Showing 1–50 of 141 items published in January 2010, most recent first.
The final briefs seeking to shape the Supreme Court’s coming decision on the reach of the Second Amendment’s protection of gun rights suggested Friday that states might be free to violate other parts of the Bill of Rights, if too narrow a view is taken of the constitutional liberties that state and local governments must respect.
Craig S. Lerner (George Mason University School of Law) and Nelson Lund (George Mason University School of Law) have posted “Judicial Duty and the Supreme Court’s Cult of Celebrity” on SSRN, see here. The piece is forthcoming in the George Washington Law Review.
NOTE TO READERS: The following is in two parts: first, an analysis of a “dialogue” between President Obama and Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., during Wednesday night’s State of the Union message; and, second, a commentary about the incident’s propriety.) ———————– Analysis Supreme Court
President Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision in Wednesday’s State of the Union address dominated the headlines yesterday and today. A number of news outlets commented yesterday on Justice Alito’s immediate reaction to the criticism.
This week, our sister site, SCOTUSwiki, was updated to include a number of last week’s merits-stage filings.
Commentary on the Citizens United decision lingers in the headlines of Supreme Court coverage. The topic was revived as a news item by President Obama’s sharp criticism of the decision in his State of the Union address last night.
Robert G. Bone (Boston University School of Law) has posted “Plausibility Pleading Revisited and Revised: A Comment on Ashcroft v. Iqbal” on SSRN, see here.
As our publisher Tom Goldstein noted earlier this Term, SCOTUSblog is striving to be an ever more impartial, journalistic organization.
(NOTE TO READERS: The following post is updated, and completed, as of 1:19 p.m.) —————————— Clearly operating on the premise that the Supreme Court last week changed the entire legal landscape for money in politics, the D.C. Circuit Court appeared on Wednesday to be leaning strongly toward giving even more freedom to campaign groups that are set up to operate independently of candidates and parties.
Last Thursday’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC continues to be the overwhelming focus of Supreme Court coverage and commentary.
Last week at the Supreme Court of the United States was certainly a huge one, especially given the decision in Citizens United. But one of the things we SCOTUSbloggers love about the Court is that every week brings its own new, interesting developments.
The following is the second half of an interview with New York University law professor Barry Friedman, author of the new history of the Supreme Court, The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution. The first part is here. 6.
Commentators continue to weigh in on last Thursday’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. In Slate, Barry Friedman and Dahlia Lithwick characterize the timing of the decision as “terrible” in light of the nation’s economic woes, and they describe the outcome as somewhat unexpected given the conservative-leaning Court’s recent decisions to uphold the Voting Rights Act (in NAMUDNO) and disparate-impact tests (in Ricci).
Today the Court is in recess and no non-capital orders are expected. The next session of the Court is February 19, when the Justices will meet for a private conference. As such, we expect this to be the final Today at the Court post until then.
Below, James Bickford of Harvard Law School recaps the Court’s opinion, handed down on Wednesday, in South Carolina v. North Carolina, an original jurisdiction case.
Below, Brian Goldman of Stanford Law School recaps the Court’s opinion in Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York, which was decided on Monday. Brian’s preview and recap of oral arguments in the case were published on the blog in early November, and are also available on the Hemi Group (08-969) SCOTUSwiki page.
SCOTUSblog is now accepting applications from current law students interested in interning with us in summer 2010. Details about the position’s qualifications and responsibilities and how to apply are below the jump.
NOTE: A one-hour oral argument is scheduled in the D.C. Circuit Court, before the en banc Court, starting at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday in a pair of consolidated cases filed by a Washington, D.C.-based group named SpeechNow.
Orders and opinions are expected this morning at 10 a.m. The Court is in recess afterward until February 19, when the next private conference will be held. Below the jump is the schedule of merits briefs due next week.
Below, Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, discusses last Thursday’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205).
Only three times in the Nation’s history have Supreme Court decisions so aroused opposition that they were directly overruled by amendments to the Constitution.
UPDATE, 10:48 a.m.: Below the jump, we have added the full texts of the two opinions released. To sum up our LiveBlog this morning, the Court has decided two cases: Hemi Group, LLC v. City of New York (08-969) is reversed and remanded and Briscoe v. Virginia (07-11191) is vacated and remanded.
Beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern, we will provide “live” coverage of the Court’s release of orders and opinions. In the “LiveBlog” below, we will relay all developments as quickly as possible from our reporter at the Court, Lyle Denniston.
(UPDATE: Further new material added at 1:32 p.m.) Over the vigorous dissents of two Justices, the Supreme Court refused on Monday to clarify whether individuals in custody by the U.S. government may rely on the protections of the Geneva Convention for prisoners of war — an issue left at least partly unresolved by the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush and earlier detainee cases.
Court-watchers are still analyzing and tracking reactions to last week’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Commentators paid particular attention to both Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion and to the concurring opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts.
Below, Shira Liu, a student at Stanford Law School, recaps last week’s oral argument in Mac’s Shell Service v. Shell Oil Products Co. and Shell Oil Products Co. v. Mac’s Shell Service. Shira’s earlier coverage of the case is available here.
The following is the first part of an interview with New York University law professor Barry Friedman about his book, The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution, published in 2009. Part II comes tomorrow.
By now, you have likely heard the news: The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the government may not keep corporations (and probably, as Lyle reasons in his post yesterday, labor unions) from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.
Today the Justices convene for a private conference. Our list of petitions to watch for that conference is here. If any orders are released, we will report them promptly. Orders are expected on Monday. No oral arguments will be heard today; the next arguments are scheduled for February 22.
The following is a recap of Wednesday’s oral argument in Berghuis v. Smith (08-1402) by Harvard law student James Bickford. His analysis and the argument transcript are now also available on the case’s SCOTUSwiki page.
Media attention has focused on Citizens United v. FEC, which Robert Barnes of the Washington Post suggests may be a demonstration of the Court’s “new willingness to act boldly.” For further coverage, see Lyle’s post on the personhood of corporations or yesterday’s Citizens United round-up.
Jack Boger, the dean of the University of North Carolina School of Law, writes the following letter in remembrance of UNC’s law professor emeritus Gene Gressman, who died yesterday.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue one or more decisions in argued cases on Monday, the Court announced Friday. The Court will then recess until its scheduled private Conference on February 19 and a public sitting beginning February 22.
Commentary Just one year ago, on January 22, President Obama issued a White House directive.
Below, Tiffany Cartwright, a student at Stanford Law School, analyzes the opinion in Wood v. Allen (08-9156), which was issued on Wednesday. Her piece now appears on the case’s SCOTUSwiki page, with a link to the opinion.
Starting at 10 a.m. this morning, the Court will hold a non-argument session to announce one or more opinions. We will begin “liveblogging” for the occasion at 9:50 a.m.
UPDATE: 10:18 a.m., the LiveBlog is closed. All future updates will appear in new posts. Beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern, we will provide “live” coverage of the Court’s release of one or more opinions.
Tracking the recent fast pace of the Court, SCOTUSwiki, our companion site, was substantially updated over the past week. To begin, we added a new feature on the Wiki to keep it closely connected with the blog: whenever we update a case page with writing originally published on the blog, we are including with it a link to its original blog post.
On Tuesday, members of the Court continued a long-running debate over the appropriate use of its authority to grant certiorari in a case and then vacate and remand for further proceedings without deciding whether the original decision was wrong (a so-called “GVR”).
Yesterday was a busy day at the Court—with three decisions and two arguments—but the action was upstaged when today’s unexpected sitting was announced.
The Citizens United opinion is here. The judgment of the D.C. Circuit is reversed, in an opinion of the Court written by Justice Kennedy. Justice Stevens filed a partial dissent, which was read from the bench, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance upheld these requirements: ** Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission
UPDATE, 1 p.m.: We just added the final links to this round-up. We will publish a fuller round-up later today in a separate post. This morning’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is breaking headlines.
Analysis After more than a year of study and writing, the Supreme Court on Thursday produced a ruling that may make the hundreds of millions spent in past presidential and congressional elections look like a pittance.
Below, Stanford law student Martine Cicconi recaps oral argument in Conkright v. Frommert (08-810); her analysis is now also available on the case’s SCOTUSwiki page. On Wednesday, the Court heard argument in Conkright v. Frommert.
Analysis President Obama ordered his aides on Thursday “to get to work immediately with Congress” to develop “a forceful response” to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.
Analysis Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens may have had his tongue in his cheek, or perhaps wanted merely to taunt the majority, when he wrote in Thursday’s opinion on the role of corporations in national politics: “Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that
Below, Stanford Law School student Timothy Tatarka recaps oral argument in Granite Rock Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (08-1214). His analysis is also now available on the Granite Rock page on SCOTUSwiki.
Reactions to today’s decision dominated the news cycle. The BBC reviews the decision, noting that it “ends a 20-year ban on businesses using money from their own funds to pay for campaign ads.” The Wall Street Journal reports that the decision allows unions and corporations to directly advertise in political campaigns, negating a section of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA).
One or more opinions are expected this morning at 10 a.m., when we will be “liveblogging” to get out the news as soon as possible. In addition, the Court will hear oral argument in the two cases below: 10 a.m. – In Berghuis v. Smith (08-1402), the Court will consider what test should be used to assess the fairness of community representation on a jury.