Today at the Court
For the second day this week, the Court will release one or more opinions this morning starting at 10. We will launch our LiveBlog around 9:50 a.m.
March 2010 Archive
Showing 1–50 of 139 items published in March 2010, most recent first.
Can a private party bring an action for criminal contempt in an Article I court?
This morning, the Court will hear argument in a case addressing the prosecution of criminal contempt proceedings in congressionally created courts. Even the case caption is in question: the petitioner styles the matter Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson (08-6261).
Is recidivist possession always a felony for immigration purposes?
This morning, the Court will hear oral arguments in No. 09-60, Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder. Check the Carachuri-Rosendo SCOTUSwiki page for additional updates.
LiveBlog: Opinions | 3.31.10
Beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern, we will again 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.
Analysis: Sorting out an Erie sequel
Analysis It took the Supreme Court almost five months to sort out a modern sequel to the famous “Erie” decision, and it is no wonder. In the end, Justice Antonin Scalia mustered just enough votes to control the outcome, but an opinion that speaks only for Justice John Paul Stevens’ views turns out to be the one that will shape the real meaning of the new precedent as it is applied in future cases.
Wednesday round-up
By the end of an active day at the Court yesterday—with decisions released in three cases and oral arguments in two—the Court’s decision in Jones v. Harris Associates had garnered the most headlines.
Today’s transcripts
The transcript of oral argument in Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder can be read here. The transcript for today’s other argument, in Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson, is here.
Notable Petitions
Two noteworthy petitions filed last month are Wong v. Smith, which challenges jury instructions as “coercive,” and Novell v. SCO Group, which concerns the terms of transfer of copyright ownership.
Does United States v. Booker apply to resentencing proceedings under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(2)?
Here, Troy D. Cahill of Akin Gump previews Dillon v. United States, in which the Court will hear oral arguments tomorrow morning. Check the Dillon v. United States (09-6338) SCOTUSwiki page for additional updates.
Today at the Court
The Court will release one or more opinions today starting at 10 a.m., and we will be “live” blogging them. Afterward, the Court will hear oral argument in two cases: ~10 a.m. — In Dillon v. United States (09-6338), the Court will consider the authority of federal judges, in setting a new prison sentence, to go below the range prescribed by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.
Tuesday round-up
Tony Mauro of the BLT and Ashby Jones of the WSJ Law Blog both previewed Monday’s oral argument in Morrison v. National Australia Bank.
LiveBlog: Opinions | 3.30.10
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.
Analysis: Whistle-blower defeat short-lived?
Analysis UPDATE 1:57 p.m. The letters to the Court regarding the new law are now linked in this post. The Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday, blocking potentially thousands of federal lawsuits by whistle-blowers seeking to recover U.S. government funds that were misspent, apparently will not be in force for very long.
Today’s transcripts
Transcripts of oral argument are here for Dillon v. United States (09-6338) and here for Barber v. Thomas (09-5201).
The week ahead
The Court will issue orders this morning at ten o’clock. Opinions are expected on both Tuesday and Wednesday, and we will “live” blog their release on both days.
Today at the Court
This morning the Court is expected to release orders starting at 10. Afterward, it will hear oral argument in the following cases: ~10 a.m. — The Court will consider in Renico v. Lett (09-338) whether a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy is violated by the decision of a trial judge to declare a mistrial after the foreperson said the jury was not going to be able to reach a verdict.
This week on the Wiki
Following the Court’s return from a recess, we have updated our sister site, SCOTUSwiki, to include materials relating to the cases which were argued or decided, or in which briefs were filed, in the past several days.
Monday Round-Up
On Friday, lower courts in Washington, DC handed down three significant rulings elaborating on the holdings of Citizens United and Heller. As Lyle Denniston reported for this blog, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the en banc DC Circuit extended the reasoning of Citizens United from campaign spending to campaign donations, holding unconstitutional a $5000 limit on donations to independent political groups (the “527s”).
Today’s orders
The Court issued no cert. grants. Nor are there any invitations to the Solicitor General to file briefs. The full orders list is here. One denial is worthy of note: Frequent Flyer Depot v. American Airlines (09-815), a request for the Court to decide whether airlines can sue in state courts to stop ticket brokers from buying and selling tickets using credits from frequent-flyer miles.
Analysis: Curb on securities suits?
In a hearing that seemed tailored for its international audience — four members of the Canadian Supreme Court sat, raptly attentive, in the front spectators’ row, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday explored ways to sharply limit or perhaps even forbid private securities fraud lawsuits in U.S.courts that might intrude on foreign governments’ powers to police their own stock markets.
Today’s transcripts
Transcripts of oral arguments in Renico v. Lett (09-338) and Morrison v. National Australia Bank (08-1191) are here and here, respectively.
When are a mistrial and retrial double jeopardy?
Although the Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from double jeopardy, that protection does not apply when, for a conviction requiring a unanimous verdict, the jurors cannot agree.
This week in plain English
So let’s catch up on this week’s happenings over at the Court. Argument weeks are always busy, but this one was a bit less so, with only one opinion and five oral arguments instead of the more typical six.
Calculation of “good time” sentencing credits
Below, Carl Cecere of Akin Gump previews Barber v. Thomas (09-5201). Check the Barber v. Thomas SCOTUSwiki page for more information about the case. On Tuesday, March 30, 2010, the Court will hear argument in Barber v. Thomas, a habeas challenge to the method used by the Bureau of Prisons to calculate “good time” sentence reductions for federal inmates.
What constitutes a “second or successive” petition in habeas challenges to death sentences?
Here, Harvard Law School’s Jay Rapaport recaps Wednesday’s oral argument in Magwood v. Patterson. Jay’s earlier preview of the proceedings is here. Check the Magwood v. Patterson (09-198) SCOTUSwiki page for additional updates. [DISCLAIMER: Howe & Russell and Akin Gump represented the petitioner, but Jay was not involved in the case.]
Today at the Court
The justices convene today for their private conference, at which they will (among other things) consider cert. petitions and motions in pending cases. Orders are expected from that conference on Monday. Our list of Petitions to Watch is here.
Friday round-up
In her New York Times Opinionator column, Linda Greenhouse dismisses speculation that healthcare legislation would not withstand constitutional scrutiny at the Supreme Court.
Widening impact of Citizens United
UPDATE: In another major campaign finance decision, a three-judge U.S. District Court in Washington on Friday rejected a constitutional challenge by the Republican Party to some federal limits on donations to political parties. That ruling is explored in a separate post (see above).
“Soft money” donation ban upheld
NOTE: This post discusses the second of two major rulings Friday in lower courts in Washington on campaign finance law, in the wake of the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. FEC.
New D.C. gun laws upheld
A federal judge in Washington, applying the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision creating a constitutional right to have a gun, ruled on Friday that three new gun control restrictions in the Nation’s capital city survive a Second Amendment challenge.
Discussion of vacancy requirements attracts Court’s interest
Below, Dina Guzovsky, a Harvard Law School student, recaps oral argument in New Process Steel v. NLRB (08-1457). For more information on the case, see the New Process Steel SCOTUSwiki page.
Decisions next week
The Supreme Court expects to release opinions in pending cases on both Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, it announced this afternoon. Orders in new cases will be released on Monday, prior to oral arguments.
Securities law’s overseas reach
At about 11 a.m. on Monday, the Supreme Court will hear one hour of oral argument in Morrison, et al., v. National Australia Bank, Ltd., et al. (08-1191). Arguing for the overseas investors will be Thomas A. Dubbs of the New York City firm of Labaton Sucharow.
Today at the Court
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders are expected; should any be issued, we will report on them promptly.
Thursday round-up
At the eleventh hour last night, the full Court stayed a Texas execution, giving the justices more time to consider the condemned man’s cert. petition, in which he seeks to pursue a civil rights claim that he is entitled to DNA testing to prove his innocence.
Court skeptical of strict mechanical test
Below, Professor Jonathan Hayes, who authors the BankruptcyProf Blog, recaps Monday’s oral argument in Hamilton v. Lanning (08-998). Check the Hamilton v. Lanning page on SCOTUSwiki for additional information about the case. [Disclosure: Akin Gump and Howe & Russell represent the respondent Stephanie Lanning, but Professor Hayes was not involved in the case.]
Petitions to Watch | Conference of 3.26.10
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ next private conference on this Friday, March 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.
Today at the Court
No opinions or non-capital orders are expected.
Podcasts: Magwood v. Patterson
Continuing our series of five-minute podcasts on oral argument days, we have two new podcasts below with the counsel from both sides of the second case to be argued this morning, Magwood v. Patterson (09-158).
Wednesday round-up
The Court issued one decision yesterday, in United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa, allowing an improperly approved bankruptcy plan for a student loan to stand because the lender waited too long to question it in court.
Federal adjudication of state tax litigation
Below, Josh Branson of Harvard Law School recaps Monday’s oral argument in Levin, Tax Commissioner of Ohio v. Commerce Energy, Inc. (09-223). Josh’s earlier preview of the proceedings is available here. Check the Levin v. Commerce Energy SCOTUSwiki page for additional updates.
Today’s transcripts
The transcript of oral argument in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha v. Regal-Beloit Corporation (08-1553; 08-1554) is here, and the transcript of Magwood v. Patterson (09-158) is here.
Lack of undue hardship determination no ground for relief for student loan creditors
Below, Stanford Law School’s Bryan Henderson recaps yesterday’s opinion in United Student Aid Funds v. Espinosa (08-1134). Check the United Student Aid Funds SCOTUSwiki page for additional information.
Execution delayed in DNA case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday evening delayed the execution in Texas of Henry W. Skinner, at least until the Court acts on his new case seeking to pursue a civil rights claim that he was denied a chance to have DNA evidence tested in an attempt to prove his innocence of a triple murder more than 16 years ago.
Ask the Author with Jeff Shesol, Part II
Jeff Shesol recently granted me an interview on his new book, Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court. The book explores the origin and execution of President Roosevelt’s ultimately unsuccessful plan to add more than nine Justices to the Supreme Court in order to secure a majority in favor of his New Deal legislation, focusing on the perspective of the Justices and of Roosevelt himself.
Today at the Court
At 10 a.m., the Court is expected to release opinions, and we will be “live” blogging for the occasion. The Court will then hear oral argument in New Process Steel v. National Labor Relations Board (08-1457).
Tuesday round-up
Commentators continue to speculate on the role of the Court in potential challenges to Congress’ passage of health care reform late Sunday. At the ACS blog, Simon Lazarus writes in an issue brief that mandating the purchase of health insurance is “lawful and clearly so” under the Commerce Clause and/or the General Welfare Clause.
LiveBlog: Opinions | 3.23.10
CORRECTION: The LiveBlog originally listed the next day for the release of opinions as Monday, March 29, when in fact the next day is Tuesday, March 30. Beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern, we will provide “live” coverage of the Court’s release of one or more opinions.
Today’s transcript
The oral argument in New Process Steel v. National Labor Relations Board (08-1457) is transcribed here.
The week ahead
Orders are expected this morning at 10. Opinions are expected tomorrow but not on Wednesday. The Court will also hear oral argument this week in the following cases: Monday, March 22: Hamilton, Chapter 13 Trustee v. Lanning (08-998) — the formula for how much a debtor has available to pay creditors who hold no security [Disclosure: Akin Gump and Howe & Russell represent the respondent.]