Showing 1–50 of 115 items published in January 2013, most recent first.
In early February, the blog will host an online symposium to discuss how the Court should rule (and why) on the question presented by Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.: whether human genes are patentable.
Yesterday’s coverage focused on some of the amicus briefs filed recently in the same-sex marriage cases.
The third installment of our four-part interview with Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, can be accessed below the jump.
Yesterday’s press coverage continued to focus on last Friday’s decision by the D.C. Circuit holding that President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional and the prospect that the Supreme Court will review the issue.
The second installment of our four-part interview with Adam Liptak, Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, can be accessed below the jump.
Yesterday’s coverage continued to focus on the D.C. Circuit’s decision on Friday holding that President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional and the likelihood that the Court will review the issue.
Today we are introducing a multimedia section that will collect our own original audio and video content, as well as Court-related videos from around the web. New content will be highlighted in the “SCOTUSblog Multimedia” widget on the right side of our homepage.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, sitting temporarily on a federal appeals court, suggested in an opinion on Tuesday that it might be unconstitutional for a state to deny handgun licenses to individuals who have only temporary homes in the state, when they want a gun to protect their home there.
Political polarization in Congress seems to be affecting the relationship between Congress and the Supreme Court, inadvertently strengthening the Court at the expense of Congress. These days – unlike in the past – Congress rarely overrides the Supreme Court’s statutory decisions.
In March, the Court will hear argument in two cases challenging the constitutionality of laws forbidding or discouraging same-sex marriage. At the heart of these cases are weighty questions about whether the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.
On Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that President Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board violated the Constitution.
The petition of the day is: [PAGE]12-632[/PAGE]
The spreading constitutional controversy over President Obama’s use of the power to appoint government officials when the Senate is not in full session has now reached all but three of the federal courts of appeals, with thirty separate challenges.
The Supreme Court on Monday invited applicants to seek the Clerk of the Court position, which will be open this fall after Clerk William Suter retires. The formal announcement of the opening, with instructions on the background needed and how to apply, can be read here.
The Court is not scheduled to hear oral arguments again until the February sitting begins on February 19. The next Conference is on February 15. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference is here.
Stepping out of the way of an internal government feud over prosecuting war crimes cases at Guantanamo Bay, the D.C. Circuit Court on Friday accepted the Obama administration’s plea to overturn a conviction in one of those cases.
The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent has posted audio and transcripts for last week’s oral arguments. The Court heard arguments last week in: Boyer v. Louisiana Alleyne v. United States Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management Levin v. United States Gunn v. Minton City of Arlington, TX v. FCC
Harvard law professor Vicki C. Jackson on Thursday evening filed her amicus brief in the Defense of Marriage Act case, arguing that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear the Obama administration case against that law, and that the Republican leaders of the House of Representatives have no legal right to defend the Act.
On Thursday, Harvard Law School professor and Court-appointed amica Vicki C. Jackson filed her brief in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Strictly curbing the President’s power to temporarily fill government posts to keep an agency in operation, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled Friday that the constitutional authority to fill a vacancy can only be used when one Congress has ended and before a new Congress comes to town, or when there is a formal break at the end of one session, but not during any other mid-session break.
Yesterday’s coverage continued to focus on the opening briefs in the same-sex marriage cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8), and United States v. Windsor (the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act).
Lawyers on all sides of the dispute over the federal government’s role — or lack of it — in monitoring the drainage of storm water across logging roads have offered the Supreme Court a range of ideas on what to do with the case, now that it has been argued and new government rules are in place.
Yesterday’s Court coverage continued to focus on the fortieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion nationwide. UPI has coverage, with commentary coming from Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times and Geoffrey R. Stone at the Huffington Post.
When the nine Justices go out in public together to a ceremonial occasion, even celebrity-studded official Washington stops to take notice. Sometimes, as with Monday’s presidential inauguration, that is because it is so unusual to see all nine together anywhere other than in the Supreme Court Chamber.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relisted and held cases. Given last week’s bumper crop of relists, it was perhaps unsurprising that three of Friday’s four cert. grants (or six of seven, depending how you count) came in relisted cases.
On March 26 and 27, the Court will hear oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (the challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act).
Today marks the fortieth anniversary of the Court’s landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal nationwide. Coverage of the case and its legacy comes from Julie Rovner of NPR, Bill Mears of CNN, Cheryl Wetzstein of The Washington Times, Louise Radnofsky and Ashby Jones of The Wall Street Journal, and Adam Clark Estes of the Atlantic Wire.
Analysis Sparing the government from having to pay potentially hundreds of hospitals billions in added reimbursement for treating Medicare patients, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Tuesday that they filed their payment challenges too late.
On March 26 and 27, the Court will hear oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (the challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)).
The “Proposition 8” sponsors’ brief on the merits, and on the Article III question, in the California same-sex marriage case has been filed. It can be read here. This blog will discuss its contents shortly.
California citizens who put together the winning ballot measure against same-sex marriage in that state told the Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon that the state supreme court clearly gave them the right to defend the constitutionality of that measure — “Proposition 8.” They do so as
The Republican members of the House of Representatives’ leadership — the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) — have filed their brief on the merits in the Defense of Marriage Act case. It can be read here.
Arguing that the federal government has the same power as state governments do to define marriage, the Republican members of the House of Representatives’ leadership told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act does not attempt to exclude anyone from government benefits but seeks only to define what marriage means under federal laws and programs.
On March 26 and 27, the Court will hear oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (the challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act).
On Friday, the Court granted cert. in four new cases: Bond v. United States, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, Metrish v. Lancaster, and the Allen Stanford case, which represents the consolidation of three separate petitions.
On March 26 and 27, the Court will hear oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (the challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act).
The Court granted four new cases on Friday shortly after the Justices’ Conference. Lyle reported on the grants for this blog. The Court was closed on Monday in recognition of Martin Luther King Day.
On Tuesday, January 15, the Court heard arguments in Levin v. United States, which – as discussed in our preview – presents the question whether the Gonzalez Act waived the United States’s sovereign immunity as to battery claims arising from the conduct of military medical personnel.
On March 26 and 27, the Court will hear oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (the challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act).
On March 26 and 27, the Court will hear oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (the challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act).
On March 26 and 27, the Court will hear oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (the challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act).
Thursday’s coverage of the court continued to focus on this week’s oral arguments. For this blog, Ronald Mann reports on Wednesday’s oral argument in Gunn v. Minton, in which the Court is considering whether federal jurisdiction over cases “arising under” the federal patent law extends to a claim of legal malpractice in a patent case.
At Wednesday’s argument in the consolidated cases of City of Arlington v. FCC and Cable, Telecommunications, and Technology Committee v. FCC, the Court took up a question that has long been debated in administrative law: whether federal agencies may receive deference under the famous framework of
After weeks of pondering what to do about a case with an unusual combination of criminal law and U.S. treaty obligations, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to accept it for review — for a second time.
On March 26 and 27, the Court will hear oral argument in the same-sex marriage cases, Hollingsworth v. Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. Windsor (the challenge to Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act).
The Court heard argument in two cases yesterday.
This week in Gunn v. Minton the Court entered the sordid world of legal malpractice. Specifically, the Justices are reviewing the willingness of the Texas Supreme Court to defer to the Federal Circuit’s holding that the exclusive federal jurisdiction over patent cases extends to claims of legal malpractice in patent cases.
At its January 18, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as concurrent prison sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j), liability for First Amendment retaliation claims, and the scope of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act.
Yesterday was a fairly active day for Court watchers, with the Justices issuing an opinion in one argued case, and hearing oral arguments in two others.