Details on todays orders
The Court granted one case today, Chaidez v. United States.
April 2012 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 106 items published in April 2012, most recent first.
Scholars highlight: Law review articles in the eyes of the Justices
Chief Justice Roberts recently threw fuel on the fire of the perennial debate about the practical value of law review articles when he stated that, as a general matter, law reviews are not particularly helpful for practitioners and judges.
Monday round-up
The weekend’s coverage continued to focus on last week’s oral arguments in Arizona v. United States, the federal challenge to Arizona immigration law S.B. 1070.
Live blog of orders (Sponsored by Bloomberg Law) (Updated: concluded)
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.
New look at lawyers’ advice
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to settle a dispute among lower courts on whether to give more immigrants the benefit of a ruling that requires their lawyers to advise them more clearly on what can happen if they plead guilty to a crime.
This week at the Court
On Monday the Court granted one new case. The Court did not call for the views of the Solicitor General in any new cases. We do not expect any opinions this week. The next Conference is scheduled for May 10. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference will be available soon.
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: RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band v. Patchak Arizona v. United States
Friday round-up
Wednesday’s oral argument in Arizona v. United States – the federal challenge to S.B. 1070, Arizona’s immigration law – remains the main subject of Court-related news.
Argument recap: Searching for a middle ground in Indian casino case
On Tuesday, April 24, the Court heard arguments in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, consolidated with Salazar v. Patchak.
Win, lose, or draw? The Arizona v. United States argument in Plain English (with argument audio links)
On Wednesday, the Court heard oral argument in Arizona v. United States, the federal government’s challenge to Arizona’s aggressive efforts to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in that state. (I previewed the case for the blog in Plain English earlier that day.)
Thursday round-up
Yesterday, the Court heard the final arguments scheduled for this Term, in Arizona v. United States. The Justices considered whether four provisions of S.B. 1070, Arizona’s immigration law, are preempted by federal law.
Details on todays opinion
Justice Breyer announced todays only opinion, in United States v. Home Concrete & Supply.
Today at the Court: April 25, 2012
This morning at ten o’clock we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will begin live blogging shortly before ten. Following opinions, the Court will hear the final oral argument scheduled for this Term: Arizona v. United States.
Court to consider Arizona immigration law: A preview in Plain English
This morning at ten o’clock the Court will hear the final oral argument scheduled for this Term. Just as it did last month, the Court will be considering a highly divisive issue during the middle of the presidential campaign.
Live blog of opinions (Sponsored by Bloomberg Law) (Updated: completed)
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.
Photos from outside the Court today
Amy Howe took this photo from the Court steps following oral argument.
Wednesday round-up
Today the Court will hear the final oral argument scheduled for this Term. In Arizona v. United States, the Court will consider whether four key provisions of S.B. 1070, Arizona’s immigration law, are preempted by federal law.
Arizona – first argument report
The argument is just finishing. Most of the time was spent on the provisions permitting the state to inquire about immigration status. Those provisions are likely to be upheld because the federal government can always decline to enforce immigration laws even if they learn about someone with an illegal status.
Argument recap: A choice between radical and reasonable?
Analysis With Justice Antonin Scalia pushing the radical idea that the Constitution gives states clear authority to close their borders entirely to immigrants without a legal right to be in the U.S., seven other Justices on Wednesday went looking for a more reasonable way to judge states’ power in the immigration field.
Today’s transcript
The transcript of today’s oral argument in Arizona v. United States is now available.
Afternoon round-up: Arizona v. United States
This morning the Court heard oral argument in Arizona v. United States, which ran for an additional twenty minutes beyond the scheduled hour.
Regrets, but no apology
Saying they had regrets, but without apologizing directly, the federal government’s lawyers have admitted to the Supreme Court that the partial victory they won in a case three years ago was based on flawed information they had given to the Court.
Details on todays opinion
Justice Ginsburg announced the only opinion of the day for a unanimous Court in Wood v. Milyard. The Court reversed the decision of the Tenth Circuit, holding that courts of appeals, like district courts, have the authority but not the obligation to raise a forfeited timeliness defense on their own initiative in exceptional cases.
Argument recap: Justices see world through lenders eyes in bankruptcy auction dispute
In the last week of the years Term, the Court took up what well might be the most important business bankruptcy case since its 1998 decision in Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn v. 203 North LaSalle Street Partnership.
Academic highlight: Pildes on FDR’s court-packing plan
Most readers of this blog are familiar with one of the greatest constitutional showdowns in American history: President Franklin Roosevelt’s threat to alter the composition of the Supreme Court through his “court-packing” plan after the Court repeatedly invalidated his New Deal legislation.
Today at the Court: April 24, 2012
This morning at ten o’clock we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will begin live blogging shortly before ten. Following opinions, the Court will hear one hour of oral argument in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak and Salazar v. Patchak, which have been consolidated.
Live blog of opinions (Sponsored by Bloomberg Law) (Updated: completed)
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.
Tuesday round-up
The Court began this Term’s final week of oral argument on a quiet note: Monday’s order list did not contain any new grants, nor did the Court call for the views of the Solicitor General in any new cases. With no new grants, coverage focused on the cases in which the Court denied review.
Relist (and hold) watch
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted and held cases. Happy Belated Earth Day, everybody!
Today’s transcript
The transcript of today’s oral argument in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak and Salazar v. Patchak is now available.
Opinion analysis: An appellate court lacks discretion to override a state’s deliberate waiver of AEDPA’s limitations defense
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) imposes a one-year limitations period for filing a federal habeas petition. If the state recognizes that a habeas petitioner’s petition for relief may be untimely but deliberately waives its limitations defense, may an appellate court nevertheless decide the issue sua sponte?
Today at the Court: April 23, 2012
This morning at ten o’clock we expect orders from the April 20 Conference. Our list of “petitions to watch” for that Conference is here. We will begin live blogging shortly before ten o’clock.
Monday round-up
The weekend’s coverage focused on the upcoming oral arguments in Arizona v. United States, in which the Court will consider the constitutionality of several provisions of S.B. 1070, Arizona’s immigration law.
Live blog of orders | April 23, 2012 (Updated: concluded)
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.
No torture cases against corporations
Denying review of a new test case, the Supreme Court on Monday silently put up a legal barrier to lawsuits seeking damages from corporations for allegedly engaging overseas in torture or “extrajudicial killing.” The Court declined to hear a sequel to last Wednesday’s ruling that the Torture Victim Protection Act may only be used against human beings.
In Plain English: Recent decisions
Last week the Court returned to begin its final set of oral arguments before the summer recess. And although much of the coverage of the Court continues to focus on how the Justices will rule on the challenges to the Affordable Care Act, the Court has clearly been busy with the rest of its docket as well, as demonstrated by the four new decisions that it issued last week.
Last week’s oral arguments now available
The Oyez Project at Chicago-Kent has posted arguments and transcripts in last week’s oral arguments. The Court heard arguments last week in the following cases: Christopher v. SmithKline Dorsey v United States and Hill v. United States Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter
Today’s transcript
The transcript of today’s argument in RadLAX Gateway Hotel v. Amalgamated Bank is now available.
Padilla torture claim reaches the Court (UPDATE)
UPDATED April 30: The petition has now been docketed as 11-1277. ———— The highest-profile U.S. citizen taken captive as a suspected terrorist — Jose Padilla — returned to the Supreme Court on Monday, in a bid to get the federal courts to review the government’s power to wage its “war on terrorism” through prolonged detention inside the U.S., under harsh conditions and without criminal charges.
This week at the Court
The April sitting has ended and there are no more oral arguments scheduled for this Term. The Court did not grant any new cases on Monday, nor did it call for the views of the Solicitor General in any new cases. The order list is here.
Argument preview: Who controls immigrants’ lives?
At 10 a.m. next Wednesday, in the final scheduled hearing of the Supreme Court’s current Term, the Justices move to sort out the sometimes conflicting roles of national and state governments in controlling the lives of non-citizens living illegally in the U.S. In Arizona v. United States (docket
Friday round-up
Briefly: For this blog, Bradley Joondeph analyzes the Court’s recent opinion in Filarsky v. Delia, in which it held that a private individual temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work is entitled to seek qualified immunity from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Argument preview: Seeking to undo casino land deal
On Tuesday, April 24, the Court will hear arguments in a case challenging the federal government’s decision to put into trust land purchased by an Indian Tribe in Michigan, in order to facilitate the Tribe’s building of a casino.
Opinion analysis: Federal Circuit bounces back in patent denial litigation
Just one day after its unanimous reversal in Caraco v. Novo Nordisk, the Federal Circuit got a unanimous affirmance Wednesday in Kappos v. Hyatt.
Thursday round-up
Yesterday, the Court heard arguments in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter. At issue in the case is whether the government must reimburse all of the contract support costs that Native American tribes incur in administering federal programs, even when Congress has imposed spending caps on those costs.
Opinion analysis: A presumption of qualified immunity for private actors
Introduction The ultimate outcome in Filarsky v. Delia was largely foreordained – probably after the Court granted certiorari, and almost certainly after oral argument.
Details on todays opinions
The Court issued opinions in two cases this morning. Justice Sotomayor announced the first opinion of the day for a unanimous Court in Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority.
Opinion analysis: Courts purposive reading hands Federal Circuit second patent reversal of the Term
Coming on the heels of the Courts stern rebuke last month in Mayo v. Prometheus Laboratories, yesterdays decision in Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories v. Novo Nordisk is the start of a bad year on First Street for the Federal Circuit.
Argument recap: Has the Department of Labors seventy-year silence doomed its position?
At Mondays argument in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., it appeared that the Justices may have been receptive to the idea that pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) fall under the outside salesman exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and thus are not entitled to overtime pay.
Today at the Court: April 18, 2012
This morning we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will begin live blogging shortly before ten o’clock.