Showing 1–50 of 80 items published in May 2012, most recent first.
Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, a dissenter to the Supreme Court’s controversial 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on money in politics, said Wednesday that the Court has already begun paring the scope of that decision, and predicted that it very likely will do so further in future cases.
This is another post in an ongoing series analyzing statistical trends at the Court. For a more complete look at the statistics that we collect on the Court, you can find all of our up-to-date charts and graphs here. Pace of Grants.
Coverage yesterday focused on the speech by retired Justice John Paul Stevens at the University of Arkansas in Little Rock, in which he criticized the Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and argued that the Court has already begun to have second thoughts about the decision.
Final update 1:03 pm —————— Without creating any new constitutional right for gays and lesbians to get married, the First Circuit Court on Thursday ruled that Congress did not have the power to intrude on the choice of states — like Massachusetts — to create such a right under state law.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relisted and held cases. Following last week’s flurry of relist activity, the Justices had a sluggish start Tuesday, returning from their Memorial Day barbecues with one summary reversal, no new relists, and no plenary grants from the stable of old chestnuts kicking around One First Street.
Yesterday the Court delivered an opinion in an argued case, summarily reversed in another case, and granted review in one new case.
After the swirl of controversy in the lower courts, the Court’s disposition of RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank is markedly anticlimactic.
The Obama Administration’s plea to speed up an appeals court’s review of the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act’s ban on federal benefits for same-sex married couples has met a temporary setback.
With the help of our reporter, Lyle Denniston, we will be live blogging as orders and opinions 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.
Professor Poulin is a Professor at Villanova University School of Law. She teaches and writes in the areas of criminal procedure and evidence. In addition, Professor Poulin serves as Co-Reporter for the Committee on Model Criminal Jury Instructions for the Third Circuit.
Much of the weekend’s commentary on the Court focused on the Affordable Care Act, and in particular on allegations that supporters of the Act are attempting to pressure the Court to uphold it.
This morning the Court granted one new case, and issued one summary reversal and one opinion in an argued case. The Court did not call for the views of the Solicitor General in any new cases. The full order list is here.
The Supreme Court, choosing not to review a compromise decision of a federal appeals court, on Tuesday left police around the nation with no final guidance on the legality of their use of a Taser — a device that can stun an unruly or disobedient suspect into immobility, or at least inflict a considerable amount of temporary pain.
The Supreme Court will consider the major sequel to its controversial ruling on campaign finance at the Justices’ private Conference on June 14, the Court’s electronic docket showed Tuesday. The case is American Tradition Partnership, et al., v. Bullock (11-1179).
On Tuesday the Court granted one new case and announced one summary reversal and one opinion in an argued case. Details can be found here. On Thursday the Court met for its May 31 Conference. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference is here.
Yesterday the Court released two opinions, in Freeman v. Quicken Loans and Blueford v. Arkansas. In Blueford, the Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not protect a defendant from retrial when the jury has not returned an official final verdict of acquittal.
Patricia Millett is the head of Akin Gump’s Supreme Court litigation practice and co-chair of the national appellate practice. She has argued more cases (thirty-one) before the Court than any other woman in history.
After a discursive oral argument consumed by topics not before it, the Court’s resolution of Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc. was as straightforward as can be: a brisk unanimous decision from Justice Scalia.
Acting quickly and setting the stage for the Supreme Court to act next month, challengers of a Montana law limiting corporations’ spending to influence state elections mailed their reply brief to the Court on Friday.
UPDATE Thursday 4:12 pm: Justice Breyer denied the application, acting alone. No opinion was issued.
Coverage of Monday’s opinions continued yesterday.
With the help of our reporter, Lyle Denniston, we will be live blogging as opinions 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.
This morning the Court issued opinions in two argued cases. Justice Scalia announced the first opinion of the day, in Freeman v. Quicken Loans. The Court unanimously affirmed the decision of the Fifth Circuit.
Accepting the reality that many people now keep in touch electronically by smaller hand-held devices than by desktops and laptops, the Supreme Court on Thursday said it is planning soon to change the way its own website appears on those ubiquitous mobile instruments.
Jill E. Family, Associate Professor and Associate Director, Law & Government Institute, Widener University School of Law In a unanimous decision on Monday, the Court held that the Department of Justice’s Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reasonably construed a statute to forbid the imputation of a
Today, our @scotusblog twitter account broke through 20,000 followers. We really appreciate all our readers, in whatever form you use the blog. Thanks so much.
Monday’s opinions and orders continue to generate coverage. At this blog, Kristine Knaplund analyzes Monday’s decision in Astrue v. Capato, in which the Court unanimously held that children conceived after their father’s death qualify for Social Security survivors benefits only if state intestacy law permits them to inherit from their father; Robert Barnes of the Washington Post also covers the case.
Analysis If the Supreme Court had looked at the highly significant Montana campaign finance case a month ago, it would have seen a far simpler constitutional controversy — one that boiled down to the question of whether a state court must obey what the Nation’s highest court says the law is; the answer, of course, is obvious.
On Monday, the Court decided Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, holding that the cost of document translation is not a taxable cost under the federal cost-shifting statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted and held cases. Sure, your dreams of a Facebook-funded early retirement went up in a cloud of blue-chip smoke, and you’ve been reduced to alternating status updates between “IHML” and “BIH, Zuckerberg,” but fret not: the good folks at One First Street N.E. are more than meeting market projections for relists and holds.
Yesterday the Court issued three opinions in three argued cases, as well as orders from the May 17 Conference.
Analysis Federal judges seem to agree that racial discrimination among voters has not yet ended in America. But they don’t agree on where — in what states — it is still a problem.
The following contribution is by Kristine S. Knaplund, Professor of Law at Pepperdine University School of Law in Malibu, California.
This weekend’s coverage of the Court focused on the news that the D.C. Circuit on Friday rejected a challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, setting up the possibility that the Court could review the issue next Term.
FINAL UPDATE 12:01 p.m. The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to examine, at its next Term, the federal government’s latest attempt to shield from court review its system of secret monitoring of global communications in search of terrorist threats.
This morning the Court issued orders from the May 17 Conference.
The Supreme Court will again consider all seven of the pending Guantanamo Bay detainee petitions at its next Conference, on Thursday, according to the Court’s electronic docket.
Maryland’s state supreme court, the Court of Appeals, has refused to reconsider a split decision barring police from collecting DNA samples from individuals who have been arrested. The denial order, issued Friday, is here.
On Monday the Court granted one case and issued three opinions in argued cases. Details are here. On Thursday the Court issued two opinions. Details are here.
Coverage of the Court yesterday was dominated by the news that, earlier this month, Justice Breyer was the victim of a break-in at his Georgetown home.
The Supreme Court is accustomed to having the last word on matters of constitutional interpretation. But in the application of First Amendment free speech principles to restrictions on corporate campaign spending, the Montana Supreme Court invoked one of the lessons from first-year law school – that facts matter – to uphold state restrictions on independent corporate spending in elections.
Coverage of Monday’s decision in Hall v. United States continued yesterday.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted and held cases. Monday was a big day. Facebook raised the price range of its IPO to $34-38 a share, up from $28-35; in a related story, CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that he was buying Greece, Spain and Portugal with change he found under his sofa cushions, thus resolving the Euro Zone crisis; and, in somewhat less momentous news, the Supreme Court loosed a slew of new relists.
Coverage of Monday’s opinions and orders continued yesterday. At JURIST, Julia Zebley summarizes Monday’s decision in Hall v. United States, in which the Court held that the federal income tax liability resulting from petitioners’ post-petition farm sale is not incurred by the estate under Section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and thus is neither collectible nor dischargeable in the Chapter 12 plan.
Monday’s decision in Hall v. United States is emblematic of the Court’s long-standing skepticism of the Bankruptcy Code as an important institution for mitigating the long-term costs of financial distress.
Out today from The New Yorker is a must-read excerpt from Jeff Toobin’s forthcoming (in September) book The Oath: The Obama White House vs. The Supreme Court. The excerpt recounts insider details about the process by which the Court decided the Citizens United campaign finance case.
Yesterday the Court issued an opinion in Hall v. United States, holding that the federal income tax liability resulting from petitioners’ post-petition farm sale is not incurred by the estate under Section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and thus is neither collectible nor dischargeable in the Chapter 12 plan.
Analysis For most of the past four years, the volunteer lawyers who are helping Guantanamo Bay detainees use their constitutional right of access to U.S. courts have faced a dilemma: they assumed that, at some point, the Supreme Court would again get interested in those cases, but they had no idea what it would take to get the Justices involved again.
In the wake of President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage, the weekend’s coverage focused on the prospect that the issue could reach the Court this year.
With the help of our reporter, Lyle Denniston, we will be live blogging as orders and opinions 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.