Showing 1–50 of 93 items published in November 2012, most recent first.
This the fourth and final article in the series explaining the constitutional controversy, now awaiting the Supreme Court’s attention, over same-sex marriage. The Court is scheduled to take its first look at that issue at its private Conference this morning.
In a year in which the Court has already weighed in on the constitutionality of both the Affordable Care Act and Arizona’s controversial immigration law, heard oral arguments in a challenge to the use of affirmative action by public universities, and announced that it will soon consider the
Thursday’s coverage of the Court focused on the ten same-sex marriage petitions that the Justices are scheduled to consider at their Conference today. The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, USA Today, ABC News, CBS News, and The Hill have general coverage of the issues.
At their Conference today, the Justices will consider petitions raising federal constitutional issues related to same-sex marriage. These are the most significant cases these nine Justices have ever considered, and probably that they will ever decide.
There is a perennial fascination that flows with every new presidential administration in recent decades: when will the president get to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, and whose seat will it be? In Washington, this speculation is already well underway.
Although the question presented in U.S. Airways v. McCutchen is facially one of statutory interpretation, the case fundamentally turns on which traditional theory of liability is most analogous to an ERISA reimbursement claim.
The Supreme Court, after taking most of the day to prepare new orders, took no action Friday on the ten same-sex marriage pleas now on the docket. It did agree to rule on whether taking a human gene out of the body for research is a process that can be patented.
This is the third of four articles explaining the constitutional controversy, now awaiting the Supreme Court’s attention, over same-sex marriage. The Court is scheduled to consider ten petitions on that issue at its private Conference tomorrow.
The Court heard argument yesterday in Henderson v. United States, in which it considered whether appellate courts reviewing for plain error in criminal cases should consider the state of the law at the time of appeal or at the time of trial.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted and held cases. This year, Thanksgiving seemed but a brief prelude to the days that really mattered – Black Friday, Small Business Saturday, Still-Somehow-Without-A-Silly-Name Sunday, and Cyber Monday – when hundreds of millions of Americans flocked to stores, real and virtual, to take advantage of great deals on the staples of modern life.
At its November 30, 2012 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, preemption of suits over generic drugs, and the government’s obligation to decide Customs claims.
This is the second of four articles explaining the constitutional controversy, now awaiting the Supreme Court’s attention, over same-sex marriage. The Court is scheduled to consider ten petitions on that issue at its private Conference on Friday.
Perhaps a bit prematurely, San Francisco officials on Tuesday told the Ninth Circuit Court they want to be able to move quickly to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples — if the Supreme Court does not take up the so-called “Proposition 8” case.
Yesterday the Court heard oral argument in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen, in which it considered whether Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act authorizes courts to use equitable principles to rewrite contractual language and refuse to order participants to reimburse their plan for benefits paid, even when the plan’s terms give it an absolute right to full reimbursement.
The transcript in Henderson v. United States is here.
This is the first article in a four-part series explaining the constitutional controversy, now awaiting the Supreme Court’s attention, over same-sex marriage.
The Court heard arguments in two cases yesterday. In FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, the Court considered when states may pass on immunity from federal antitrust laws to private firms that they have assigned to perform a public task.
The transcript in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen is here.
Next week, in Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center and Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, the Court will review a controversial Ninth Circuit environmental decision that has swept up all three branches of government.
At this Friday’s Conference, the Justices will consider petitions involving challenges to the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California’s Proposition 8, which amended the California constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage.
Final update 1:13 pm —————- The Supreme Court on Monday arranged for a Virginia university to go forward with new challenges to two key sections of the new federal health care law — the individual and employer mandates to have insurance coverage.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) permits federal courts of appeals to consider “plain” errors “even though [they were] not brought to the [trial] court’s attention.” Is an error in a criminal case “plain” when, by the time the direct appeal is considered, the Supreme Court has clearly ruled that something was error?
Individuals who participate in a benefit plan sponsored by their employer are often entitled to have medical expenses paid for by the plan if they are injured.
The Supreme Court made clear on Monday that it is entirely comfortable with states having the authority to set up a monopoly for public services in one of its communities, but not unless the state says — in so many words — that that is exactly what it intends.
The transcript in FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. is here. The transcript in Vance v. Ball State University is here.
Analysis Often, the Supreme Court takes the advice of the U.S. Solicitor General when, seeking to preserve the Court’s energies and its authority, the SG urges the Court to pass up this case or that. Now and then, though, the Justices don’t heed that advice.
On Monday the Court issued orders from the November 20 Conference. The Court disposed of one case with a summary ruling; in another, it allowed a challenge to the Affordable Care Act to proceed in the Fourth Circuit. Lyle reported on those orders.
At 11 a.m. next Monday, the Supreme Court will hold one hour of oral argument on a case seeking a clear definition of who is a workplace supervisor, under federal anti-discrimination law. The case is Vance v. Ball State University (docket 11-556).
The petitions of the day are: [PAGE]12-302[/PAGE]
Yesterday’s coverage of the Court largely focused on the two new cases in which the Court granted review after yesterday’s Conference.
The Supreme Court resumes oral arguments next Monday, November 26. At 10 a.m., the Court will hear one hour of oral argument on Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc. (docket 11-1160), testing the scope of immunity from antitrust prosecution for private entities providing a public service: in this case, hospital care.
Yesterday’s Court coverage continued to center on remarks by Justices Scalia and Alito at the Federalist Society’s annual National Lawyers Convention.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to decide whether the federal government can be challenged in a regular federal court for taking over a part of an annual raisin crop from packers and processors, under a marketing program. That was one of two newly granted cases.
This weekend’s coverage of the Court focused on remarks made by Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia at the Federalist Society’s annual National Lawyers Convention.
At its November 20, 2012 Conference, the Court will consider petitions seeking review of issues such as whether an insanity defense must be available in criminal cases, the Sixth Amendment and non-unanimous jury verdicts, attorney’s fees in cases involving the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, and the interpretation of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.
On Tuesday the Justices met for their November 20 Conference. Our “Petitions to watch” for that Conference is here. Lyle reported on Tuesday’s grants. In observance of the Thanksgiving holiday, the blog will not post on Thursday or Friday.
On Thursday, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, by a vote of eight to seven, held that the 2006 voter-approved amendment to the Michigan constitution, which prohibited any use of race in the admissions process to any of Michigan’s public colleges and universities, was itself unconstitutional.
Solicitors General come and go, as do members of the Solicitor General’s staff. Despite that turnover, the SG’s Office has continued to function at the highest possible level, both in the quality of its work and its assistance to the Court. There is a reason for that, and her name is Emily Spadoni.
Analysis Most of the time, when the Supreme Court sends a case back to a lower court for a further look, the task for the lower court is clear. But the Justices have left the California courts with little guidance on what to do now with a case involving a teenager convicted for his role in gang-related, drive-by shootings that left three people dead six years ago.
With the Court between oral argument sittings, yesterday’s coverage looks ahead to cases and cert. petitions the Court will review in the coming months.
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relisted and held cases. After granting in zilch last Monday, the Court gave a favorable nod to four cases Friday – including in one relist, more on which anon.
Last week’s oral argument in Marx v. General Revenue Corporation devolved into a relaxed examination of a small nugget of statutory interpretation. The case is a simple one.
When I wrote about the argument in United States v. Bormes, I suggested it portended a “tough day” for the plain-language hawks. That message came through loud and clear in Justice Scalia’s succinct and unanimous decision on Tuesday, the first of the Term – the second year in a row Justice Scalia managed to get the first opinion of the Term.
Splitting 8 to 7, the Sixth Circuit Court on Thursday ruled that Michigan’s voters acted unconstitutionally six years ago in adopting a flat ban on any use of race in deciding who enters the state’s public colleges and universities.
The Court yesterday released its first opinion in an argued case this Term, deciding unanimously in United States v. Bormes that the Little Tucker Act does not waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for damages actions under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Ray Brescia is an Assistant Professor of Law at Albany Law School. In May 2009, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which explicitly extended the “plausibility standard,” first articulated in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly two years earlier, to all civil pleadings.
With last Tuesday’s victories for same-sex marriage advocates in state ballot measures, coverage continues to focus on the effect that those victories may have on the issue of same-sex marriage at the Court.
With the help of our reporter, Lyle Denniston, we will be live blogging as opinions are issued today. 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. Live blog of opinions
The Supreme Court on Monday declined review of a second case testing the constitutionality of a key section of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but the denial will have no effect on the Court’s coming review of that issue. Last Friday, the Court agreed to hear a case from Shelby County, Ala.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday that the federal government does not always lose its immunity, as a sovereign, to a damages lawsuit claiming that a federal agency publicly disclosed personal information about a consumer’s credit card.