Showing 1–50 of 135 items published in February 2013, most recent first.
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) requires that certain states with a history of discrimination in voting obtain preapproval from federal officials before making changes in their voting procedures.
All sides in the case on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to more than double the time for oral argument on March 27, and to hold separate arguments on the constitutional issue and on the Court’s authority to decide the case.
Coverage of yesterday’s argument in Shelby County v. Holder continues to pour in, with reporting on the argument coming from Nina Totenberg of NPR, Bill Mears of CNN, Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor, Marcia Coyle at the Blog of Legal Times, the PBS NewsHour, Ari Berman of The Nation, and Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog.
Jonathan Macey is a professor at Yale Law School and the author of a new book, The Death of Corporate Reputation: How Integrity Has Been Destroyed on Wall Street.
The Obama administration on Thursday urged the Supreme Court to rule in the case of California’s Proposition 8 that same-sex marriage should be required in eight more states, beyond the nine that already permit it, although it stopped short of explicitly calling for the Justices to extend the right
The blog is pleased to have reactions to yesterday’s oral arguments from supporters of both sides. This post has reactions from Ellen D. Katz, Professor of Law at The University of Michigan Law School.
The state of California itself has today filed this amicus brief in Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which it argues not only that California’s own Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment, but also that the petitioners — four of the Proposition 8 sponsors — do not have Article III standing to
Marx v. General Revenue Corporation is surely one of the simplest cases of the Term – a classic example of an issue that reaches the Court only because of a circuit conflict. The dispute involves rules for treatment of the expenses of litigation.
Abigail Thernstrom is the vice-chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of two books on the Voting Rights Act. She has submitted an amicus brief in Shelby County v. Holder.
Today is the deadline to file amicus, or “friend of the court,” briefs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which is scheduled for oral argument on March 26. In that case, the Court will consider a challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which amended that state’s constitution to limit “marriage” to unions between a man and a woman.
Today is the last day of the February sitting. We are expecting one or more opinions in argued cases this morning and will begin live blogging shortly before ten o’clock.
Just past the forty-minute mark of Monday’s oral argument in Trevino v. Thaler, Justice Kennedy gently but firmly reproached two of his colleagues for teasing each other about their opposing views in a prior case, sarcastically suggesting that “[t]his is very amusing in a capital case.” If the rest
Yesterday’s press coverage of the Court focused on two opinions released yesterday, cases scheduled for oral argument this week, and the same-sex marriage cases that will be argued later this Term.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. In contrast to the torpor reflected in last week’s post-Presidents’ Day order list, the Court moved briskly this week to clear out some of the oldies-but-goodies loitering around One First Street.
Following through on the deep constitutional concerns stated in its prior Northwest Austin decision, a majority of the Court seems committed to invalidating Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and requiring Congress to revisit the formula for requiring preclearance of voting changes.
Analysis Sometimes, in a Supreme Court argument, a single phrase can speak volumes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the one member of the Court who bore the most watching because the other eight seemed clearly to divide evenly, used the phrase “trusteeship of the United States government” as a shorthand way to describe how he views the regime set up by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The transcript in Shelby County v. Holder is here. The transcript in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant is here.
The blog is pleased to have reactions to today’s oral arguments from supporters of both sides. This post has reactions from Elizabeth Wydra, the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Chief Counsel and author of the CAC’s amicus brief supporting the respondents. More commentary is forthcoming.
This morning, the Court heard oral argument in Shelby County v. Holder, which ran for an additional seventeen minutes beyond the scheduled hour. Early reports on the argument overwhelmingly agree that the Court is poised to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, likely in a five-to-four decision.
On Wednesday, after the 10 a.m. release of opinions, the Supreme Court will hold a scheduled one hour of oral argument on the constitutionality of two key sections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder (docket 12-96).
Yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on the cases scheduled for oral argument this week, the Court’s denial of certiorari in a campaign finance case, and Justice Sotomayor’s rebuke of a prosecutor’s seemingly racist comments at trial. Today the Court will hear oral arguments in two cases.
Edith Windsor has filed her brief on the merits. Lyle will have analysis as soon as he has completed his write-up of the morning’s DNA oral argument.
Analysis With Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., pronouncing that “this is the most important criminal procedure case this Court has had in decades,” even while letting on that he has no difficulty making up his mind on it, the Supreme Court returned on Tuesday to the idea of how much leeway the Constitution gives police to adopt new technology to solve crimes.
The transcript in Peugh v. United States is here. The transcript in Maryland v. King is here.
Chronicling her own life of living in the shadows because she is a lesbian, an eighty-three-year-old woman urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to recognize her as a constitutional equal in eligibility for federal benefits that go to married couples.
Analysis Pushing a highly secret government program of global wiretapping a broad step away from ever having its constitutionality judged in an open court, the Supreme Court on Tuesday shut down a lawsuit by lawyers, journalists, and others who fear that their electronic exchanges with overseas contacts are being monitored by federal listeners.
The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent has posted synchronized audio and transcripts for last week’s oral arguments. The Court heard arguments last week in: Millbrook v. United States Bowman v. Monsanto McBurney v. Young PPL Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
This weekend’s clippings include coverage of two of the cases set for oral arguments this week – including the challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Acts – as well as continued coverage of new developments in the same-sex marriage cases.
For over fifty years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment bars the retrial of a criminal defendant after a mid-trial court-ordered acquittal, even if that ruling results from an egregious legal error committed by the trial judge on the defendant’s own motion.
This post was written by Andrew E. Taslitz, Professor of Law at American University, Washington College of Law. His teaching and research focus on criminal procedure, especially under the Fourth Amendment, criminal law, and evidence.
The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to try to clarify further when the rights of an accused are violated because of faulty advice from a defense lawyer about a plea bargain, and separately took on a case testing the tactics prosecutors may use to counter a claim that the accused lacks the mental capacity to commit a crime.
When a criminal defendant’s sentence is plainly unlawful in light of an intervening Supreme Court decision, is “plain error” correction prohibited under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) because the law was unsettled when the district court imposed sentence and the defendant failed to object?
The Constitution does not define “ex post facto.” But Article I, Section 9 directs that “[n]o … ex post facto law shall be passed” by Congress. As constitutional landmark cases go, Peugh v. United States, set for argument tomorrow has flown well under the radar.
On Wednesday, the Court will hear oral argument in a potentially historic case that has both civil rights activists and conservatives on the edge of their seats: Shelby County v. Holder, a challenge to the constitutionality of a provision historically at the center of the federal government’s efforts to eliminate racial discrimination in voting.
The transcript in McQuiggin v. Perkins is here. The transcript in Trevino v. Thaler is here.
On Monday the Court granted two new cases. Lyle reported on Monday’s orders for the blog. On Tuesday, the Court issued opinions in two argued cases: Clapper v. Amnesty International U.S. and Marx v. General Revenue Corp. On Wednesday, the Court opinions in Gabelli v. SEC and Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds.
At its March 1, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as implicit exemptions from the Federal Tort Claims Act, waiver in ERISA cases, claims under RICO arising from the depression of immigrant employee wages, and trial counsel performance in capital cases.
At 11 a.m. Tuesday, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hold one hour of oral argument on the scope of police authority to take a DNA sample from an individual arrested for a crime, in the case of Maryland v. King (docket 12-207).
FINAL UPDATE 8:35 pm NOTE: Under the Supreme Court’s schedule for briefing on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, two kinds of briefs were filed today. The Obama administration filed its brief arguing why it considers DOMA to be unconstitutional.
The Obama administration, in a sweeping defense of marriage rights for same-sex couples, argued on Friday that the denial by states of those rights over the last decade is proof that discrimination against gays and lesbians still continues.
Just a little over a year ago, the Supreme Court waded tentatively into the intersection of the Fourth Amendment, technology, and privacy in the case of Antoine Jones, a Washington-area nightclub owner.
I. Introduction A number of states bar criminal defendants from raising certain challenges to their conviction on direct appeal – relegating such claims instead to collateral state post-conviction proceedings.
In Padilla v. Kentucky (2010), the Supreme Court in a path-breaking decision held that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the Sixth Amendment could be based on the failure to inform a criminal defendant of the immigration consequences of a criminal conviction before entering into a plea agreement.
Yesterday the opponents of California’s Proposition 8 filed their brief on the merits in Hollingsworth v. Perry.
Perhaps this is the year when the Justices start showing their hand more clearly in arguments. Wednesday’s decision in Gunn v. Minton certainly provides support for that view. The case presents a question redolent of a law-school federal courts exam.
Next Wednesday, the Court will hear oral argument in American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant, on the following question: “Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits courts, invoking the ‘federal substantive law of arbitrability,’ to invalidate arbitration agreements on the ground
Lawyers for a New York woman who is the surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage urged the Supreme Court on Friday to go ahead and decide the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, rather than leaving that law to the uncertain fate of lower court rulings, one case at a time.
The Republican leaders of the House of Representatives urged the Supreme Court on Friday to cast aside the Obama administration’s appeal on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, though that already has been granted review, and to then take on the dispute in the GOP chiefs’ own case in defense of the law.
Jordan Steiker is the Judge Robert M. Parker Chair in Law and Co-Director of the Capital Punishment Center at the University of Texas School of Law. State prisoners seeking relief from their convictions via federal habeas have always had to surmount a variety of procedural obstacles to receive a “merits” review of their constitutional claims in federal court.
Yesterday was another busy day at the Court, with opinions announced in five argued cases, and oral arguments in two more. In Chaidez v. United States, the Court held that Padilla v. Kentucky, in which the Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to inform criminal defendants of the deportation risks of guilty pleas, does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.