Live Blog: Orders and opinions | 2.28.11
This morning’s Live Blog will not appear on the homepage. To access the Live Blog, please click on this post.
February 2011 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 68 items published in February 2011, most recent first.
Last week at the Court: In Plain English
Preemption, habeas, and railroads – in Plain English.
Monday round-up
Coverage of this week’s cases and a recent speech by Justice Thomas.
Details on today’s opinion
This morning, the Court handed down its ruling in Michigan v. Bryant.
Special feature: The case against John Ashcroft et al.
On Wednesday, the Court will hear oral argument in Ashcroft v. al-Kidd.
Today’s transcripts (UPDATED 2:16 p.m.)
Transcripts of today’s oral arguments.
Argument preview: Do Fourth Amendment warrant requirements attach to the in-school interview of a child whom authorities suspect may be the victim of sexual abuse at home?
On March 1, the Court will hear one hour of oral argument in the consolidated cases of Camreta v. Greene (No. 09-1454) and Alford v. Greene (No. 09-1478).
This Week at the Court
Significant dates in the coming week.
Argument preview: Can information from a FOIA disclosure support an individual’s False Claims Act suit?
On Tuesday the Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, which addresses the interaction between the False Claims Act and the Freedom of Information Act.
Delay urged on military gay ruling
The Obama Administration renewed its plea that federal courts should not rule on the constitutionality of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, allowing time to carry out Congress’s new law repealing the ban.
Justification asked for DOMA plan
A federal judge orders the U.S. government to explain its plan to enforce the federal ban on benefits for legally married same-sex couples even while taking the position that the ban is unconstitutional.
Friday round-up
More coverage of the Court’s decision in Williamson v. Mazda Motors; law professors ask Congress to extend judicial code of conduct to Justices
Argument preview: What is “cocaine base”?
On Monday, the Court will hear argument in DePierre v. United States.
Opinion analysis: Californias timeliness rule is an adequate state ground to deny federal habeas review
Yesterday, the Court handed down its decision in Walker v. Martin (09-996).
Argument preview: Court considers ownership for government-sponsored patents
Professor Ronald Mann previews Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., which is scheduled for argument on February 28.
Argument recap: Speedy Trial Act, motion time, and “un-cert-worthy questions”
Yesterday, the Court heard oral argument in United States v. Tinklenberg (09-1498).
Opinion analysis: Vaccine manufacturers immunized from design-defect liability
Yesterday, in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, the Court held that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts all design-defect claims against vaccine manufacturers brought by plaintiffs who seek compensation for injury or death caused by vaccine side effects.
Thursday round-up
Opinions in Walker v. Martin and Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America; oral argument in Freeman v. United States and Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.; more on Tuesday’s decision in Bruesewitz.
Argument recap: Court sympathetic to Federal Circuit standard on induced infringement
Yesterday, the Court heard oral argument in Global Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A. (10-6).
Health care challengers hold fast
Challengers to the new federal health care law urged a federal judge in Florida to compel the government either to comply immediately with the judge’s ruling striking down all of the law, or else try to get the decision put on hold during an appeal.
Opinion recap in CSX v. Alabama Dept of Revenue
On Tuesday, the Court ruled that Alabamas tax on diesel fuel may violate the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act by exempting trucking and water carriers, but not railroads, from the tax.
Third ruling upholds health law
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., rules that the new health care law’s mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance by 2014 was within Congress’s power to regulate the market for health insurance policies. It is the third such ruling.
Wednesday round-up
The Court returns from its recess, taking things two by two: two arguments, two decisions, two grants, and two CVSGs.
U.S. says DOMA ban invalid (UPDATED)
The Obama Administration, switching positions, decides not to continue to defend the constitutionality of the 1996 law that bars all federal benefits to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law. The law will be enforced, but its invalidity will be argued by federal lawyers in several federal courts.
Details on today’s opinions
This morning, the Court issued opinions in two cases: Walker v. Martin and Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
Today’s transcripts (UPDATED 1:58 p.m.)
Transcripts of today’s oral arguments.
Opinion analysis: Preemption trimmed in automobile product liability litigation
Earlier today, the Court handed down its decision in Williamson v. Mazda Motor of America (08-1314).
The strange case of Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd
Next week, the Supreme Court will be hearing oral argument in Ashcroft v. Al-Kidd, a case on material witness and national security detention. Al-Kidd is a rather strange Fourth Amendment case, and in this post I wanted to explain why I think it’s a strange case and how that strangeness might influence what the Court will do in the case.
Tuesday round-up
The Court is back after its winter recess, with Tenth Amendment and Speedy Trial Act cases on the docket for today; the Sixth Circuit’s “losing” streak at the Court; looking ahead to Ashcroft v. al-Kidd.
Details on today’s opinions
This morning, the Court issued opinions in two cases: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth and CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue.
Argument recap: Benefitting from confusion
The Court, taking on an issue of when a person prosecuted for crime can challenge the law used against them, allowed itself to wander on into the question of whether the law was valid. The likely beneficiary of the confusion: the challenger seeking the chance to make that very argument.
Argument preview: A domestic dispute, gone global
The Court on Tuesday will hear one hour of oral argument on whether a private individual, convicted of federal criminal charges, may challenge the law at issue by claiming it unconstitutionally intrudes on states’ rights protected by the Tenth Amendment. Will the outcome be sweeping or narrow?
This Week at the Court
Significant dates in the coming weeks.
U.S. seeks health care clarity (UPDATED FRIDAY)
The Justice Department asks a federal judge in Florida to narrow the scope of his sweeping ruling striking down all of the new health care law. It seeks to keep many parts of the law in effect while it appeals. (UPDATE: The judge seeks a quick response.)
Argument preview: Court to consider standard for secondary patent liability
Professor Ronald Mann previews Global Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., which is scheduled for argument on Wednesday.
Friday round-up
More debate on Justice Thomas and oral argument; a call for the Justices to imitate Lady Gaga; Court to consider challenge to non-unanimous jury verdicts.
Uighurs defend judicial power
Five Chinese Muslim detainees, eligible for release from Guantanamo Bay for nearly three years but still there, make a final, impassioned plea for the Supreme Court to restore the power it gave in 2008 to federal judges to rule on the fate of detainees.
Review set on Prop. 8 issue (UPDATED)
California’s Supreme Court agrees to rule on the status, under state law, of backers of the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriage as defenders of the ban’s constitutionality.
Argument preview: Pretrial motions and calculating deadlines under the Speedy Trial Act
Professor Brooks Holland previews United States v. Tinklenberg, which is scheduled for argument on Tuesday.
Thursday round-up
More on Justice Thomas at oral argument; Justice Breyer speaks in Palm Beach; proposed legislation regarding recusals on the Court; the Court refuses to stay an execution.
Argument preview: Are sentences fixed by a plea agreement “based on” a guideline sentencing range?
Professor Douglas Berman previews Freeman v. United States, which is scheduled for argument on Wednesday.
Padilla torture claim rebuffed
A federal judge in South Carolina rules that former detainee Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, has no right to pursue in court charges of torture or other violations of his rights by Pentagon officials.
Wednesday round-up
Commentators weigh in on Justice Thomas’s silence and connections; executions in Texas and Ohio; an interview with Deputy SG Dreeben
Play preview: “Father Justice White”
Law Library of Congress will host preview of play about the Court’s ninth Chief Justice, written by LSU’s Paul Baier
Tuesday round-up
Concern over a 2008 speech by Justice Thomas, and discussion about S&M Brands v. Caldwell
New opening for Bagram challenge
A federal judge clears the way for three individuals being held by the U.S. military at Bagram air base in Afghanistan to try to reopen their challenge to long-term detention at the facility. The judge withholds a ruling, for now, on the government argument that the three have no legal claims to make.
Monday round-up
More on the Affordable Care Act and the Court; Robert Barnes on Skinner v. Switzer; and Adam Liptak on Justice Thomas’s nearly five-year silence at oral argument.
This week at the Court
Significant dates in the coming weeks.
12