Showing 1–50 of 110 items published in February 2010, most recent first.
Last week I interviewed David Stras, a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School who clerked for Justice Thomas during October Term 2002. Professor Stras discusses the Justice’s relationship with his clerks, his jurisprudence, and his views about the Court’s decisions on race, both before and after he joined the Court.
The following essay by Gerald Torres, Bryant Smith chair of law at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, is one of the final posts for our Race and the Supreme Court program.
The following essay was written for our Race and the Supreme Court program by John C. Brittain, a professor at the University of D.C. David A. Clarke School of Law.
Below, Ray Seilie of Harvard Law School previews Berghuis v. Thompkins, one of three cases scheduled for oral argument on Monday, March 1. Check the Berghuis v. Thompkins (08-1470) SCOTUSwiki page for additional updates.
The Justices hold their private conference today to consider petitions for certiorari and motions in pending cases. Our list of Petitions to Watch for that conference is here. No non-capital orders are expected; should any be issued, we will promptly report on them.
Following up on this week’s opinions, two of which concerned the Miranda rights of suspects in police custody, Tony Mauro notes at Law.com that in both Maryland v. Shatzer and Florida v. Powell the Court established more permissive rules for the admission of confessions made under circumstances viewed by lower courts as Miranda violations.
Below, Harvard Law School’s Kate Wevers previews Holland v. Florida, one of two cases to be heard by the Supreme Court on Monday, March 1. Check the Holland v. Florida (09-5327) SCOTUSwiki page for additional updates.
Below, Harvard Law School’s Jesenka Mrdjenovic recaps Wednesday’s oral argument in United States v. Marcus. Jesenka’s earlier preview of the case is available here. Check the United States v. Marcus (08-1341) SCOTUSwiki page for additional updates.
The following essay for our Race and the Supreme Court program is by Debo P. Adegbile, the Director of Litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Last term in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Holder, he argued in defense of the federal preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court.
At 1 p.m. on Monday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument in Skilling v. U.S. (08-1394). Arguing for former Enron executive Jeffrey K. Skilling will be Sri Srinivasan of O’Melveny & Myers in Washington.
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference this Friday, February 26. As always, it lists the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.
At 10 a.m. Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, et al. (08-1521). Alan Gura of Gura & Possessky in Alexandria, Va., will argue for four Chicago-area residents and two gun rights groups, followed by Paul D. Clement of King & Spaulding in Washington with 10 minutes for the National Rifle Association.
No oral arguments are scheduled, and no non-capital orders are expected. We will promptly report on orders should any be released.
During Monday’s oral argument in Astrue v. Ratliff, the Court focused on the narrow question before the Court: should an attorney’s fee be awarded to a prevailing claimant or instead to the claimant’s attorney.
The following commentary is cross-posted on The Volokh Conspiracy. Have you heard of the “14-Day Clause” of the Constitution? If not, you should take a look at the Supreme Court’s opinion yesterday in Maryland v. Shatzer.
The Court’s decision yesterday in Maryland v. Shatzer – holding that a suspect’s request for counsel is only valid for fourteen days if the suspect is released from custody during that time – dominates today’s news coverage of the Court.
Below, Harvard Law School’s Leif Overvold recaps Tuesday’s oral argument in United States v. O’Brien and Burgess. Leif’s earlier preview of the case is available here. For more information, check the O’Brien and Burgess (08-1569) SCOTUSwiki page.
One or more opinions may be released at 10 a.m.; we will be live-blogging should any be handed down. Then the Court will hear oral argument in the following cases: ~10 a.m. – The Court will consider how the Ex Post Facto Clause applies to a sex offender registration law in Carr v. United States (08-1301).
Below, Kate Neilson of Harvard Law School previews Carr v. United States (08-1301), one of two cases to be heard by the Supreme Court on Wednesday, February 24. Check the Carr v. United States SCOTUSwiki page for additional updates.
Beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern, we will provide “live” coverage of the Court’s release of one or more opinions. In the “LiveBlog” below, we will relay all developments as quickly as possible from our reporter at the Court, Lyle Denniston.
Below, Jonathan Eisenman, an associate at Akin Gump, recaps Monday’s oral argument in Lewis v. City of Chicago. Additional information on the case is available on the Lewis v. City of Chicago (08-974) SCOTUSwiki page. [Note: Although Howe & Russell represents one of the amici for the petitioners, neither Jonathan nor Akin Gump was involved in the case.]
The Court released a single, unanimous decision this morning in Maryland v. Shatzer (08-680), reversing and remanding the lower court. The majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, is available here.
Yesterday the Court released opinions in Florida v. Powell and Hertz Corp. v Friend, and it heard oral argument in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project and United States v. O’Brien.
Below, Stanford Law School’s Sam Bateman recaps the opinion handed down yesterday in Florida v. Powell. Sam wrote a preview and recap of the oral argument in the case in December. Additional information is available at the Florida v. Powell (08-1175) SCOTUSwiki page.
The following is the latest edition to our Race and the Supreme Court program, an essay by Kareem Crayton, a professor of law and political science at the University of Southern California Law School.
The following essay for our Race and the Supreme Court program was written by Robert J. Cottrol, the Harold Paul Green Research Professor of Law and Professor of History and Sociology at the George Washington University.
A case that the Supreme Court planned to hear next week has been dismissed, after the dispute was settled. The case is Health Care Service Corp. v. Pollitt, et al. (09-38). It had been scheduled for argument next Wednesday at 11 a.m.
Transcripts of oral arguments are here for Carr v. United States (08-1301) and here for United States v. Marcus (08-1341).
Below, Diana Gillis recaps today’s opinion in Maryland v. Shatzer. Diana is a law student at Georgetown and a former summer associate at Akin Gump. Check the Maryland v. Shatzer (08-680) SCOTUSwiki page for more information on the case.
Here, Sina Kian of Stanford Law School recaps yesterday’s opinion in Hertz Corp. v. Friend. Sina previewed and recapped the oral arguments in the case for SCOTUSblog in November. Additional materials are available on the Hertz Corp. v. Friend (08-1107) SCOTUSwiki page.
As we turn the corner to the second half of the Supreme Court’s Term, the inevitable conjecture begins about retirements. But this year seems extra-special: over the past few weeks, media reports and blog posts have raised the supposedly serious prospect of not one but two Justices leaving.
The following essay was written for our Race and the Supreme Court event by Dawinder S. Sidhu, a founding director of the Discrimination and National Security Initiative at Harvard University.
The Court is expected to release one or more opinions at 10 a.m., which we will blog live.
Continuing our series of five-minute podcasts on oral argument days, we have two new podcasts below with the counsel from both sides of today’s first case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (08-1498; 09-89).
Beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern, we will provide “live” coverage of the Court’s release of one or more opinions. In the “LiveBlog” below, we will relay all developments as quickly as possible from our reporter at the Court, Lyle Denniston.
Robert Barnes at the Washington Post looks ahead at the Court’s docket for the second half of its Term. He notes that the Court may release several more controversial opinions in cases such as United States v. Stevens, Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, and Skilling v. United States.
UPDATE, 2 p.m.: Below we’ve added holdings in the cases decided. The Court issued two opinions today: In Hertz Corporation v. Friend (08-1107), the Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s decision unanimously, in an opinion by Justice Breyer.
Analysis With a federal government lawyer pushing for a sweeping interpretation of the government’s most-used anti-terrorism law, the Supreme Court on Tuesday at times seemed tempted to conclude that, perhaps, the law may go too far.
The transcripts of oral argument in Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder (08-1498; 09-89) and United States v. O’Brien and Burgess (08-1569) are here and here, respectively.
The following essay, part of our Race and the Supreme Court program, is by Gail Heriot, a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights and a professor of law at the University of San Diego.
Last week I interviewed Jack Greenberg, one of the team of lawyers who argued the famous Brown v. Board of Education case, former Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and now a law professor at Columbia.
Below, Harvard Law School’s Jesenka Mrdjenovic previews United States v. Marcus (08-1341), one of two cases to be argued on Wednesday, February 24. Check the Marcus page on SCOTUSwiki for additional updates.
The Court returns from its recess today and is expected to release orders at 10 a.m. The Justices meet for a private conference on Friday.
Today at 10 a.m. the Court is expected to release orders from its conference on Friday. Our list of petitions to watch for that conference is here.
Below, Josh Friedman, an associate at Akin Gump, previews Lewis v. City of Chicago, which will be argued this morning at 11 a.m. Josh’s preview is also available on the Lewis v. City of Chicago (08-974) SCOTUSwiki page, where additional updates for the case will appear. [Note: Although Howe & Russell represents one of the amici for the petitioners, neither Josh nor Akin Gump was involved in the case.]
The Court will hear argument in two cases this morning: Astrue v. Ratliff and Lewis v. City of Chicago. Matt Sundquist previewed Astrue, a case about fee awards under the Equal Access to Justice Act, for SCOTUSblog last week.
The Court has granted cert. in two cases, Los Angeles County v. Humphries (09-350) and Harrington v. Richter (09-587). In the former case, the Court has limited the questions presented to the first one (see below).
Resuming its increased use of deciding cases without full briefing or argument, the Supreme Court ruled summarily on Monday that a trial judge need not personally observe a potential juror’s behavior in deciding later whether that juror was denied a seat on the panel because of race, despite the prosecutor’s claim that she was excluded because of her demeanor under questioning.
Below, Pamela Karlan, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law at Stanford Law School and founding director of the school’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, writes on Brown v. Board of Education for SCOTUSblog’s program on Race and the Supreme Court.
Transcripts for oral argument in Astrue v. Ratliff (08-1322) and Lewis v. Chicago (08-974) are here and here, respectively.