal judge, that state became the thirty-second to allow same-sex marriage — an increase of thirteen from what it was only sixteen days before.
At the beginning of every Term, the Court releases the complete recordings of sessions to the National Archives and Records Administration. Oyez has collected these recordings and posted audio of all opinion announcements, including dissents from the bench, from OT2013.
Most of the weekend coverage of the Court focused on the announcement, which came shortly before dawn on Saturday morning, that the Court would not block Texas from implementing its new voter ID law.
The Court has granted three new cases: Henderson v. United States Chappell v. Ayala, in which it added an additional question: whether the court of appeals properly applied the standard articulated in Brecht v. Abrahamson; and City of Los Angeles v. Patel The Court also invited the Solicitor
The Supreme Court, taking on an issue that reaches hotels and motels across the nation, agreed on Monday to rule on the power of city governments to require commercial lodgings to open their guest lists to the police.
The Court has granted three new cases and called for the views of the Solicitor General in one more.Court has granted three new cases and called for the views of the Solicitor General in one more.
On Monday morning the Court issued orders from its October 17 Conference. It granted review in three new cases and called for the views of the Solicitor General in one more. The Court’s next Conference is scheduled for October 31. The November sitting begins November 3.
Oyez has posted audio recordings of oral arguments from the first two weeks of the term.
In a stinging defeat for the Obama administration and a number of civil rights groups in a major test case on voters’ rights, a divided Supreme Court told the state of Texas early Saturday morning that it may enforce its strict voter ID law for this year’s general election, with early voting starting next Monday.
“My colleagues are invisible this evening and I’ve been promoted, apparently,” Justice Breyer quipped from the middle seat on the bench Thursday evening.
At Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman analyzes Wednesday’s oral argument in the patent case Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz, Inc., emphasizing that “[l]ast year’s patent decisions revealed a strong preference by the Supreme Court to tell the Federal Circuit that it should stop thinking of itself as Lord of the Patents, and that ‘supreme’ means just what it sounds like.
About two-thirds into the opening argument in Jennings v. Stephens on Wednesday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Randolph Schaffer (arguing for Jennings), “May I just clarify it?” referring to his argument.
UPDATED 1:43 p.m. Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne issued a public statement Friday morning saying that the state would not appeal the decisions against the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Keeping to itself its reasons for doing the same thing again, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon rejected a plea to stop same-sex marriages from going ahead in Alaska.
Courts’ constitutional rulings or orders on state power to ban same-sex marriages kept up their very rapid pace on Friday, as the Supreme Court allowed gay and lesbian couples to begin getting licenses in Alaska, a federal judge did the same in Arizona and the state opted not to appeal, and a federal judge in Wyoming added another ruling against a ban.
At its Conference on October 17, 2014, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the standard of review for exhaustion under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the admissibility of lay testimony that is based on specialized knowledge, and proof of causation in a prosecution for insider trading.