Showing 1–50 of 111 items published in November 2013, most recent first.
Interviewing Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., the composition of courts and dispelling the mystery of the “judicial power.” In this eight-part interview, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit discusses his background, including: a race for Congress;
Briefly: In her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse contends that the contraceptive mandate cases, in which the Court granted review earlier this week, “open a new front in an old war” – “a war not on religion or on women but on modernity.” At The Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett
The Court will face some unusual juxtapositions on the second day of the December calendar, when it hears oral argument in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. You could think of this as an IP case (applying the Lanham Act), but it’s not from the Federal Circuit.
What information matters, making decisions, and relating to the Court.
The second day of the December calendar presents a case that almost certainly will divide the Justices – Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg, in which the Court will consider whether the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (the “ADA”) preempts a rabbi’s claim that Northwest Air Lines breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it terminated his membership in Northwest’s frequent-flier program.
Markham Erickson is a partner in the Washington office of Steptoe & Johnson LLP. On December 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, a case involving fascinating questions of jurisdiction and the doctrine of sovereign immunity for federally recognized Indian governments.
Yesterday the Court granted four cases from the Justices’ November 26 Conference.
The Justices are scheduled to meet for their November 26 Conference today. The cases up for consideration include the challenges to the so-called contraceptive mandate – the requirement that large employers provide their employees with health insurance that includes access to family-planning methods.
The job of a judge and the Fourth Circuit.
The Court will review application of ACA contraception mandate to for-profit companies operated on religious principles.
UPDATED 3:47 p.m. Taking on a new constitutional dispute over the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear religious challenges to the requirement that employers provide health insurance for their workers that includes birth control and related medical services.
At 9:30 a.m. on Monday, December 2, we expect additional orders from the November 26 Conference. We will post promptly on any actions taken by the Court. On Tuesday, December 3, we expect one or more opinions at 10:00 a.m. We will be live blogging beginning at 9:45 a.m.
Briefly: At POLITICO, Josh Gerstein discusses Northover v. Archuleta, in which a clerk who worked at a grocery store on a military base in Alabama is seeking review of a lower court’s ruling that federal employees who are dismissed or demoted for security reasons can’t challenge those actions through the normal civil service channels.
Getting the call in 1984 from President Ronald Reagan and a judge’s view of the confirmation process.
The Supreme Court’s pace of hearings will slow in the February sitting, which will begin on February 24, 2014, with only a single case set for hearing on all but one of the public sessions. This Term, the Court had a heavier early schedule of arguments.
As many readers know, you can access the blog’s content through a web browser, our mobile site, our iOS app, and Twitter. We have a couple of updates to announce.
On Tuesday, the Justices granted four new cases (two of which were consolidated) from their November 26 Conference. Lyle’s post on those grants is here. We expect additional orders to be announced on Monday, December 2.
Briefly: Yesterday the Senate changed its rules to allow debate on executive and judicial branch nominees to be terminated by a simple majority, rather than the sixty votes needed under the old rules.
Jurisprudence and seeking the independent life.
Law school, running for Congress, clerking for Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., and learning the value of humility.
Yesterday the Court announced that Ethan V. Torrey will succeed Scott Harris, who was named the Clerk of the Court earlier this year, as the Court’s legal counsel. Torrey is currently a partner in the Boston law firm of Choate Hall & Stewart, where he specializes in complex business litigation.
Briefly: On Tuesday evening, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke at the American University’s Washington College of Law, where – among other things – she told students that the federal and state judiciaries are “missing a huge amount of diversity.” Tony Mauro covered the Justice’s speech for the Blog of Legal Times.
If you want an unusual measure of the power of the Supreme Court, consider why parties to a case sometimes (although rarely) settle their dispute after the Justices have agreed to hear the appeal and as oral argument approaches.
At its November 26, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as a state’s residency requirement for ballot access petitions, the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, states’ taxing power over out-of-state Internet retailers, and claims against municipalities under the Federal Wiretap Act.
Yesterday a divided Court declined to block a Texas law that requires doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the clinic where they perform abortions.
Diane Marie Amann is the Emily and Ernest Woodruff Chair in International Law at the University of Georgia School of Law. Fallout from the 2000-2002 implosion of Argentina’s economy is destined to reach the Supreme Court on December 2, when the Justices will hear oral argument in BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina.
Yesterday the Court issued additional orders from its November 15 Conference, denying review in several noteworthy cases. Lyle covered the orders for this blog, while Tom Goldstein discusses the general significance of opinions regarding the denial of certiorari for this blog.
The Court’s composition and its relation to justice.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. Even as more conventional forms of entertainment begin to lose their luster, the folks at One First Street consistently offer engaging, family-friendly fare. This week, the Court cleared the decks of several oldies but goodies.
Splitting five to four, the Supreme Court late Tuesday afternoon refused to block a Texas abortion law that critics say is forcing the closing of one-third of all clinics in the state. The Court had been studying the issue for the past week.
Justice Clarence Thomas spoke on Thursday evening at the annual meeting of the Federalist Society, where – among other things – he indicated that he does not read this blog. Tony Mauro reported on the Justice’s appearance for the Blog of Legal Times, while David Lat did the same for Above the Law.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider a challenge to the National Security Agency’s global sweep of telephone and electronic communications — the first such test case to reach the Court since former NSA analyst Edward Snowdon began releasing publicly a pile of secret papers disclosing details of that surveillance.
The order list is here. The Court granted no new cases, nor did it call for the views of the Solicitor General.
Today’s order list from the Court included three opinions respecting the denial of certiorari – i.e., denials of review in which the Justices felt strongly enough about the issue that they went to the effort of writing separately.
Arguing Gonzales v. Raich, the medical marijuana case, and the value of briefs, oral argument, and an increasingly experienced Supreme Court bar.
On Monday the Court issued orders from the November 15 Conference. No new cases were granted, nor did the Court call for the views of the Solicitor General in any new cases. Lyle’s post on the orders is here.
At 9:30 a.m. on November 18 we expect additional orders from the November 15 Conference. We will post promptly on any actions taken by the Court, but we do not expect any opinions in argued cases.
When co-tenants jointly occupy a residence, the Court long ago held in Matlock (1974) that any one of the co-tenants can consent to a police search of the entire property.
Briefly: At Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman discusses a recent decision by the First Circuit upholding a conviction for translating pro-jihad writings from Arabic into English and uploading them onto the Internet.
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to reconsider a 1988 decision that has been the key to investors’ right to sue when they lose money because of securities fraud — the ruling in Basic Inc. v. Levinson.
The Court has granted two new cases: Plumhoff v. Rickard (qualified immunity) and Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund (fraud on the market theory).
On Wednesday, the Court heard oral arguments in Unite Here Local 355 v Mulhall, in which the Justices are considering whether a so-called neutrality agreement between a union and employer is a thing of “value” within the meaning of Section 302 of the NLRA and thus prohibited as a felony.
The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent has posted argument audio from this week’s five cases. This week, the Court heard arguments in: Burrage v. United States Rosemond v. United States Lawson v. FMR LLC Fernandez v. California Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall
The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed the case of Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action because the case has now been settled. The Court has released a revised argument calendar for the sitting that begins December 2. The Mount Holly case had been set for argument on December 4.
For the second time in recent months, the Supreme Court will miss an opportunity to decide a significant issue of civil rights law — the scope of the federal law against racial discrimination in home sales and rentals.
Last night the Mount Holly Township Council approved a settlement of the lawsuit brought by a group of residents challenging plans to redevelop the neighborhood where they live.
“Activism” as an invented term that is in the eye of the beholder and fails to describe the Court’s duty, which is to engage and to say “no” to the political branches.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relisted cases. In a week of disasters both natural and man-made, it’s inspiring to see someone put all their talents to use in the service of the greater good. But kindly hold your applause until the end; we have another riveting edition of Relist Watch to get through.
The Obama administration, urging the Supreme Court to bypass a sweeping new gun rights plea by the National Rifle Association, told the Court Wednesday that Congress and state legislatures would not violate the Second Amendment if they denied access to firearms for youths under the age of twenty-one.
At its November 15, 2013 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the correctness of the fraud-on-the-market theory in securities fraud cases, the right to counsel at bail determination proceedings, the standing of an objecting class member to challenge a class-certification order, and determining qualified immunity based on law at the time of the alleged wrong..