Details on todays opinion
The Court decided one case this morning, Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products. In an opinion by Justice Thomas, the Court affirmed the Third Circuit by a vote of six to three.
February 2012 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 105 items published in February 2012, most recent first.
Today at the Court: February 29, 2012
This morning we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will begin live blogging shortly before 10:00. Following opinions the Court will hear oral argument in Armour v. Indianapolis, in which the Court will consider whether the Constitution allows a city to refuse to refund taxes that some taxpayers paid up front, even though it forgave the remaining taxes of other taxpayers who paid on an installment plan.
Live blog of opinions: February 29, 2012 (Sponsored by Bloomberg Law)
With the help of our reporter, Lyle Denniston, we will be live blogging as opinions in argued cases are issued today. The Live Blog window is below the jump. Once you see the window and our initial welcome, we ask that you do not refresh your browser.
Wednesday round-up
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in two cases.
Argument recap: That old slippery slope — again
Analysis It happens so often as to be nearly commonplace: a lawyer goes to the Supreme Court lectern with a simple argument, mainly good for that case alone, only to wind up being tasked to defend the argument in a variety of other contexts, maybe even some that seem quite beside the point.
Today’s transcript
Today’s transcript of the oral argument in Armour v. Indianapolis is now available.
Argument recap: Disregarding a states litigation decisions on habeas
Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Wood v. Milyard. The issue in the case is whether, when a state neither challenges nor concedes the timeliness of a state habeas petition, an appellate court can raise and decide the issue on its own. Three primary themes ran throughout the oral argument.
Argument preview: Tax forgiveness and equality
At 10 a.m. Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument on Armour, et al., v. Indianapolis, et al. (11-161), testing whether some taxpayers may be given a break on their tax obligations, when that is denied to others.
Today at the Court: February 28, 2012
This morning the Court will hear oral argument in two cases. In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the Court will consider whether corporations can be sued under the Alien Tort Statute for human rights violations overseas.
Tuesday round-up
Today the Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in two cases, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority. In Kiobel, the Court will consider whether corporations can be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute for human rights violations committed abroad, while in Mohamad the issue is whether entities can be held liable under the Torture Victim Protection Act.
Argument recap: Downhill, from the start
Analysis When Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in the opening minute of a Supreme Court argument, tells a lawyer that his entire case is in jeopardy, it is extremely difficult for even an experienced counsel to recover.
Today’s transcripts
Today’s transcripts of the oral arguments in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority are now available.
Today at the Court: February 27, 2012
At 10:00 this morning we expect orders from the Court’s private Conference last Friday. Our list of “Petitions to watch” is here. We will begin live blogging shortly before 10:00. Following orders the Court will hear oral argument in Elgin v. Department of Treasury.
Academic round-up
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum to determine whether the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) applies to suits against corporations.
Monday round-up
The weekend’s coverage of the Court focused on the upcoming oral arguments in a pair of international human rights cases – Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority – as well as last week’s cert. grant in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin and the arguments in United States v. Alvarez.
Live blog of orders: February 27, 2012 (Sponsored by Bloomberg Law)
With the help of our reporter, Lyle Denniston, we will be live blogging as orders are issued today. The Live Blog window is below the jump. Once you see the window and our initial welcome, we ask that you do not refresh your browser. Updates will appear without the need for refreshing.
Free speech issue bypassed
Government employees who get into trouble for disobeying a superior’s plea to file a report that the employee thinks is false and believes will contribute to covering up misconduct will get no legal guidance on their plight from the Supreme Court, even though lower courts are in dispute over how to decide that issue.
Today’s transcripts
Today’s transcripts of the oral arguments in Elgin v. Department of Treasury and Wood v. Milyard are now available.
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Torture and jurisdiction
For many law students, the only connection between torture and jurisdiction is having to sit through first-year civil procedure. But two Supreme Court cases may soon change all that.
This week at the Court
On Monday the Court issued orders from the February 24 Conference. It did not grant any new cases, nor did it call for the views of the Solicitor General in any additional cases. The February sitting concluded on Wednesday.
Relist (and hold) watch
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relisted and held cases. Long time, no see! Although surely you have a back-up hobby or two and perhaps a job to keep you occupied, I for one am relieved the Court is back from its four-week hiatus between Conferences – without the Court’s docket to fuss over, I was having to confront the fundamental emptiness of my life.
Argument preview: Human rights abuses and the law
Next Tuesday, starting at 10 a.m., the Supreme Court will hear two hours of argument — in back-to-back cases — on the scope of the right to sue in U.S. courts for human rights abuses — including torture — carried out in other countries.
This week’s oral arguments now available
The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent has posted audio and transcripts of this week’s oral arguments. The Court heard arguments this week in the following cases: Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc. United States v. Alvarez Blueford v. Arkansas
Friday round-up
The Court’s recent opinions and cert. grants continue to draw heavy coverage. The cert. grant in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin has prompted heated debates about the future of affirmative action and its likely fate before the Court.
Argument recap: Double jeopardy limits on state procedural choices?
The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in Blueford v. Arkansas. The case focuses on the double jeopardy implications of the trial court’s failure to take a partial verdict after the jury foreperson in Blueford’s case announced in open court that the jury had unanimously agreed that Blueford was not guilty of the two most serious offenses but was deadlocked on the lesser offense.
Opinion analysis: Court gives police officers qualified immunity
A Los Angeles sheriff’s detective and his supervisor may have erred in executing a search warrant that lacked probable cause, but they were not “plainly incompetent” so as to be denied qualified immunity. That was the Court’s holding Wednesday in Messerschmidt v. Millender.
This weeks grants: In Plain English
Tuesday morning the Court officially returned from its mid-Term recess, and it did so in a big Texas-style way. One of the two cases in which the Court granted certiorari was Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, a case that could decide the future of government affirmative action policies.
Probable cause of what? A comment on Messerschmidt v. Millender
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court overturned a Ninth Circuit qualified immunity decision in Messerschmidt v. Millender, a case I blogged about here. Millender is a relatively narrow case, but it has a few morsels for Fourth Amendment nerds.
New protection for gays: DOMA struck down (CORRECTION)
(CORRECTION: Yesterday’s decision was not the first to deal with DOMA’s constitutionality since the Obama Administration stopped defending it, and the House GOP leadership took on the defense.
Thursday round-up
The Court heard arguments in two cases yesterday morning, with United States v. Alvarez garnering most of the media’s attention. The case involves a First Amendment challenge to the Stolen Valor Act, which criminalizes lies about having received military decorations.
Opinion analysis: Montana dunked on riverbeds
The state of Montana has been rebuffed in its efforts to claim title to riverbeds in Montana where privately owned hydro-electric dams are located. The legal issues were narrow. All agreed that the state holds title to the beds of rivers that were navigable in fact at statehood.
Petitions to watch: Conference of March 2, 2012
At its March 2, 2012 Conference, the Court will consider such issues as search warrants for multi-occupancy buildings, the presumption of irreparable harm due to copyright infringement, and prevailing party for attorney’s fees.
Today at the Court: February 22, 2012
This morning at 10:00 we expect one or more opinions, which we will be live-blogging. The Justices will hear oral argument in two cases this morning. Lyle Denniston has previewed the first case, United States v. Alvarez , in which the Court is considering the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act.
Opinion analysis: Court rebukes West Virginia court over arbitration stance
The Supreme Court took the relatively unusual step yesterday of summarily reversing in a case from a state court, Marmet Health Care, Inc. v. Brown, this one an arbitration dispute from the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Argument recap: Court opens can of worms in mortgage-settlement fees case
The Court returned from its winter break to hear Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc., which the parties had briefed as a direct and straightforward statutory case. The case involves a minor provision of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) that bars kickbacks and referral fees.
Live blog of opinions | February 22, 2012 (Sponsored by Bloomberg Law)
With the help of our reporter, Lyle Denniston, we will be live blogging as opinions in argued cases are issued today. The Live Blog window is below the jump. Once you see the window and our initial welcome, we ask that you do not refresh your browser.
Wednesday round-up
Yesterday was an active day at the Court, as the Justices heard arguments in two cases and issued orders and opinions in several others. The biggest news was yesterday’s cert. grant in Fisher v. University of Texas, the challenge to the University of Texas’s use of race in its undergraduate admission decisions.
Details on today’s opinions
The Court issued three opinions in argued cases this morning. The first opinion of the day was in Douglas v. Independent Living Center (consolidated with Douglas v. California Pharmacists Association and Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital), which was argued on October 3, 2011, making it previously the oldest undecided case.
Argument recap: Rewriting a law to save it
Analysis Sometimes, the government needs the Supreme Court to interpret a law narrowly in order to save it from almost certain constitutional doom, and that was exactly what Solicitor General Donald W. Verrilli, Jr., badly needed on Wednesday.
Opinion analysis: Court reverses habeas grant and limits application of Miranda
Alan Raphael is a professor at the Loyola University of Chicago School of Law. While serving a sentence in a Michigan jail, Randall Fields was escorted from his cell to a conference room in an adjacent building, where he was questioned by two armed sheriff’s deputies for seven hours until the early morning about whether he had engaged in sexual conduct with a twelve-year-old boy before his incarceration.
Today’s transcripts
The transcripts of today’s oral arguments in United States v. Alvarez and Blueford v. Arkansas are now available.
Opinion analysis: A right to sue under Medicaid — maybe
Dividing 5-4 for the first time in a ruling this Term, the Supreme Court on Wednesday chose to forgo a ruling on a long-pondered case, returning it to a lower court for another look but with an indication that patients, their doctors, and other providers of medical care for the poor and the
Argument recap: Statutory text vs. tradition and experience: May a federal district court tax the cost of translating written documents?
As you probably do not recall (or never knew), in Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, the Court is considering whether 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) — which authorizes district courts to tax as costs “compensation of interpreters” — allows a court to award costs for the translation of foreign-language documents into English.
Opinion recap: Court holds that filing false tax return is a deportable offense
Yesterday, the Court issued its decision in Kawashima v. Holder, holding that filing a false tax return is grounds for deportation. Background The petitioners in the case, Mr. and Mrs. Kawashima, had been lawful permanent residents of the United States since 1984.
Today at the Court: February 21, 2012
This morning at 10:00 we expect orders and opinions, which we will be live-blogging. The Justices will hear two cases this morning. At issue in the first, Freeman v. Quicken Loans, is whether Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act prohibits a real estate settlement services provider from charging an unearned fee only if the fee is divided between two or more parties.
Live blog of orders and opinions | 2/21/2012 (sponsored by Bloomberg Law)
With the help of our reporter, Lyle Denniston, we will be live blogging as orders and opinions in argued cases are issued today. The Live Blog window is below the jump. Once you see the window and our initial welcome, we ask that you do not refresh your browser.
Tuesday round-up
Today the Court begins its February sitting, kicking off with two arguments per day on both Tuesday and Wednesday. Orders from the February 17 Conference are expected today, as are opinions.
Prop. 8: Rehearing to be asked
The backers of California’s ban on same-sex marriage — Proposition 8 — will file, later on Tuesday, a request for the Ninth Circuit Court to rehear en banc a decision earlier this month by a three-judge panel striking down the ballot measure.
Affirmative action review due next Term (UPDATED)
FINAL UPDATE 4:38 p.m. ——————– Returning for the first time in nine years to the ongoing controversy over the use of race in public college admissions, the Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to review the constitutionality of a broad affirmative action program used to admit the freshman class at the University of Texas at Austin.
Details on today’s orders
The Court issued both orders and opinions this morning; we will cover opinions in a separate post shortly. The Court granted two cases from the February 17 Conference, both of which will be argued in the October 2012 Term.