Showing 1–50 of 1301 items published in 2013, most recent first.
Briefly: In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes observes that although, “[a]s smart as they are, Supreme Court justices sometimes falter when they predict the consequences of their decisions,” Justice Antonin Scalia’s predictions on same-sex marriage – made in his dissent in United States v. Windsor – are now “being borne out” in the lower courts.
UPDATE 5:14 p.m. Justice Sonia Sotomayor has asked for a response to the Utah application; it is due by noon on Friday.
UPDATE 11:21 p.m. In a case from the Tenth Circuit Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor temporarily blocked enforcement of the mandate against the institutions in that case, while she awaits a response from the federal government, due by 10 a.m. on Friday.
Analysis State officials in Utah plan to ask the Supreme Court, as early as Monday, to stop same-sex marriages across the state, but a question that arises as lawyers prepare the papers is whether they will stop with only that request.
With Utah expected – as early as today — to ask the Court to stop same-sex marriages there, coverage of the Court continues to focus on the Utah case and how it might fare at the Supreme Court.
With the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit having declined to block a district judge’s order invalidating Utah’s ban on same-sex marriages, coverage of the case now turns to the possibility that the Supreme Court will weigh in.
Friday 4:48 p.m. This post has been updated and expanded to cover the ruling more fully. —————- Ruling that the government’s global telephone data-gathering system is needed to thwart potential terrorist attacks, and that it can only work if everyone’s calls are swept in, a federal judge in New York City ruled Friday that Congress legally set up the program and that it does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights.
As Lyle reported for this blog early yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to block a federal judge’s order striking down Utah’s ban on same-sex marriages.
UPDATE Thursday 12:27 p.m.
Expanding the meaning of the Supreme Court’s decision in June in United States v. Windsor, a federal judge in Cincinnati ruled on Monday that states have a constitutional duty to accept the marriages of same-sex couples performed legally in other states.
Briefly: As 2013 draws to a close, Michael Kirkland of UPI looks back at some of the major cases argued so far this Term and then looks ahead at the high-profile cases already on the Court’s docket for 2014.
UPDATED 11:50 p.m. The same-sex couples who challenged the Utah ban have now filed their response to the state’s request for delay by the Tenth Circuit. The filing is here. Appendix A — Judge Shelby’s order denying a stay request in the district court — is here.
The Justices’ next Conference is scheduled for January 10, 2014. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference is here.
UPDATED 10:05 p.m. Saturday. Judge Shelby has scheduled a hearing for Monday morning on the state’s stay motion. UPDATED 7:46 a.m. Saturday. State officials began their effort to postpone this decision by filing a motion in the district court Friday evening. It can be read here.
With the Court in recess until January, much of the coverage of, and commentary on, the Court focuses on the possibility that it will be drawn into the challenges to the National Security Agency’s global telephone data sweeps.
In a series of posts consolidated in a Word document at The Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh takes a close look at the issues in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate, while Matt Bowman responds in a guest post.
New Mexico, a state that did not have a flat ban on same-sex marriage but also did not seem to allow it, must now permit such formal unions under the state’s constitution, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday.
Briefly: Jessica Gresko of the Associated Press reports on remarks by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who suggested that Supreme Court Justices should be able to stay on the bench as long as they are able, rather than worrying about whether a Democratic or Republican president will appoint their successors.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. UPDATED December 19, 2013 [2:24 p.m.]. Since our post yesterday, we have learned of another case pending that may explain the status of Turner v. United States, 13-127, and have revised this post accordingly.
In a three-part series at Balkinization, Marty Lederman takes a close look at Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate.
Briefly: Michael Kirkland of UPI discusses last week’s order granting Senator Mitch McConnell’s motion to share in the argument time in NLRB v. Noel Canning, the challenge to the president’s recess appointments to the NLRB.
The order list is here. The Court has called for the views of the Solicitor General in O’Neill v. Al Rajhi Bank. The opinion in Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. is here.
For the second time in recent years, the Supreme Court has turned to the federal government for advice on whether lawsuits should be allowed to go forward to fix legal blame for the deaths, injuries, and property damage done by the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001.
This morning the Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Thomas, affirmed the court of appeals in Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co., holding that when a plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) specifies a limitations period, that period – including
Finding that the National Security Agency’s global telephone data sweep is so extensive that everyone’s calling information not only is likely to be gathered, but then could be analyzed more closely, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled on Monday that the program probably will be ruled unconstitutional.
We will be live blogging this morning as orders and opinions are issued. We will begin live blogging at 9:25. Please click this link to be taken to the live blog page.
On Monday the Court issued additional orders from the December 13 Conference. (Lyle reported on Friday’s grants here.) Following orders, the Court issued one opinion. The Justices’ next Conference is scheduled for January 10, 2014.
A federal judge in Salt Lake City, in a historic ruling denouncing deeply rooted hostility to a man having more than one wife as a religious duty, struck down on Friday a part of Utah’s 1973 anti-bigamy law.
Arguing that the television broadcasting industry is waging a “war of attrition” on a new form of viewer access to free TV, on Thursday Aereo, Inc., urged the Supreme Court to take on the issue now and settle it.
When Scott Cheever stood trial for the death of a local sheriff, he introduced a voluntary-intoxication defense, telling the jury that, because he had been using methamphetamines, the crime could not have been premeditated. Cheever also presented testimony by a psychiatrist to bolster this defense.
Yesterday Aereo, Inc. filed its brief in response to a petition for certiorari filed by the television broadcasting industry, which is challenging the Second Circuit’s ruling that Aereo’s streaming of television programs on the Internet does not infringe on the industry’s copyrights.
The Solicitor General on Tuesday urged the Court to grant review in what could be yet another blockbuster patent case –involving the question of “divided” infringement.
UPDATED 3:44 p.m. This post has been expanded to provide details of the bank fraud case. ———— The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to clarify when the managers of an employee stock ownership plan have a legal duty to stop investing in the company’s own stock when they know it has become risky.
Two new cases have been granted: Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer (12-751) and Loughrin v. United States (13-316).
The Oyez Project has posted this week’s argument audio. The Court heard arguments this week in: Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation / American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation Mayorkas v. De Osorio Lozano v. Alvarez White v. Woodall
On Monday, December 16, we expect orders at 9:30 a.m. followed by one or more opinions at 10:00. We will begin live blogging at 9:25. The link for the live blog is here.
The oral argument transcript for Lozano v. Alvarez, which Amy Howe recapped, is available here. The transcript for White v. Woodall is here.
Yesterday the Court issued one opinion, in Kansas v. Cheever. In a unanimous opinion by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held that, when a defense expert who has examined the defendant testifies that the defendant lacked the requisite mental state to commit a crime, prosecutors may offer evidence from a court-ordered psychological examination for limited purpose of rebutting the defendant’s evidence.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. Behold, ye merry readers, we bring you tidings of comfort and joy: the penultimate relist watch before the holiday break! Cue the dancers! And prancers! And vixen!
As in many recent cases applying limits on relief contained in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s text (AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1)), Wednesday’s argument in White v. Woodall involved mind-numbing hairsplitting.
This morning at 10:00 a.m. we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will start the live blog at 9:45. After issuing opinions, the Justices will hear oral arguments in Lozano v. Alvarez, which Amy Howe previewed for this blog, followed by oral arguments in White v. Woodall, which Jordan Steiker previewed for this blog.
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation and American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation, the consolidated challenges to the EPA’s authority to require states to take measures to prevent their air pollution from affecting their downwind neighbors.
When Lauren Moskowitz, the attorney for Diana Montoya Alvarez, stood up this morning to argue on behalf of the respondent in the international family law dispute Lozano v. Alvarez, she had reason to feel optimistic: at least seven Justices had expressed misgivings about the arguments just made for roughly thirty minutes by Shawn Regan, the lawyer for petitioner Manuel Lozano.
The Court granted certiorari in Air Wisconsin v. Hoeper to decide whether airlines can be stripped of their statutory immunity from civil suits for reporting safety threats to the Transportation Security Administration if there is no finding that the report was materially false.
Yesterday, the Court heard oral arguments in Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osorio, a case raising a technical issue of statutory construction of the complex U.S. immigration laws.
On Tuesday, by a vote that appears to have been six to three, the Court in a per curiam opinion dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted in UNITE HERE Local 355 v. Mulhall.
We will be live blogging this morning as opinions are issued at 10:00 a.m. We will begin live blogging at 9:45. Please click this link to be taken to the live blog […]
At its December 13, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as secondary liability for supporting terrorist organizations under the Anti-Terrorism Act, a tribe’s eminent domain powers over a corporation located on tribal land, sanctions for violating the
This morning at 10:00 a.m. we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will begin live-blogging at 9:45 at this link.