Showing 1–50 of 128 items published in November 2011, most recent first.
This morning the Justices will hear oral argument in two cases. First up is the argument in Setser v. United States, which Michael Dimino previewed for the blog. The second argument this morning is Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, which Alex Wohl previewed for us.
The Court heard oral argument in two cases yesterday. In Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds the Court is considering whether the deadline to file certain insider trading claims is delayed until the insider discloses the trades in reports to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Supreme Court hears arguments next week in its first patent case of the year, Caraco Pharmaceutical Labs v. Novo Nordisk. Like last Term’s Pliva, Inc. v. Mensing, this case presents the Court with one of the many places in which generic and branded pharmaceuticals face off at the FDA.
Today in the Community we return to Arizona v. United States, which we have previously discussed in the Community; several experts also weighed in on the case during our symposium this summer. On December 9, the Justices will consider the petition during their private Conference.
The Justices considered a classic puzzle in statutory construction this week when they heard arguments in Hall v. United States.
Transcripts from today’s arguments in Setser v. United States and Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper are available here and here.
Yesterday the Court heard oral argument in Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds and considered whether the limitations period for Section 16(b) insider trading claims under the Exchange Act of 1934 is ever subject to tolling and, if so, for how long.
On December 5, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a Fourth Amendment case, Messerschmidt v. Millender, that concerns the particularity of search warrants and the qualified immunity standard. (Michael Smith previewed the case yesterday for this blog.)
This morning the Justices will hear oral argument in two cases. Ronald Mann previewed the first case, Hall v. United States, for the blog, Steve Kaufhold previewed the second case, Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds.
Yesterday the Court heard oral argument in two cases, First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards and Mims v. Arrow Financial Services. In First American Financial, the Court is considering whether a homebuyer has standing to sue banks and title companies that pay kickbacks for closing services associated with a mortgage loan, even if the kickbacks did not affect the price or quality of the mortgage services.
How easy should it be for someone on death row, challenging his state court conviction or sentence in federal court, to get his court-appointed lawyer replaced by another one?
The Court was quite active at oral argument in this Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) case presenting a fundamental standing question: Can a plaintiff bring suit seeking an award of statutory damages when she was steered to a particular title insurance company on account of a kickback
Yesterday’s oral argument in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC started with a surreal detour from the basic jurisdictional principles examined by the courts below and the parties in their briefs.
Transcripts from today’s arguments in Hall v. United States and Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds can be found here and here.
Roughly two months ago, we introduced our new Community feature to provide readers with a forum to discuss issues relating to the Court. After six weeks, we decided to step back and evaluate how it was working and could be improved. The original design involved a new topic each day.
This is one of a continuing series of articles the blog will publish over the next several weeks, explaining more fully the new federal health care law, and the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of key parts of that law.
Today, the Court begins the December sitting with oral arguments in two cases. In Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, which Ronald Mann previewed for this blog, the Court will consider federal court jurisdiction under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
This morning at ten we expect the Court to issue orders from its November 22 Conference. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference is available here. The Justices will also hear oral argument in two cases this morning.
I. Introduction When a Los Angeles County SWAT team shattered a picture window and poured into seventy-three-year-old Augusta Millender’s living room in a fruitless predawn search in 2003, glass may have been only the first casualty.
Transcripts from today’s arguments in First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards and Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC are now available here and here.
On Monday, the Court granted four new cases. The first week of the December sitting concluded on Wednesday. On Friday, the Justices will meet for a private Conference. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for the December 2 Conference will be available soon.
Texas’s lawyers will ask the Supreme Court on Monday to delay the implementation of a new redistricting plan for the two chambers of the state’s legislature — a plan drawn up by a three-judge federal District Court for use temporarily as election season begins.
Constitutional law cases are often flanked by important disputes over procedure and process. These disputes can take the form of threshold questions, such as whether the Court has jurisdiction to decide a case, or they can appear as questions of remedy that arise at the case’s back end, such as whether the Court can simply carve out an unconstitutional provision of a complex statute.
In recent months, my posts have highlighted the relationship between legal scholarship and Supreme Court decisions. I have flagged briefs that cite and discuss scholarship, and have noted when the Court itself takes an interest in a particular scholar’s analysis of the questions before it (for example, here).
After yesterday’s Conference, the Court announced that it will release orders on new cases on Monday morning; there will be no opinions issued in argued cases during the week.
Alexander Wohl is an Adjunct Professor and a consultant to the Law and Government Program at the Washington College of Law. He was selected as a United States Supreme Court Fellow and served as a law clerk to Judge Ralph B. Guy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
On November 30, the Court will hear oral argument in Setser v. United States. At issue in the case is whether a federal district court may direct that a criminal defendant’s sentence run consecutively with a yet-to-be-imposed sentence that the defendant is expected to receive for a state crime.
This is one of a continuing series of articles the blog will publish over the next several weeks, explaining more fully the new federal health care law, and the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of key parts of that law.
Moving to speed up its coming rulings on California’s ban on same-sex marriage, the Ninth Circuit Court on Monday joined two of its pending cases that seek to revive that measure — Proposition 8.
Commentators continue to focus on the Court’s announcement that it would hear several challenges to the Affordable Care Act later this Term.
The Justices get a textbook statutory construction puzzle next week when they hear arguments on November 29 in Hall v. United States.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday afternoon announced that it will release orders on new cases on Monday, at 10 a.m. That will include any orders granting new cases. There will be no opinions issued in argued cases during the week.
Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act provides that “no . . . suit shall be brought more than two years after the date such profit was realized” from the alleged shortswing transactions.
Commentary on the Court remains focused on the Court’s announcement that it will weigh in on the challenges to the Affordable Care Act this Term.
So many of the great Justices have had their moments trying to develop language that explains when cases do, and do not, “arise under” federal law.
Hogan Lovells, where Neal Katyal (former Acting Solicitor General of the United States) and Cate Stetson practice, are looking for a highly qualified individual to serve as a Supreme Court/Appellate practice researcher. Information about the position and how to apply can be found here.
On November 22 the Justices will meet for a private conference. Our list of “Petitions to watch” will be available soon. The Justices are not scheduled to hear oral arguments again until the December sitting begins on November 28. Orders from Tuesday’s Conference are also expected on the 28th.
The Ninth Circuit Court, reacting to legal advice it has just received from the California Supreme Court, on Friday asked both sides in the constitutional dispute over the state’s ban on same-sex marriage to file new briefs on the impact of the state ruling on their case.
The focus of today’s coverage of the Court is yesterday’s ruling by the California Supreme Court that sponsors of California’s ban on same-sex marriage have standing under state law to defend the ballot initiative, and in particular the likelihood that the Proposition 8 issue will come to the Court anytime soon.
Who will write a biography of Judge Henry J. Friendly? . . . He seems to have been a fascinating and brilliant figure. – Orin Kerr (2008) Judge Richard Posner called him the “greatest federal appellate judge of his time.” And while time has taken some of the luster off his renown, his name is still revered in some of the highest quarters.
In the second case on Monday, November 28, the Court will hear argument in First American Financial Corporation v. Edwards. This Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) case raises fundamental questions relating to the meaning of “injury in fact” under the familiar test for determining whether a party has standing.
The Court’s website now contains orders appointing amici to brief and argue two questions in the pending challenges to the Affordable Care Act. Both amici are well-respected and experienced advocates at the Court.
Yesterday’s coverage and commentary continued to focus on Monday’s announcement that the Court will review several of the pending challenges to the Affordable Care Act. Several new commentators offered opinions on when and how the Court should rule.
On Monday morning, at exactly ten o’clock, the Court released its list of orders resulting from the Justices’ private Conference at the end of last week.
Giving the sponsors of California’s ban on same-sex marriage a significant legal lift, the California Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that they have a right under state law to go to court to defend the measure that the state’s voters have approved.
This is one of a continuing series of articles the blog will publish over the next six weeks, explaining more fully the new federal health care law, and the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of key parts of that law.
The Court’s announcement on Monday that it will review challenges to the Affordable Care Act continues to generate an abundance of coverage and commentary.
Putting aside Monday’s fireworks on the health care front, this week’s order list was relatively quiet. The Court did grant cert. in the survivor benefits case Astrue v. Capato, 11-159, relisted after the November 4 Conference and discussed last week.
The California Supreme Court will issue a major ruling Thursday on the right of backers of the state’s ban on same-marriage — “Proposition 8” — to defend that ballot measure in court.
This morning the Court issued orders from its November 10 Conference, including orders granting review in three of the pending challenges to the Affordable Care Act. The Court will hear a total of five-and-a-half hours of oral argument, most likely in March.