Tuesday round-up
On Monday, Chief Justice Roberts issued an order staying a decision of the Maryland Court of Appeals, allowing Maryland’s DNA testing law to remain in effect until the U.S. Supreme Court acts on a cert. petition in the case.
July 2012 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 79 items published in July 2012, most recent first.
“Life-at-conception” issue reaches Court (FINAL UPDATE)
FINAL UPDATE at 3:14 p.m. (FURTHER UPDATE Wednesday 2:31 p.m.
“Proposition 8” defenders’ appeal filed (FINAL UPDATE)
(FINAL UPDATE, 2:41 p.m. The post has been expanded considerably in discussing the “Proposition 8” case. In addition, there is a brief new discussion at the end of the post of a new ruling Tuesday against the Defense of Marriage Act by a federal judge in Connecticut.
Academic highlight: Jay-Z and the Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence
The Court just completed a blockbuster Term, and in a few short months the Justices will reconvene to tackle another set of significant and controversial cases. So we could all use some lighthearted distraction during this summer interlude.
Monday round-up
This weekend’s coverage of the Court focused on recent remarks by Justice Antonin Scalia. In an interview with Fox News, the Justice discussed gun control and the Court’s recent Second Amendment cases, responded to criticism of his dissent in United States v. Arizona, and spoke about the tension – or the lack thereof – at the Court following the health care decision.
DNA testing may go on
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., calling tests of the DNA of individuals arrested by police “a valuable tool for investigating unsolved crimes,” on Monday cleared the way for the state of Maryland to continue that practice until the Supreme Court can act on a challenge to its constitutionality.
Sorting out detainees’ legal rights
The chief judge of the federal District Court in Washington has assigned himself the task of sorting out the rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to meet with their lawyers.
Friday round-up
Yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on a C-SPAN interview with Justice Scalia. The interview will air Sunday evening, but several preview clips are currently available on YouTube.
Judge bars birth control mandate
A federal judge in Colorado, acting on one of two dozen cases across the nation challenging the new health care law’s promise of free birth-control for women workers, on Friday temporarily barred the enforcement of that mandate against a Catholic family’s private business firm.
Thursday round-up
With coverage of the Court’s health care decisions continuing to wane, reporting largely focused on the Congressional Budget Office’s report on the effects of the Affordable Care Act, which Conor featured in yesterday’s round-up.
Response: New federal piracy case confirms limits on universal jurisdiction
The following response in our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum comes from Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, where he teaches courses in constitutional law, federal courts, and international law.
The dog-sniffing cases: Made simple
Editor’s note: During the Supreme Court’s summer recess, the blog will be publishing a series of posts that explain, in non-legal terms, some of the most important cases that will be decided in the new Term that starts October 1. This is another in that series.
Response: Memo to Navy – no universal jurisdiction
The following response in our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum comes from Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law, where he teaches courses in constitutional law, federal courts, and international law.
Plea for wider DOMA review (UPDATED)
UPDATED Wednesday 10:31 a.m. Massachusetts’ conditional cross-petition can be read here. It raises the two new issues that other cases do not present: the constitutionality of DOMA Section 3 under the Tenth Amendment and under the Spending Clause.
Wednesday round-up
Coverage of the Court’s decisions in the health care cases continues to wind down. Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office reported that the Court’s ruling on the Medicaid expansion issue will likely result in more people being uninsured and lower costs than the government had projected before the Court’s ruling.
Scholarship highlight: The Constitution and common law remedies
The Constitution spells out some of our most cherished rights but says almost nothing about how those rights are to be enforced. It provides, for example, that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” but says nothing about what happens if Congress does.
New challenge to the health mandates
When the Supreme Court took on the historic dispute over the new federal health care law last Term, it agreed to rule on the constitutionality of one of two insurance mandates in the law, but bypassed the other.
October and November calendars
The Supreme Court on Monday released the calendars of oral argument for its first two sittings in the new Term — the October calendar, beginning on October 1, and the November calendar, starting on October 29.
Response: Plain text, stare decisis, and déjà vu all over again
The following response in our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum comes from Sarah H. Cleveland, the Louis Henkin Professor of Human and Constitutional Rights, Columbia Law School and the former Counselor on International Law to the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State.
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday the Court released the oral argument for its first two sittings next Term – the October sitting, which begins on October 1, and the November sitting, which will begin on October 29.
Middle position on Medicare appeals
The Supreme Court on Monday chose a Harvard law professor, John F. Manning, to take part in a granted case on hospitals’ right to challenge rulings on the amount of reimbursement they are to be paid for treating elderly or disabled patients under the federal Medicare program.
Response: The ATS and choice of law
The following response in our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum comes from Trey Childress, Associate Professor of Law at the Pepperdine University School of Law and a Visiting Associate Professor of Law at the Washington & Lee University School of Law during the 2012-2013 academic year.
Monday round-up
As coverage of the health care decision finally winds down, discussion of the Court’s next Term begins to ramp up.
DNA ruling blocked, for now (UPDATED)
UPDATED Friday 3:55 p.m. Attorneys for the Maryland man involved in the case, Alonzo Jay King, Jr., on Friday filed their brief opposing any further hold on the state court ruling. It was filed in advance of the deadline set by the Chief Justice.
Friday round-up
Coverage of the Court continues to focus on the health care decision, with commentators primarily discussing the substance of the Medicaid ruling.
Response to symposium contributions
The following response in our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum comes from Meir Feder, a partner at Jones Day, where he heads the Issues and Appeals Practice in the firm’s New York office.
Section 5 challenges reach Court (FURTHER UPDATE)
FURTHER UPDATE Tuesday 12:01 p.m. The Shelby County case has now been docketed as 12-96. In addition, the following post has been modified to clarify the nature of the Shelby County challenge. UPDATE 2:20 p.m. The following post has been updated with the filing of the Shelby County petition.
Response: International law supplies the conduct rules and domestic law governs enforcement
The following response in our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum comes from Oona A. Hathaway, Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School.
Response: Adjudicative versus prescriptive jurisdiction, translating historical intent, and a brief universal jurisdiction rejoinder
The following response in our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum comes from Anthony J. Colangelo, Assistant Professor of Law at SMU Dedman School of Law. His articles have been cited and quoted by numerous courts addressing extraterritorial jurisdiction under U.S. and international law.
Online Kiobel symposium: A response to Colangelo, Feder, and Ramsey
The following response in our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum comes from Ingrid Wuerth, Professor of Law and Director of International Legal Studies at Vanderbilt University Law School.
Thursday round-up
Yesterday’s coverage of the Court focused on Justice Scalia’s interview with Piers Morgan, in which he discussed his relationship with the Chief Justice and defended the Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.
Response: A federal forum and Citizens United
The following response in our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum comes from Beth Stephens, Professor of Law, Rutgers-Camden School of Law.
Wednesday round-up
Coverage of and commentary on the Court’s health care decision showed no signs of slowing yesterday.
Response: For ATS claims, universal jurisdiction isn’t the answer
The following response in our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum comes from Michael D. Ramsey, Professor of Law and Director of International and Comparative Law Programs at the University of San Diego Law School.
New challenge to drone killings
Rebuffed in one lawsuit attempting to stop the Obama Administration’s use of unmanned drones to kill terrorism suspects overseas, two civil rights groups on Wednesday started a new case, this time seeking to hold top government officials to blame legally for killing three U.S. citizens in attacks from the air in Yemen.
Online Kiobel symposium: The Alien Tort Statute and the importance of historical evidence
The following contribution to our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum comes from Tyler Giannini, Clinical Professor at Harvard Law School, and Susan Farbstein, Assistant Clinical Professor at Harvard Law School, who together direct the law school’s International Human Rights Clinic.
Tuesday round-up
Almost three weeks after it was issued, the Court’s decision in the health care cases continues to inspire commentary and analysis.
Ex-judge: Boumediene is being “gutted”
A retired federal judge — one of about a dozen given the initial assignment to carry out the Supreme Court’s detainee rights decision in Boumediene v. Bush — on Tuesday criticized the Court for doing nothing to protect that decision from being “gutted” by the D.C. Circuit Court.
Online Kiobel symposium: The ATS is in good company
The following contribution to our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum comes from Oona A. Hathaway, Gerard D. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School.
Online Kiobel symposium: The Alien Tort Statute as a species of extraterritorial U.S. law
The following contribution to our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum is written by Julian Ku, a Professor of Law at the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University.
Monday round-up
Three-and-a-half weeks after the Court issued its final decisions for the Term, the media’s coverage of the Court has slowed to its standard summer trickle.
Another DOMA challenge (UPDATED)
UPDATED Tuesday 2:40 p.m. The case has now been docketed as 12-63. A response by the federal government is due on August 16, unless the filing date is extended. ————————— A New York woman, facing a federal tax bill of $363,000 on the estate she inherited from her same-sex spouse, urged the Supreme Court on Monday to add her case to the growing number of test cases reaching the Justices on gay and lesbian rights.
The fate of Bagram detainees
A federal judge, made cautious by a reversal in the D.C. Circuit Court two years ago, explored at length on Monday whether any legal maneuvering room has been left for opening the U.S. courts to hear challenges to the U.S. military’s detention of foreign nationals at a prison outside Kabul in Afghanistan.
Friday round-up
Once again, the health care cases continue to receive considerable media attention.
Online Kiobel symposium: The Alien Tort Statute and the foreign relations fallacy
The following contribution to our Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum symposium is written by Sarah H. Cleveland, the Louis Henkin Professor of Human and Constitutional Rights, Columbia Law School and the former Counselor on International Law to the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State.
Are “Boumediene rights” expiring?
Analysis For years, the federal government — in two administrations — has taken the view that the detainees being held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay have very few legal rights, if any.
Online Kiobel symposium: A brave new world of transnational human rights litigation
The following contribution to our Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum symposium is written by Trey Childress, Associate Professor of Law at the Pepperdine University School of Law and a Visiting Associate Professor of Law at the Washington & Lee University School of Law during the 2012-2013 academic year.
Online Kiobel symposium: Kiobel and the original meaning of the Alien Tort Statute
The following contribution to our symposium on Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum is written by Michael D. Ramsey, Professor of Law and Director of International and Comparative Law Programs at the University of San Diego Law School.
Thursday round-up
Coverage of the Court continues to focus on the Chief Justice and his vote to uphold the individual mandate.
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): One that got away
Why does a Supreme Court case with the potential to be a major ruling result in a narrow, much less significant decision? Consider the case of Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, which was widely expected to be a major test of First Amendment limits on federal regulation of television and radio broadcast content.
12