This week at the Court
On Monday the Court granted one new case. Lyle Denniston covered the Court’s orders for this blog. The next Conference is scheduled for April 12. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference will be available soon.
March 2013 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 127 items published in March 2013, most recent first.
Friday round-up
Thursday’s coverage of the Court primarily focused on the two same-sex marriage cases argued this week.
More tea leaves: Why DOMA’s demise will support Prop 8 surprise
This blog is pleased to have reactions to the oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor from guest contributors with a range of perspectives. This post has reactions from Michigan Solicitor General John J. Bursch.
Opinion analysis: No common ground
The majority’s opinion in Comcast v. Behrend transforms a complex issue into a simple one. By doing so, the majority provokes a dissent that, among other things, tries to put the kibosh on one possible interpretation of the majority’s opinion that could be disastrous to antitrust class actions.
Revisiting the Court’s several options in the California marriage case
Earlier this month, I explained that the briefs in Hollingsworth v. Perry offered the Justices five possible ways to resolve the case: dismissal of the Proposition 8 sponsors’ petition for lack of appellate standing; reversal on the merits (upholding Proposition 8); and three different ways of
Audio highlights from DOMA oral argument
Click here for audio highlights from the DOMA oral argument.
Commentary: Over the cliff?
This blog is pleased to have reactions to the oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor from guest contributors with a range of perspectives. This post has reactions from Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School.
Reading tea leaves: Why the Court will uphold Proposition 8
This blog is pleased to have reactions to the oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry and United States v. Windsor from guest contributors with a range of perspectives. This post has reactions from Michigan Solicitor General John J. Bursch.
Thursday round-up
Yesterday’s coverage of the Court was again dominated by the two same-sex marriages cases before the Justices this week. Other coverage focused on the two opinions that the Court issued yesterday.
Commentary: What might happen?
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of University of California Irvine Law School, submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff-respondents in this case. Oral arguments in high-profile cases rarely provide a clear sense of what the Court is likely to do.
Today at the Court
At 10 a.m. we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. There will be no live blog this morning, but we will post on opinions promptly. Following opinions, the Justices will hear oral argument in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Relist watch
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. Welcome to the only Supreme Court blog post you will read this week that will say nary a word about Hollingsworth v. Perry, United States v. Windsor, gay marriage, Proposition 8, or DOMA other than the minimum number of popular search terms necessary to avoid utter internet obscurity.
Wednesday round-up
Yesterday’s coverage of the Court abounded with reports and commentary relating to the same-sex marriage cases – one of which was argued yesterday, with oral arguments in the second coming today.
Argument recap: How much deference do arbitrators deserve under Stolt-Nielsen?
Two principles of federal arbitration law ran headlong into each other during Monday’s oral argument in Oxford Health Plans, LLC v. Sutter. On one side stands a half-century’s worth of precedent to the effect that arbitrators are entitled to significant deference when it comes to how they resolve disputes over contractual language that the parties have agreed to submit to arbitration.
Audio highlights from Proposition 8 oral argument
Click here for audio highlights from the Proposition 8 oral argument.
This morning’s opinions
This morning the Supreme Court issued its decision in Millbrook v. United States. The Court reversed the Third Circuit, holding that law enforcement proviso to the Federal Tort Claims Act applies to all the activities of law enforcement officers within the scope of their employment, not just to their investigative or law enforcement activities.
Argument recap: Court troubled by tort protections for generic pharmaceutical manufacturers
Although the argument in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett took the Court to common ground – essentially a replay of last year’s decision in PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing — the Justices seemed far from certain over how to treat the case.
Argument recap: DOMA is in trouble (FINAL UPDATE)
Final update: 2:19 pm Analysis If the Supreme Court can find its way through a dense procedural thicket, and confront the constitutionality of the federal law that defined marriage as limited to a man and a woman, that law may be gone, after a seventeen-year existence.
Peabody Award
We are humbled and very grateful to receive the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media. SCOTUSblog is the first blog to ever receive the Peabody.
The relationship between DOMA and Proposition 8
Students of Windsor and Hollingsworth have always recognized a basic tension between the theories of gay-rights advocates in the cases. The challenge to DOMA is undergirded by a sense that marriage is a matter for state rather than federal regulation.
DOMA as a states’ rights problem? Today’s oral argument in Plain English
When the Supreme Court granted review in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, last December, it asked the United States, Edith Windsor, and the Republican House leaders defending the law to weigh in on a second issue: whether the Court could hear the challenge at all.
Evening round-up: DOMA argument
The Court heard arguments today in United States v. Windsor, Edith Windsor’s challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. A PDF of the transcript is available here, and audio is online here.
Pictures from the Court – Public line for same-sex marriage arguments
These pictures were taken in front of the Court at 5 p.m. today. With oral arguments in the same-sex marriage cases set to begin tomorrow morning, individuals in the public line are braving wet and frigid conditions in the hope of securing a prized seat in the courtroom.
Gay-marriage rivals brush off snow to see historic arguments
For Jason Wonacott, the chance to witness a milestone in the fight for same-sex marriage is worth four nights sleeping on concrete in the rain and snow.
Will the Court defend DOMA?: In Plain English
On Wednesday morning at ten o’clock, the Court will begin its second day hearing oral arguments in cases involving same-sex marriage.
How historic Supreme Court gay-marriage case will unfold: Q&A
The U.S. Supreme Court takes up what is probably its biggest civil-rights dispute in decades this week when it hears arguments that could lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide.
Today at the Court
At 10 a.m. we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. There will be no live blog this morning, but we will post on opinions promptly. Following opinions, the Justices will hear oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday’s coverage of the Court was extensive, with much attention centering on the same-sex marriage cases slated for oral argument today and tomorrow.
Pictures from the Court – Morning of Prop. 8 argument
The pictures below were taken by Amy Howe in front of the Court this morning.
Reminder: SCOTUSblog is hiring
The blog and Goldstein & Russell, P.C., are beginning the hiring process for two positions that will be open in late summer and early fall. More information on each position and how to apply is available below the jump. We are hiring a new blog manager to begin work in August.
The Proposition 8 oral argument
Much will be written about the Proposition 8 oral argument. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that the Court probably will not have the five votes necessary to get to any result at all, and almost certainly will not have five votes to decide the merits of whether Proposition 8 is constitutional.
Opinion issued in Florida v. Jardines (Updated)
Prior to hearing oral argument in the Proposition 8 case this morning, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Florida v. Jardines, the other dog sniff case (Florida v. Harris was decided last month). In an opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court affirmed the Florida Supreme Court.
Tom’s Twitter updates from the Prop 8 oral argument
Tom’s Twitter updates from the Prop. 8 oral argument are below:
Argument recap: On marriage, Kennedy in control
Analysis Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in an unusually candid process of elimination of options in public, on Tuesday worked his way through the ways for dealing with California’s Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage and seemed strongly tempted to just take a pass.
Menu of today’s coverage of the Proposition 8 argument
This post will be continually updated as we add to our coverage throughout the day. NEW: A round-up of today’s news coverage of the argument is here. Tom’s post “Reaching a judgment” is here. Amy’s analysis “In Plain English” is here. FINAL UPDATE: Lyle’s post-argument report is here.
What will the Court do with Proposition 8? Today’s oral argument in Plain English
After more than an hour of oral arguments this morning in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to the constitutionality of California’s ban on same-sex marriage, it came down to this: attorney Charles Cooper, representing the proponents of that ban, Proposition 8, returned to the lectern for his ten minutes of rebuttal time.
Reaching a judgment
At least insofar as the oral argument is revealing, the puzzle of Hollingsworth is how the Court will “get to five” – how five members of the Court will agree on the judgment.
Evening round-up: Proposition 8 argument
This morning’s oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, involving the challenge to California’s Proposition 8, continue to generate lively discussion and analysis among media outlets and the blogosphere.
Argument preview: Marriage and the Court’s “friends” — Part II
This is the second of two articles examining the arguments made in the Supreme Court’s two same-sex marriage cases by the “friends of the Court” — the amici who have filed written briefs.
Monday round-up
With the Justices set to hear arguments in both same-sex marriage cases this week, the weekend’s coverage of the Court focused primarily on these two cases.
Court to rule on affirmative action ban
In a surprise development, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether a state may constitutionally ban the use of race in deciding who gets admitted to public colleges or universities.
Court to tackle California’s ban on same-sex marriage: In Plain English
At ten o’clock tomorrow morning, the Justices will hear one hour of oral arguments on the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which amended that state’s constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages.
Argument recap: No easy rule on drug “pay for delay”?
The federal government ran into considerable resistance on Monday in its attempt to get the Supreme Court to make it fairly easy — or at least quick — for a court to rule on the legality of brand-name drug companies’ payments to keep generic competitors’ substitutes off the market for a time.
Today’s transcripts
The transcript in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter is here. The transcript in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. is here.
Argument preview: Marriage and the Court’s “friends” — Part I
This is the first of two articles examining the arguments made in the Supreme Court’s two same-sex marriage cases by the “friends of the Court” — the amici who have filed written briefs, a lengthy list.
This week at the Court
On Monday the Justices granted two new cases and invited the Solicitor General to file briefs in two cases expressing the views of the United States. Lyle reported on Monday’s orders for this blog. On Tuesday the Court issued one opinion and heard oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry.
The spectator line for the marriage cases — update
As of 10:00 p.m. Saturday, three-and-a-half days before the oral argument in Hollingsworth v. Perry, there are twenty-seven people in line for the oral argument to be held Tuesday morning.
Petitions to watch | Conference of March 29, 2013
At its March 29, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as airlines’ First Amendment rights in advertising, new ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act, the constitutionality of city council district boundaries, and enforcement of judgments against foreign states.
Argument recap: Justices look for ways to rein in open-ended preemption
Not long into Wednesday’s argument in Dan’s City Used Cars v. Pelkey, it became apparent that Justices from across the ideological spectrum were deeply skeptical about the consequences of the petitioner’s broad preemption theory.
Argument preview: Is “pay for delay” of drugs illegal?
At 11 a.m. Monday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on the legality, under antitrust laws, of payments by the maker of a brand-name drug to the maker of a generic substitute to keep the generic off the market temporarily.