Showing 1–50 of 97 items published in December 2011, most recent first.
The Montana Supreme Court on Friday put to work its own view of what the Supreme Court had decided in the controversial ruling allowing massive corporate spending in political campaigns, and came out differently: the state court upheld a 99-year-old state ban on the use of corporations’ own money to support or oppose any candidate in state elections.
Reacting to critics of the Supreme Court who have raised their voices lately about the Justices’ ethical values, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., used his year-end report on Saturday to seek to reassure the nation that he and his eight colleagues are sensitive to the issue, and are entitled to the public’s confidence in their integrity.
This is the final post in a ten-part series that the blog has been publishing in recent weeks, explaining more fully the new federal health care law, and the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of key parts of the law.
The Supreme Court on Friday added ten minutes to the oral argument time for the January 9 hearing on the Texas redistricting cases, allotting the extra time to the U.S. Solicitor General’s office.
Ezell Gilbert of Tampa, Fla., had a brief span of freedom after serving more than 14 years of a 24-year-plus prison term that the federal courts now agree was too long — by maybe as much as eight to 13 years.
The Obama Administration on Wednesday afternoon urged the Supreme Court not to allow Texas to use the election district maps drawn up by its state legislature, arguing that if time is too short to draw up new maps, the “interim” redistricting plans of a federal court should be used for the 2012 elections even though those are flawed in some respects.
This is one of a continuing series of articles the blog has been publishing in recent weeks, explaining more fully the new federal health care law, and the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of key parts of the law.
At its January 6, 2012 Conference, the Court will consider such issues as dog sniffs and the Fourth Amendment, res judicata and “virtual representation,” and the “single-entity” exemption to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act.
The Court continues on holiday this week. However, some posts will appear on the blog during this week, including the final posts in the special series on the Affordable Care Act. Regular coverage on the blog will resume on Tuesday, January 3.
Today’s clippings focus on the ripple effects of the Court’s decision to grant cert. in Arizona v. United States, as well as the continuing responses to Newt Gingrich’s recent criticisms of the Court and the federal judiciary.
In the past two decades, criticism of Supreme Court confirmation hearings has intensified considerably. According to the prevailing wisdom, today’s nominees are more reluctant to answer questions during their Senate testimony, and the hearings have suffered as a result.
Yesterday the parties in the Texas redistricting cases filed their opening briefs. Lyle Denniston reports on the arguments made by both sides in a post for this blog. Newt Gingrich’s recent criticism of the Court and the federal judiciary continue to generate coverage and commentary.
Happy solstice! We continue our discussion of the Establishment Clause by asking your thoughts on the most significant unaddressed issues in Establishment Clause jurisprudence.
Our Community discussion of the Establishment Clause continues today as we consider the future of the Lemon test—a three-part test stating that governmental actions do not violate the Establishment Clause if they have a secular purpose, do not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and do not foster an excessive entanglement with religion.
With the year winding down, commentators and Court watchers focus on cases scheduled for argument in 2012, as well as those recently argued in 2011.
NOTE TO READERS: All briefs have now been filed in the Texas redistricting cases. The following post has been updated to incorporate material from the briefs.
Our holiday discussion of the Establishment Clause continues. Today we discuss the Supreme Court’s recent Establishment Clause cases. Many of these cases have been decided 5-4, with one or more concurring opinions (Salazar v. Buono, for example, involved five separate opinions).
Yesterday the Court released its argument calendar for February and March; Lyle Denniston of this blog outlines the schedule and provides summaries of each case.
One of the most common problems the Court has faced since the creation of the Federal Circuit has been deciding what standard courts should use to assess the decisions of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) when it issues, or refuses to issue, a patent.
This is one of a continuing series of articles the blog has been publishing in recent weeks, explaining more fully the new federal health care law, and the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of key parts of the law.
The Court’s growing docket of high-profile cases continues to attract coverage and commentary.
This week in the Community, in honor of the holiday season, we’re discussing the Establishment Clause. We kick off by asking your thoughts about the Supreme Court’s annual Christmas party.
The Supreme Court on Monday scheduled three days of oral argument, totaling 5 1/2 hours of actual argument time in March, on the constitutional issues surrounding the new federal health care law — the Affordable Care Act.
The Supreme Court on Monday released its oral arguments calendars for both the February and March sittings. The arguments on the new federal health care law will occupy all sessions in the week of March 26.
The Justices are not scheduled to hear oral arguments again until the January sitting begins on January 5. The next Conference is scheduled for January 6.
A federal District Court in San Antonio on Friday moved the 2012 primary election date in the state to almost a month later, setting it for April 3 — a move that will give the Supreme Court some added time to settle whether the District Court can craft new election districts — and, if so, how to do it — for seats in the state legislature and in Texas’s delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Those following the ongoing saga of the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office, which has been the subject of multiple claims of misconduct and three recent Supreme Court cases, will be interested in Fordham Law Review’s symposium on official and municipal liability.
With oral arguments over for the calendar year, the media turns its attention to the high-profile cases on immigration, health care reform, and redistricting that lie ahead this Term.
Today in our discussion of Sackett v. EPA and property rights we ask: to what extent should regulation of property be left to the states, free from federal oversight?
Oral arguments are over for the calendar year at the Court, and the Justices took the bench for the last time in 2011 on Monday morning to release their second opinion of the Term in a case that was briefed and argued on the merits.
The political wars in Texas over new election districts for legislators at the state level and in Congress were suspended long enough to work out a partial schedule on candidates’ filing, while everyone awaits some clarity from the Supreme Court, perhaps early next year.
Today in our discussion of Sackett v. EPA and property rights we ask: has the Supreme Court adequately enforced constitutional protection of property rights? Has it gone too far in protecting property rights at the cost of effective environmental protection or other important public goals?
Yesterday, media coverage of the Court continued to focus largely on Monday’s decision to grant cert. in Arizona v. United States. James Vicini of Reuters discusses the implied preemption issue at the heart of the case, while Jason Riley of the Wall Street Journal reports on reactions to the grant from both ends of the ideological spectrum.
On Tuesday, December 6, the Court heard argument in a case – Martel v. Clair – presenting the question of how easy it should be for a death row inmate to replace his appointed counsel in federal habeas corpus proceedings.
Reporting on Monday’s orders and opinions, particularly the Court’s decision to grant cert. in Arizona v. United States, continued to keep Court watchers and commentators busy yesterday.
Today in our discussion of Sackett v. EPA and property rights we ask: does the Constitution protect property rights on par with individual rights such as the right to equal protection and free speech? Should property rights be afforded equal status with other individual constitutional rights?
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted and held cases. Slim pickings again this week. As forecast ad nauseum in recent weeks, the Court summarily reversed in one of the long-running trio of state-on-top habeas cases, Hardy v. Cross, 11-74, ending the total number of relists in that case at eight.
The state of Texas on Monday afternoon asked a federal District Court in San Antonio to put off some, but not all, deadlines for the coming elections in the state, saying that no “usable election districts” for state or federal legislative seats now exist in the wake of the Supreme Court’s blocking
Yesterday the Court (with Justice Kagan recused) granted cert. in Arizona v. United States, in which the state has asked it to overturn the lower courts’ decisions blocking enforcement of four provisions of its controversial immigration law, S.B. 1070.
Today in the Community we continue to disucss Sackett v. EPA, specifically: to what extent does the Constitution limit Congress’s authority to address environmental problems through legislation that limits the rights of private property owners?
In Judulang v. Holder, the Supreme Court addressed a case in which the federal government sought to remove from the United States a lawful permanent resident who has lived here since 1974, based on a 1989 voluntary manslaughter conviction.
Clare Cushman, Courtwatchers: Eyewitness Accounts in Supreme Court History, Rowman & Littlefield (Lanham, Md., 2011), 312 pp. (cloth), $35.00, foreword by Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. When you’re going to serve on the Court . . . for the rest of your productive days you accustom yourself to the
This is another post in an ongoing series analyzing statistical trends at the Court. For a more complete look at the statistics that we collect on the Court, you can find all of our up-to-date charts and graphs here.
This week, the Court heard oral argument in Williams v. Illinois, a follow-up to its decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico and the recent line of cases dating to Crawford v. Washington more robustly applying the Confrontation Clause.
At 10 a.m., the Court is expected to issue orders from its December 9 Conference, as well as one or more opinions. One of the cases that the Justices considered at their Conference last week was Arizona v. United States, in which the state has asked the Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision blocking enforcement of four provisions of S.B. 1070, its controversial immigration law.
NOTE TO READERS: Final updates made at 11:51 a.m. ———————- Adding further to the historic rank of the Supreme Court’s current Term, the Justices on Monday took on the searing constitutional — and political — controversy over state power to strictly limit the way undocumented immigrants live their
In January, the Court will hear argument in Sackett v. EPA, No. 10-1062, a case involving governmental enforcement of federal environmental laws against private property owners.
On Monday the Court granted four petitions, two of which are consolidated for one hour of oral argument. The Court also called for the views of the Solicitor General in three cases, two of which present similar issues, and issued two opinions on Monday. Details are here.
UPDATED Sunday, 10:30 p.m. The U.S. District Court in San Antonio, moving ahead without waiting for any further orders from the Supreme Court, has scheduled a status conference for Tuesday morning.
The Supreme Court, working late on a Friday, agreed to rule on the constitutionality of three redistricting plans drawn up by a federal court for the two houses of the Texas legislature and its 36-member U.S. House of Representatives delegation, and put those court-ordered maps on hold temporarily.