Showing 1–50 of 1214 items published in 2012, most recent first.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., saying the federal courts are setting “a good example” on cutting costs, noted on Monday that the Supreme Court itself will be asking Congress for less money in its budget for the year that begins next October 1 — fiscal year 2014.
In the most significant federal appeals court ruling so far on the new federal health care law’s contraceptives mandate, the Seventh Circuit Court on Friday night temporarily barred the federal government from enforcing that requirement against an Illinois construction company whose Roman Catholic owners see it as a threat to their religious freedom.
Briefly: In The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen argues that, “[d]espite its turn to the right on gun control, the Supreme Court should almost certainly uphold any of the new regulations that have a chance of being enacted, according to the logic of its decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and
Justice Sotomayor yesterday refused to block the enforcement of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage mandate. Lyle has coverage for this blog, with further coverage coming from Pete Williams of NBC News, Cara Maresca of MSNBC, Reuters (via The New York Times), the Associated Press (via Salon), Fox News, and Ruthann Robson of Constitutional Law Prof Blog.
Briefly: At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston looks at the Court’s constitutional law dockets for 2012 and 2013 and concludes that, “[a]s the New Year unfolds, the [Court] switches its center of attention from constitutional architecture to constitutional rights.” C-SPAN previews an upcoming “Book
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor refused on Wednesday afternoon to block enforcement of the new federal health care law’s mandate that profit-making companies begin providing free birth-control drugs and methods for their women workers, beginning next week.
No oral arguments are scheduled until the January sitting begins on January 7. The next Conference is scheduled for January 4. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference is here.
Two profit-making companies run by religious families who have strong anti-abortion views have asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order to protect them from the new federal mandate requiring employers to provide free health insurance for emergency contraceptives for their workers.
Yesterday’s coverage continued to focus on Judge Robert Bork, who passed away on Wednesday. In addition to the coverage collected in yesterday’s round-up, other coverage comes from Akhil Amar at Slate, Dylan Matthews at The Washington Post’s Wonkblog, David Greenberg in an op-ed for The New York Times, Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy, and Christopher Schmidt at the Legal History Blog.
Ruling that the courts have no power to do anything about it, a federal judge on Friday threw out a claim that Senate filibusters are an unconstitutional denial of majority rule.
Yesterday’s coverage was dominated by news of the passing of Robert Bork, the former D.C. Circuit judge, Solicitor General, and nominee for the Supreme Court seat now occupied by Justice Kennedy.
Earlier this month, the Court announced that it would review two cases involving same-sex marriage: United States v. Windsor, a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, a challenge to the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8.
The D.C. Circuit Court, giving religious organizations a partial but significant victory, ruled Tuesday that two colleges’ lawsuits against the government’s new contraceptives mandate will remain pending in federal court while officials work on finalizing a new exemption for some faith-centered organizations.
Yesterday’s coverage continued to focus on the Court and gun control. At Cato@Liberty, Trevor Burrus discusses a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (covered in yesterday’s round-up) striking down an Illinois law which banned the carrying of concealed weapons in public.
The petitions of the day are: [PAGE]12-223[/PAGE]
UPDATED Wednesday pm. The state of Texas on Wednesday filed a formal notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. This is a formal step that precedes the actual filing of appeal documents. The notice does not indicate when those would be filed, but that could come soon.
Justin Driver is an assistant professor at the University of Texas School of Law and a contributing editor at The New Republic. This post is drawn from his recent article, The Constitutional Conservatism of the Warren Court, 100 California Law Review 1101 (2012).
In the wake of Friday’s school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, much of the coverage of the Court focused on the Court and gun control.
In his forthcoming contribution to the George Washington University Law Review’s Law and Democracy symposium, Professor Richard Hasen describes the Sixth Circuit’s surprising “resurrection” of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore.
The Obama Administration has given up an effort to give the military full control over the activities of lawyers representing detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — an effort that had been aimed at seizing that power away from federal judges in Washington.
Once again, the weekend’s coverage focused on the Court’s decision last week to grant cert. in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California Proposition 8.
The Supreme Court on Monday released the calendar of oral arguments for the sitting that begins on Tuesday, February 19. The schedule shows one hour of oral argument on Wednesday, February 27, on the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
No oral arguments are scheduled until the January sitting begins on January 7. The next Conference is scheduled for January 4. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference will be available soon.
The Court’s grant of certiorari last week in United States v. Windsor, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and in Hollingsworth v. Perry, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, continue to receive the majority of media attention.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday refused to block enforcement of a broad new grant of detention power for the government, indicating that she felt a need to be cautious about putting into effect a judge’s ruling that struck down that new law, at least while the issue was under review in a federal appeals court.
UPDATED Monday 12:20 pm: The Court’s scheduling order was in response to this letter from the parties with their joint proposal. ———– The Supreme Court on Friday afternoon set up a schedule for the filing of written arguments in the case testing the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, with briefing to begin January 22 and be completed before the Court holds arguments, probably in late March.
Judges on the D.C. Circuit Court, the first appeals court to hear a case against the new federal health care law’s mandate for free birth control and other reproductive health services, went searching on Friday for some way to make sure that the government does not delay in issuing a final order on who has to obey that mandate.
Last week’s cert. grants in United States v. Windsor, the challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the challenge to California’s Proposition 8, continue to draw coverage.
The Court’s announcement last week that it would review the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in United States v. Windsor and the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry continues to inspire coverage and commentary.
Al J. Daniel, Jr., served on the Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. from 1978 to 1988. He is in private practice with Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard LLP in New York City, an intellectual property and entertainment law firm, where he continues a litigation practice, including appellate work in courts of appeals and the Supreme Court.
A group of writers and individuals involved in political action urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to put back into effect a federal judge’s order to block a sweeping new grant of detention power to the government.
Yesterday the Court issued one opinion in an argued case and released additional orders from its December 7 Conference. In Kloeckner v. Solis, a unanimous Court held that a federal employee who claims that an agency action appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board violates an antidiscrimination statute should seek judicial review in a district court rather than the Federal Circuit.
Going further than the Supreme Court has explicitly gone, a federal appeals court in Chicago ruled Tuesday that the Second Amendment protects a broad public right to carry a ready-to-use gun in public, for self-defense.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday chose a Harvard professor of constitutional law, Vicki C. Jackson, to argue that the Court does not have the authority to rule on the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted and held cases. Greetings, sports fans, and welcome to Relist (and Hold) Watch – Year-End Edition, bringing you a holiday-infused mélange of fleeting insight and strained humor. We begin, as always, with the fate of last week’s relists.
The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent has posted audio from last week’s oral arguments. The Court heard arguments in: Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. NRDC Chafin v. Chafin
On Friday, the Justices granted certiorari in five new cases, including in the challenges to California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
Analysis People who work for the federal government are protected, as are other employees, from discrimination in the workplace. But, depending on where they live and work, federal employees have faced a circuitous path to a court where they might pursue their claims.
On Friday, the Court announced that it will review the constitutionality of both the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. The Court also granted three other cases. Lyle’s post on those orders is here; we also hosted a live blog.
The blog is pleased to have commentary and analysis of Friday’s grants in the marriage cases from supporters of both sides. This post has reactions from William N. Eskridge Jr., Professor of Law at Yale, and Hans P. Johnson, President of Progressive Victory.
At Wednesday’s oral argument in Chafin v. Chafin, the Justices considered whether an American father’s appeal of an order by a federal district court that allowed his daughter to return to Scotland with his estranged wife is moot. [I previewed the case for this blog earlier in the week.]
The blog is pleased to have commentary and analysis of Friday’s grants in the marriage cases from supporters of both sides. This post has reactions from Neal Devins and Tara Grove, both Professors of Law at William and Mary.
The blog is pleased to have commentary and analysis of Friday’s grants in the marriage cases from supporters of both sides. This post has reactions from Kenji Yoshino. On Friday, the Supreme Court granted review in both United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry.
The petitions of the day are: [PAGE]12-245[/PAGE]
Yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on the petition for certiorari filed on Wednesday by defenders of Nevada’s ban on same-sex marriage. Cormac covered the petition, which comes directly from the federal district court, in yesterday’s round-up.
SCOTUSblog is now accepting applications from current law students interested in joining our round-up team. Details about the position’s qualifications and responsibilities, as well as how to apply, are below the jump.
Analysis About two decades after the campaign to win the right to marry for same-sex couples began, the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon agreed to consider — but not necessarily to decide — some of the most important constitutional issues at the heart of that national controversy.
The blog is pleased to have commentary and analysis of today’s grants in the marriage cases from supporters of both sides. This post has reactions from William Duncan, the director of the Marriage Law Foundation. We will be posting other reactions as soon as we receive them.
This afternoon the Court granted certiorari in five merits cases, including the Proposition 8 and DOMA cases. Lyle Denniston of this blog covers the Court’s same-sex marriage grants, as does Greg Stohr of Bloomberg.
Northwestern University Law Review has recently published a symposium issue celebrating the life and work of Justice John Paul Stevens. Nearly sixty-five years after his graduation from that law school, legal scholars, journalists, and some of Justice Stevens’s former law clerks gathered at Northwestern to discuss his jurisprudence on executive power, administrative law, and the First Amendment, among other subjects.