Showing 1–50 of 70 items published in February 2009, most recent first.
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Caperton, et al., v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., et al. (08-322) at 10 a.m. on Tuesday. Theodore B. Olson of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher in Washington will argue for Hugh Caperton and the Harman group of companies.
The Justices are scheduled to hold a private conference this morning, any grants from which could be announced this afternoon. We will provide coverage of any developments. To view our list of petitions to watch at Friday’s conference, click here.
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on March 6. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.
Stanford Law School student John Dalton previews one of the cases to be heard by the Court next week. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) provides that if an individual possesses a firearm during the commission of a “crime of violence or drug trafficking crime,” and “if the firearm is discharged” then
A federal grand jury in Peoria, Ill., has charged a Qatari national held in the U.S. with terrorism crimes, and the Justice Department said Friday it will ask the Supreme Court to dismiss the prisoner’s pending appeal, now set for a hearing April 27.
Erica Goldberg discusses Tuesday’s argument in Carlsbad Technology. The Court engaged in a lively discussion during the February 24 oral argument in Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., as they debated how to resolve the jurisdictional dilemma presented.
The Obama Administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon to end the case of an individual captured and held in the U.S. as a terrorism suspect, but did not tell the Court that it is abandoning the claim that it has power to do so.
Lawyers for 20 detainees at Guantanamo Bay who have been ordered released complained directly to President Obama on Thursday that the men are still being held without any reliable prospect of freedom, and that at least two of them continue to be mistreated.
At oral argument yesterday in Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the petitioner’s counsel was in the enviable position of spending most of his argument debating just how big his victory in the case should be.
The American Civil Liberties Union, citing news stories, reported Thursday that the Justice Department will shortly file terrorism charges and hold a trial in civilian court of a Qatari national, Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri — the only detainee taken prisoner in the U.S. and still being held in this country.
One question raised by Lyle’s post below – noting news reports that the Administration may shortly charge detainee Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri in a civilian court – is whether this move will in fact allow the Administration to avoid taking a position on the merits of al-Marri’s constitutional and other claims in the Supreme Court. [Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting al-Marri].
Without dissent, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that governments may accept permanent religious monuments in public parks without violating the rights of others who are denied a chance to have a different religious icon sharing park space.
Analysis Justice John Paul Stevens provided this assessment of the Supreme Court’s new review of the constitutionality of placing religious monuments on government property: “…the effect of today’s decision will be limited.” In fact, in the 15 weeks between the Court’s hearing on Nov. 12 in
Last week, Howe & Russell, in conjunction with the Stanford Law School Supreme Court Clinic and local counsel, filed a supplemental brief in AT&T v. Hulteen addressing the effect of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Kevin’s post on our brief is here.
The transcript for Hawaii, et al. v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, et al. (07-1372) is available here. The transcript for Flores-Figueroa v. United States (08-108) is available here.
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution allows a state government to ban payroll deductions for labor union political activities, when the ban applies to the paychecks of local government workers.
The landmark case Marbury v. Madison–establishing the principle of judicial review–was decided two hundred six years ago today. Cliff Sloan, a partner at Skadden, Arps and the former publisher of Slate.com, has authored a new book on Marbury, The Great Decision: Jefferson, Adams, Marshall, and the Battle for the Supreme Court with David McKean.
Erica Goldberg previews the second case to be heard this morning. On February 24, 2009, in No. 07-1437, Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., the Supreme Court will hear argument to resolve a jurisdictional puzzle of its own creation.
The transcript for Burlington N. & S.F.R. Co. v. United States is available here. The transcript for Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc. is available here.
Erica Goldberg discusses one of the cases in which the Court granted cert. yesterday. The Fourteenth Amendment squarely prohibits the taking of property without “due process,” but defining the requirements of this nebulous concept has consistently plagued the courts.
On Monday, the Court will release the remaining orders from the Justices’ private conference last Friday. (The hearing list for the next two weeks can be found here.)
Today’s orders list is now available here. The Court granted certiorari in six cases: Alvarez v. Smith (08-351) (limited to question 1), Salazar, Sec of Int. v. Buono (08-472), Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (08-604), Padilla v. Kentucky (08-651), Smith v. Spisak (08-724), and Johnson v. US (08-6925) (limited to questions 1 and 2).
The Supreme Court, returning from a winter recess, agreed on Monday to hear a new government appeal testing Congress’ power to allow a religious display to remain on public property simply by transferring ownership to a private group or individual.
The Supreme Court on Monday released the oral argument calendar for the final series of hearings this Term, in the session beginning Monday, April 20.
In the first case of a Guantanamo Bay detainee allowed by the Obama Administration to leave confinement, following new review procedures, U.S. officials on Monday transferred an Ethiopian, Binyam Mohammed, to Britain. The Justice Department news release is here.
Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting from the Supreme Court’s refusal on Monday to review a Chicago public corruption case, complained that the federal law governing such cases is so loosely worded that it could even be used against “a salaried employee’s phoning in sick to go to a ball game.” He
Analysis By the time Justice Anthony M. Kennedy asked a government lawyer which of several ways he would prefer the Supreme Court would use to hand him victory, it was plain that Michael Rivera’s chances had all but vanished.
Analysis The Supreme Court has given itself two choices to resolve a decade-old controversy over a Christian cross that stands on an isolated acre in the desert, amid the vast 1.6 million acres of the Mojave National Preserve in San Bernardino County in southeastern California.
The transcript for United States. v. Navajo Nation is available here. The transcript for Rivera. v. Illinois is available here.
On Monday at 11 a.m., the Supreme Court will hear Rivera v. Illinois (07-9995). Arguing for Michael Rivera will be James K. Leven of Chicago. Arguing for Illinois will be the state’s Solicitor General, Michael A. Scodro, dividing time with an assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General, Matthew D. Roberts.
Stanford student Patrick Nemeroff previews the first case to be argued on Wednesday, February 25th. In State of Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, No. 07-1372, the Court will review a decision of the Hawaii Supreme Court which prohibits the State from selling virtually any state-owned land until it reaches a political settlement with Native Hawaiians.
A Symposium by the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty Date: Friday, March 2, 2009 Time: 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Location: New York University School of Law, Vanderbilt Hall. Free and open to the public More information on the panelists may be found here.
The Supreme Court issued a series of miscellaneous orders Friday, dealing with oral argument or briefing arrangements. The list is here. Further orders are expected next Monday. The Court will resume oral arguments at 10 a.m. Monday. The hearing list for the next two weeks can be found here.
The Obama Administration, in a full embrace of a controversial Bush Administration policy, told a federal judge on Friday afternoon that some 600 detainees being held by the U.S. military at Bargram airbase in Afghanistan have no right to go to U.S. courts to challenge their confinement.
No oral arguments are scheduled and no non-capital orders are expected to be issued from the Court. The Justices will hold a private conference tomorrow, orders from which could be released that afternoon. To view our list of petition’s to watch at Friday’s conference, click here.
UPDATE Friday a.m. The case has now been docketed as 08-1059. ————————– Former Rep. William J. Jefferson, facing trial this year in a high-profile corruption case, urged the Supreme Court on Wednesday to block any charges that were keyed in any way to evidence about his work as a lawmaker.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg refused on Thursday to put on hold a federal appeals court ruling that permits arbitration of an ocean shipping dispute to go forward as a class proceeding.
Stanford student Daniel Matro previews Flores-Figueroa v. US (08-108). Please note that Howe & Russell represents the petitioner.
Setting up a new detention policy challenge for the Obama Administration, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled on Wednesday that a federal judge had no authority to order the release into the U.S. of 17 Chinese Muslim Uighurs being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
This edition of “Petitions to Watch” features cases up for consideration at the Justices’ private conference on February 27. As always, the list contains the petitions on the Court’s paid docket that Tom has deemed to have a reasonable chance of being granted.
Today we are filing our reply brief in Flores-Figueora v. United States, No. 08-108, in conjunction with the Stanford Supreme Court Litigation clinic and local counsel, Gary Koos of Koos & Meloy in Bettendorf, Iowa.
New SCOTUSblog contributor Erica Goldberg previews one of the cases to be heard by the Justices on Monday, March 2nd. Erica is a graduate of Stanford Law School.
A group of electric utility companies and industry trade groups has urged the Supreme Court to go ahead and review a major mercury air pollution case even though the federal government no longer favors that review.
A Symposium by the UC Davis Law Review: The Honorable John Paul Stevens Date: Friday, March 6, 2009 Time: 9 a.m.-3:30 p.m. Location: UC Davis School of Law, Martin Luther King, Jr. Hall.
SCOTUSblog readers may find these Four Proposals for a Judiciary Act of 2009 interesting, which relate to Supreme Court reform. In them, a variety of law professors and attorneys recommend that Congress and the Department of Justice “soon reconsider the law applicable to the Supreme Court,” in conjunction with the issues raised by the Chief Justice in his 2008 annual report to Congress.
On Friday we filed this reply brief in No. 08-514, Mitchell v. Rees, which will be on the Court’s February 27, 2009 conference. The case presents the question whether a federal court may grant relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) in a case involving, among other things, legal error.
UPDATE: The Second Amendment Foundation has provided a page containing links to key documents in the Illinois cases, at this site. ——————– On a pace that very likely will put them in the Supreme Court at its next Term, three significant test cases on the scope of the Second Amendment — the “gun rights” Amendment — are moving along in the lower courts.
Laura Krugman Ray (Widener University) has recently published an article in the Connecticut Law Review entitled “Clerk and Justice: The Ties that Bind John Paul Stevens and Wiley B. Rutledge,” see here.
In the first federal court ruling rejecting a position of the Obama Administration on detention of terrorism suspects, a federal judge in Washington on Wednesday turned aside an Administration plea to go forward with detainees’ challenges without first defining who may be held as an “enemy
The Court’s public information office has just released the following information regarding Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: The pancreatic cancer for which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery on February 5 has been determined as TNM Stage 1 by doctors at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.