Wednesday round-up
Today the Court will hear oral argument in two cases, both of which have their origins in the use of drug-sniffing dogs by Florida law enforcement officials.
October 2012 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 113 items published in October 2012, most recent first.
Grading the Solicitor General: A different way of keeping score (UPDATED)
Alan B. Morrison is the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service Law at the George Washington University Law School. The excellent research and other assistance of Gregory Kubarych, GW Law School class of 2014, are gratefully acknowledged.
Argument recap: Justices skeptical of publisher’s position in gray-market copyright case
This post was revised at 3:20 The Court’s last argument before the arrival of Hurricane Sandy presented the latest chapter in a seemingly intractable problem of copyright law: whether a U.S. copyright holder can prevent the importation of “gray-market” products manufactured for overseas markets.
January arguments, day by day
The Supreme Court on Wednesday released the schedule of cases to be argued in the two-week sitting that begins on January 7. There will be no afternoon arguments. Arguments begin at 10 a.m. and are for one hour each.
Argument recap: If you lose Scalia…
Analysis If a lawyer defending a police tactic learns in the first few minutes of a hearing that Justice Antonin Scalia’s vote is probably lost, the trouble signs are ominous indeed.
Today’s transcripts
The transcript in Florida v. Harris is here. The transcript in Florida v. Jardines is here.
U.S.: New challenge to ACA OK (UPDATE)
(UPDATE Thursday morning. The post now includes a link to the government’s new filing. Thanks for your patience.) ————- The Obama Administration told the Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon that it does not object to the Court clearing the way for new constitutional challenges to two key “mandates” written into the new federal health care law.
Argument preview: Court considers litigation expenses in debt-collection disputes
Next week’s argument in Marx v. General Revenue Corporation offers the Court a bread-and-butter case of statutory interpretation, ornamented by skillful briefing on both sides. The case involves the standard for awarding costs in litigation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the FDCPA).
Relist (and hold) watch
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted and held cases. As the rest of Washington’s elite huddled at home yesterday in front of cable news and Three’s Company reruns, the Justices took the bench as usual, issuing orders and pointed oral argument hypotheticals over the howling gales.
Tuesday round-up
Despite the stormy weather brought on by Hurricane Sandy, the Court heard oral arguments yesterday in two cases.
Argument preview: Drug-sniffing dogs and privacy
(NOTE TO READERS: This blog in July posted a story, in non-legal terms, on these cases. It can be read here.) The Supreme Court will hold two hours of oral argument, starting at 10 a.m. Wednesday, on constitutional issues on the use of drug-sniffing dogs to search private property.
Monday round-up
This weekend’s coverage of the Court focuses on the two cases, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA and Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., slated for oral argument this morning.
Court in session Monday
The federal government’s executive branch is shutting down on Monday because of threatened bad weather from Hurricane Sandy, but the Supreme Court plans — as of late Sunday night — to go ahead with its schedule of oral arguments.
Court grants four cases, seeks government views (UPDATED)
UPDATED 1:14 pm. The Court has set the Voting Rights Act case, 12-96, along with a companion case, 12-81, for consideration at its private Conference on Friday.
Suing over surveillance secrets
This morning, the Court will hear oral arguments in Clapper v. Amnesty International. The case began as a challenge by (among others) lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists to the 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which expanded the ability of the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor international communications by U.S. citizens.
Court cancels Tuesday sitting
“Due to weather conditions related to Hurricane Sandy,” the Supreme Court said Monday, it has cancelled its public sitting for tomorrow, Tuesday. The cases that would have been heard then will now be heard beginning at 10 a.m. on Thursday of this week.
Argument recap: Sensitive to lawyers’ dilemma
Analysis The Supreme Court showed Monday that it is genuinely troubled that the govenment, carrying on a sweeping program of wiretaps seeking to track terrorism activity, may be putting lawyers in a serious professional and ethical bind as they represent individuals potentially caught up in that eavesdropping.
Transcripts of today’s oral arguments
The transcript in Clapper v. Amnesty International is here. The transcript in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is here.
This week at the Court
On Monday the Court granted four new cases and called for the views of the Solicitor General in one case. On Monday the Court also returned to the bench for the first week of the November sitting. Due to inclement weather, Tuesday’s oral arguments were moved to Thursday.
Court schedule unchanged — so far
The Supreme Court plans — at least as of Saturday night — to follow its regular schedule for next week. Much of Washington, like much of the Atlantic Seaboard, is anticipating heavy weather from Hurricane Sandy in the first part of the week.
Argument preview: Can global wiretaps be challenged?
At 10 a.m. Monday, the Supreme Court resumes public hearings, and the first that day will be one hour of oral argument on an attempt to pursue a constitutional challenge to global electronic wiretapping by the U.S. government.
Friday round-up
Thursday’s coverage of the Court focused on next week’s oral arguments. This blog, Reuters, and ABC News all preview Monday’s oral argument in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, in which the Court will consider whether a group of lawyers, journalists, and human rights activists have standing to challenge international electronic wiretapping by the federal government.
U.S. picks a DOMA case
The Obama Administration on Friday urged the Supreme Court to hear and decide the most sweeping federal appeals court decision ever issued on gay rights, as the government’s preferred case for reviewing the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Handling stay applications
It has been just a little over two weeks since the Justices last heard oral arguments, but don’t mistake their absence for inactivity. Among the many things that occupy their attention when they are not hearing oral arguments are emergency applications – particularly applications to stay the ruling of a lower court or to stay an imminent execution.
Thursday round-up
With the Court’s November sitting beginning next week, coverage focuses on next Monday’s argument in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, in which the Court will consider whether copyrighted works purchased abroad can be resold within the United States without the copyright owner’s permission.
Argument preview: The retroactive application of Padilla v. Kentucky
In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Through a variety of changes to then-existing law, the Act took steps to facilitate the deportation of non-citizens convicted of crimes.
Wednesday round-up
Last night the Supreme Court refused to vacate an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that delayed the execution of John Errol Ferguson – a Florida inmate suffering from a psychotic disorder who was found guilty of committing eight murders in 1977 and 1978.
Scholarship highlight: How the Justices move the law
Without doubt, the Supreme Court’s most prominent decision so far under the leadership of Chief Justice John Roberts has been Citizens United v. FEC.
The “full” method of measuring the Court’s review of decisions by the courts of appeals: October Term 2011
This blog occasionally publishes longer posts commenting on trends in the study of the Supreme Court. In this post, John S. Summers and Michael J. Newman – who are shareholder and associate, respectively, in the litigation department of Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller – examine one common Supreme Court metric: circuit reversal rates.
Tuesday round-up
With the Court still in recess until next week, much of yesterday’s coverage focused on Jeffrey Toobin’s new book, The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court. Ronald Collins interviews Toobin for this blog, while Michiko Kakutani reviews the book for The New York Times.
Argument preview: Court to clarify scope of Michigan v. Summers
Over thirty years ago, in Michigan v. Summers, the Court held that police officers who are executing a search warrant at a home may detain a resident of the home until the search is completed.
Campaign donor limits left intact
The Supreme Court, without even seeking the views of the state of Montana, refused on Tuesday to disturb the limits that the state has put on political contributions that can be made to candidates for state offices. The brief order, with no noted dissents, is here.
UPDATED: Florida execution delayed
UPDATED 10:05 pm. After the Supreme Court acted, the Eleventh Circuit Court delayed the execution and set a briefing schedule on legal issues surrounding the state Supreme Court’s rejection of the challenge.
New filings due on DOMA (UPDATED)
UPDATED to include another petition seeking review on DOMA. ———— The Obama Administration and the Republican leaders of the House of Representatives will shortly file new documents to help the Supreme Court sort out the increasingly tangled constitutional controversy over same-sex marriage.
Piracy and the Court — Act II
A crime that is as old as the nation itself — piracy — is reaching more boating criminals around the globe, but the Supreme Court may have the last word on whether the American government will share that broader authority to punish violence at sea.
Monday round-up
This weekend’s coverage of the Court includes discussions of the effect that the upcoming presidential election may have on the Court, as well as the increasing likelihood, in the wake of the Second Circuit’s decision last week, that the Court will take up the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Q & A with Jeffrey Toobin
The following is a series of questions posed by Ronald Collins to Jeffrey Toobin on the occasion of the publication of The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court (Doubleday, 2012). Welcome Jeff.
This week at the Court
On Friday the Justices will meet for their October 26 Conference. Our list of petitions to watch for that Conference is here. The October sitting is now over. The Court is not scheduled to hear any oral arguments until the November sitting begins next Monday, October 29.
Academic highlight: The media and the Court
The media provides essential information about the Supreme Court to the general public, translating complex decisions into language that the lay person can understand. Informed and responsible press coverage also benefits the Court.
Major victory for gay rights, same-sex marriage
For the first time in history, a federal appeals court on Thursday gave gays and lesbians a broad new form of constitutional protection against discrimination, and extended that protection to their rights when they get married under state law.
Friday round-up
On Thursday, a divided panel of the Second Circuit struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional, applying intermediate scrutiny to hold that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Thursday round-up
Justice Breyer yesterday issued a temporary stay of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which had rejected a challenge to subpoenas issued by the British government for materials from an oral history project at Boston College on the Irish Republican Army.
Argument preview: Court tries again on copyright importation problem
The Court’s November calendar features probably the most important copyright case since its 2003 decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. presents one of the fundamental questions for the globalized media world: whether a U.S. copyright holder can prevent the importation of “gray-market” products manufactured for overseas markets.
Court denies stay of execution in Florida case
This afternoon the Court declined to stay the execution (and denied the petition for certiorari) of John Ferguson, a Florida death row inmate convicted in 1978 for his role in eight murders on two separate occasions.
Scholarship highlight: Who should resolve issues relating to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
Lumen N. Mulligan is Professor of Law and Director of the Shook, Hardy & Bacon Center for Excellence in Advocacy at the University of Kansas School of Law.
Wednesday round-up
As Lyle reported for this blog, yesterday the Court denied Ohio’s request that it stay the Sixth Circuit’s decision precluding it from closing early voting opportunities to the general public.
British subpoenas blocked
Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer on Wednesday temporarily blocked subpoenas issued by the British government for papers collected in an academic project at Boston College about the history of the Irish Republican Army’s violent resistance to British rule in Northern Ireland.
Tuesday round-up
Yesterday, the Court granted certiorari in one new case, Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., to consider whether Arizona may require proof of citizenship before prospective voters may register for and vote in federal elections.
Ask the author: Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr. on Mismatch
On October 9, Basic Books released Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It, a new book by Richard Sander, a law professor at UCLA, and Stuart Taylor, Jr., a legal journalist.
Hamdan conviction overturned (FINAL UPDATE)
(Final update, 1:16 p.m.) ————– The D.C. Circuit Court on Tuesday threw out one of the earliest post-9/11 military convictions of a terrorism suspect, putting in doubt the use of the commission system to try war crimes charges for events that occurred years earlier.