Friday round-up

Friday round-upBriefly: At Bloomberg BNA, Jordan Rubin reports that “[a] group of foreign lawyers wants the U.S. Supreme Court to look to the English roots of the Sixth Amendment and the duties of counsel in other countries today when it considers the case of an American death row inmate” in McCoy v. Louisiana, a capital case […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Briefly:

  • At Bloomberg BNA, Jordan Rubin reports that “[a] group of foreign lawyers wants the U.S. Supreme Court to look to the English roots of the Sixth Amendment and the duties of counsel in other countries today when it considers the case of an American death row inmate” in McCoy v. Louisiana, a capital case scheduled for oral argument in January.
  • In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates “break down the latest orders from SCOTUS (including a wife-swapping case and political gerrymandering in Maryland).”
  • In an op-ed for Forbes, Richard Samp looks at the aftermath of last term’s decision in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, in which the court ruled that New York’s credit-card surcharge ban regulates speech and remanded the case to the court of appeals to determine whether the ban violates the First Amendment; he argues that the appeals court’s decision to delay a ruling on the merits by certifying a question to the New York Court of Appeals “betrays a thinly disguised hostility to the First Amendment claims at issue.”
  • At the Pacific Legal Foundation blog, Ethan Blevins urges the justices to “grant Brott v. United States, a case about whether property owners are entitled to a jury when the federal government takes their land,”arguing that “[a] jury is key when it comes to compensation questions because the government has an obvious conflict of interest in appraising ‘fair’ market value.”
  • For NBC News, Alexandra Campbell Howe reports on efforts by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sits on the board of iCivics, an educational nonprofit founded by retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, to “mak[e] a game available in Spanish that teaches U.S. civics in a more approachable and engaging way.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upAt The Federalist, Margot Cleveland notes that although the justices denied cert this week in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, which asks whether federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, “[t]he Supreme Court … will need to eventually resolve the circuit split and it’s likely to have that opportunity soon.” Lisa Keen discusses the […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

At The Federalist, Margot Cleveland notes that although the justices denied cert this week in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital, which asks whether federal law prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, “[t]he Supreme Court … will need to eventually resolve the circuit split and it’s likely to have that opportunity soon.” Lisa Keen discusses the cert denial in Evans at Keen News Service.

In two posts at the Election Law Blog, Nicholas Stephanopolous comments on the term’s two partisan gerrymandering cases, Gill v. Whitford, a Democratic challenge to Wisconsin’s statewide electoral maps, and Benisek v. Lamone, a challenge by Republican voters to a single congressional district in Maryland. Stephanopolous maintains here that “had the plaintiffs [in Benisek] attacked Maryland’s entire congressional map, they (likely) would have been entitled to prevail under the test adopted by the Whitford trial court.” Here, he elaborates on the convergences and divergences between the plaintiffs’ approaches in the two cases.
Briefly:

  • At Powerline, Jim Hinderaker urges the court to“begin the process of reining in the out of control federal bureaucracy” by reviewing and reversing a lower-court decision that “upheld Fish and Wildlife’s designation of uninhabitable, privately-owned land as ‘critical habitat’ for the dusky gopher frog.”
  • At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley explains why “Doug Jones’ victory in Tuesday’s special Senate election in Alabama may change Justice Anthony Kennedy’s calculus as he mulls retirement.”
  • The editorial board of The Washington Post weighs in on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court will decide whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding, arguing that “politeness and tolerance are social values, not legal principles,” and “[t]hey are not reasons to overturn anti-discrimination law.”

 We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upBriefly: At Sports Handle, Ryan Rodenberg recounts his experience attending oral argument last week in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional challenge to the federal ban on sports betting. The National Law Journal’s (subscription or registration required) continuing coverage and analysis of its research on Supreme Court clerks includes Karen Sloan’s profile of […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

Briefly:

  • At Sports Handle, Ryan Rodenberg recounts his experience attending oral argument last week in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional challenge to the federal ban on sports betting.
  • The National Law Journal’s (subscription or registration required) continuing coverage and analysis of its research on Supreme Court clerks includes Karen Sloan’s profile of “four unlikely SCOTUS clerks” here and Tony Mauro’s report on Jones Day’s success in recruiting departing clerks here.
  • To mark yesterday’s anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore, Subscript offers a graphic explainer for the case, highlighting parallels between Bush v. Gore and Gill v. Whitford, a pending partisan-gerrymandering case in which “[t]he biggest issue … is whether the Court will rule the case nonjusticiable.”
  • At Law360 (subscription required), Vidya Kauri analyzes the oral argument in Marinello v. United States, in which the justices will consider the limits of tax-law obstruction charges, noting that several justices “appeared to take the position that the government’s interpretation of the so-called omnibus clause in Section 7212(a) of the Internal Revenue Code may be too far-reaching.”
  • At Justia’s Verdict blog, Michael Dorf weighs in on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court will decide whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding, arguing that “[t]rading off liberty for equality … can be difficult in some cases, [b]ut Masterpiece Cakeshop is not one of those cases.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upYesterday the court issued additional orders from its December 8 conference; the justices did not add any cases to their docket, and they declined to review a case asking whether federal law prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Yesterday the court issued additional orders from its December 8 conference; the justices did not add any cases to their docket, and they declined to review a case asking whether federal law prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Additional coverage of the cert denial in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hospital comes from Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Andrew Chung at Reuters, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Richard Wolf for USA Today, Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, and Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, who reports that “the case at hand … had procedural problems that some argued made it a troublesome test case for the issue.” Commentary comes from Ross Runkel at his eponymous blog.

Benisek v. Lamone, a partisan-gerrymandering challenge by Republican voters to a congressional district in Maryland that the justices added to their docket last Friday, is drawing comment. At the Election Law Blog, Rick Pildes observes that “[d]eciding to hear the Maryland case is a significant signal that a majority of the Court is not going to hold partisan gerrymandering claims to be non-justiciable (that is, inappropriate for judicial resolution)” in the first partisan-gerrymandering case this term, Gill v. Whitford, a challenge by Democratic voters to Wisconsin’s electoral maps. In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Richard Hasen suggests that “[d]eciding Gill and Benisek together would allow the court, in announcing a new partisan-gerrymandering rule, to say that sometimes the rule favors one party and sometimes it favors the other.” Steven Mazie at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog agrees that “[b]eing perceived by the public as an honest broker unwedded to party or ideology is an increasingly elusive but fervent wish of many of the justices—particularly the chief.”

At Law.com, Tony Mauro reports on research showing that Supreme Court law clerks belong to “an elite club still dominated by white men,” and that although “some variables are outside the court’s control, few justices seem to be going out of their way to help boost diversity.” Additional reporting on the research comes from Tony Mauro and Vanessa Blum at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required). Also at The National Law Journal, Mauro breaks down the findings on gender imbalance among Supreme Court clerks here and racial diversity here, and identifies the most prolific “feeder” judges here and law schools here, while Karen Sloan reports that Justice Clarence Thomas “casts the widest net” in venturing beyond elite law schools when hiring his law clerks.

For The Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports that a 1990 opinion by the late Justice Antonin Scalia “looms uncomfortably over the court these days as conservative Christians seek a religious exemption from anti-discrimination laws adopted in liberal states” in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court will decide whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding. At The World and Everything In It, Mary Reichard reviews the legal arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Briefly:

  • In an op-ed at the Huffington Post, Tim Lynch looks at a cert petition in a criminal case “that raises fundamental constitutional questions concerning federal power and police accountability for civilian deaths.”
  • At Horvitz & Levy’s At the Lectern blog, David Ettinger notes that the solicitor general has recommended that the court deny review of a California Supreme Court decision holding that “California’s temporary ban on a particular method of gold mining pending adoption of suitable regulations is not preempted by federal law.”
  • At Law360 (subscription required), Daniel Walfish explains why “[t]he Trump administration’s new position on the constitutionality of the S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s administrative law judges is more far-reaching and potentially consequential than is generally understood.”
  • US Law Week Blog’s Court Reporter salutes the achievement of second-time Supreme Court litigant Fane Lozman, noting that “[f]or private citizens, winning cert. even once is about as difficult as cutting down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring.”

 

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

 

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upThe Supreme Court added seven cases to its docket on Friday, including the second partisan-gerrymandering case of the term, Benisek v. Lamone, a challenge by Republican voters to a congressional district in Maryland. Amy Howe covers the grants for this blog; her coverage was first published at Howe on the Court. Additional coverage comes from […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

The Supreme Court added seven cases to its docket on Friday, including the second partisan-gerrymandering case of the term, Benisek v. Lamone, a challenge by Republican voters to a congressional district in Maryland. Amy Howe covers the grants for this blog; her coverage was first published at Howe on the Court. Additional coverage comes from Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, and Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, who reports that “[b]y taking the Maryland case, the court underscored that partisan gerrymandering isn’t the province of one party alone, but a tool that can be employed by either Republicans or Democrats to extend power when they hold the political advantage.” Commentary on the grant in Benisek comes from Rick Hasen at the Election Law Blog and Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, who notes “several differences” between Benisek and the court’s other pending partisan-gerrymandering case, Gill v. Whitford.

On Friday the justices, ruling 5-4 on ideological lines, put on hold a set of lower-court orders requiring the government to review and potentially disclose numerous documents related to the decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Additional coverage comes from Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall for The Wall Street Journal, Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller, Bradford Betz for Fox News, Josh Gerstein at Politico, and Richard Wolf for USA Today, who reports that “[i]t was the second time in four days that the court has sided with the administration against immigration advocates.”

Commentary continues on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court will decide whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding. At The Federalist, Margot Cleveland suggests that, “[i]f Tuesday’s oral argument is any indication, the year-long anticipation for the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court showdown will result in a narrow opinion that provides little clarity in the continuing conflict between culture and religious liberty.” At Claremont Review of Books, Hadley Arkes maintains that if Justice Anthony Kennedy “is truly willing to carve out a space for the people who bear reservations about same-sex marriage, he could be taking the step that begins a critical scaling back in the reach of the Obergefell case.” At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost observes that “[w]ith many observers predicting a ruling for [the baker], the real victim in the case could be the advancing national commitment to equal rights for LGBT individuals.”

Briefly:

  • In an op-ed for The Detroit News, Kirsten Carlson weighs in on Patchak v. Zinke, which involves the separation-of-powers limits on Congress’ ability to direct the outcome of litigation, arguing that if Patchak’s “challenge is successful, the ability of the government to protect Indian lands and for tribes to preserve their traditions, build sustainable economies, and create economic opportunities for the larger community will be threatened.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Jay Schweikert looks at Currier v. Virginia, which asks what happens to a defendant’s double jeopardy protections when he consents to sequential trials for multiple, overlapping offenses; Schweikert asserts that “in today’s world of ever-expanding criminal codes and regulatory regimes, the government needs fewer, not greater, incentives for piling on theories of criminal liability.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman examines empirical evidence suggesting that “this term [is] the Court’s slowest in recent years for releasing the first two orally argued decisions.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Friday round-up

Friday round-upFor The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that in “another dramatic reversal in a high-profile case before the high court,” the “Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overrule a 40-year-old precedent that allows compelling public employees to pay some fees to unions that represent them, an important tool for the U.S. labor […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that in “another dramatic reversal in a high-profile case before the high court,” the “Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to overrule a 40-year-old precedent that allows compelling public employees to pay some fees to unions that represent them, an important tool for the U.S. labor movement.” Additional coverage of the government’s amicus brief in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 comes from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Marcia Coyle at Law.com, and Mark Walsh at Education Week’s School Law Blog. Ross Runkel discusses the brief at his eponymous blog.

On Wednesday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases. The first was Murphy v. Smith, which asks who should pay attorney’s fees in successful civil-rights cases brought on behalf of prisoners. Charlotte Garden has this blog’s argument analysis. Wednesday’s second case was Marinello v. United States, in which the justices considered the limits of tax-law obstruction-of-justice charges. Susan Morse analyzes the argument for this blog.

Commentary continues on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court will decide whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding. Take Care’s Versus Trump podcast features a discussion of Tuesday’s oral argument, including “some perhaps unexpected predictions about what the decision might be and how far its legal rule might reach.” Additional commentary comes from Douglas NeJaime and Reva Siegel, also at Take Care, David Gans, completing the Take Care trifecta, Rick Hills at PrawfsBlawg, and Asher Steinberg at The Narrowest Grounds, who offers a “dialogue in the form of an oral argument … in order to help clarify” “whether wedding cake and wedding cake-baking are speech, and what they express if they are.”

Briefly:

  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman examines evidence suggesting that Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is “a likely candidate for the next nomination” to the Supreme Court by President Donald Trump.
  • In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates “talk about SCOTUS advocates’ pre-argument rituals and the Court’s recent orders” and discuss Masterpiece Cakeshop with a guest from the advocacy group representing the bakery.
  • At the International Municipal Lawyers Association’s Appellate Practice Blog, Lisa Soronen looks at the court’s recent cert grant in Salt River Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. SolarCity Corp., which asks when a state or local government can appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss based on state-action immunity.
  • At Bloomberg BNA, Jordan Rubin explains why in Carpenter v. United States, which asks whether the government must obtain a warrant for cell-site-location information, “even if the justices find the government needed a warrant to get the records, it’s unlikely the decision will do anything to upend Carpenter’s convictions and 116-year prison term.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upYesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases. The first was Murphy v. Smith, which asks who should pay attorney’s fees in successful civil-rights cases brought on behalf of prisoners. Subscript has a graphic explainer for the case. Yesterday’s second case was Marinello v. United States, in which the justices considered the limits […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases. The first was Murphy v. Smith, which asks who should pay attorney’s fees in successful civil-rights cases brought on behalf of prisoners. Subscript has a graphic explainer for the case. Yesterday’s second case was Marinello v. United States, in which the justices considered the limits of tax-law obstruction-of-justice charges. For Law360 (subscription required), Vidya Kauri reports that at oral argument, “the debate largely focus[ed] on taxpayer intent to make the IRS’ job harder.” Subscript’s graphic explainer is here.

Tuesday’s oral argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court will decide whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding, continues to provide food for thought (and bad puns). NPR’s Nina Totenberg breaks down the legal issues in the case in a YouTube video. Bloomberg BNA’s US Law Week Blog offers video interviews in which advocates on both sides react to the argument. At Keen News Service, Lisa Keen observes that “the court’s transcript of the proceeding betrayed how unnervingly unpredictable the outcome of this dramatically important case is.”

Additional commentary on Masterpiece Cakeshop comes from Jeff Milchen at The American Independent Business Alliance; Walter Olson in an op-ed for the New York Daily News; law student Justin Burnam at The Least Dangerous Blog; Mark Joseph Stern at Slate; David Boyle at Casetext; Jeffrey Toobin at The New Yorker’s Daily Comment blog; Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg; Douglas Laycock and Thomas Berg at Vox; the same authors in an op-ed for the New York Daily News, where they maintain that “[t]he free exercise argument lets the Court craft a narrow exception focused just on sincere religious believers and on weddings”; and Rick Hills at PrawfsBlawg, who suggests that “respect for federalism’s role in defusing deep disagreements should lead the Court to affirm by deferring heavily to Colorado’s characterization of its purpose.”

Briefly:

  • At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that “[i]n a highly unusual filing, a federal judge in San Francisco told the Supreme Courton Wednesday afternoon that there is no clear legal rule that he violated when he ordered the Trump Administration to disclose more fully how it made the decision to end the ‘DACA’ program that protects young undocumented immigrants from deportation.”
  • At IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law’s SCOTUS now blog, Cody Jacobs remarks on the court’s recent denial of certiorari in Kolbe v. Hogan, a Second Amendment challenge to Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, suggesting that “[t]he Court’s refusal to grant cert in case after case upholding a wide range of gun laws may show that a majority of the Court at least has serious doubts that these laws violate the Second Amendment,” but noting that “that majority may not last with President Trump explicitly promisingto fill any vacancies that arise during his term with pro-gun justices.”
  • In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse looks at an upcoming case, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a First Amendment challenge by crisis-pregnancy centers to a California law requiring disclosures about the availability of publicly funded family-planning services, including contraception and abortion, observing that “[r]egulating the speech that takes place in doctors’ offices is an issue that cuts both ways in the abortion context.”
  • At Reuters’ On the Case blog, Alison Frankel notes that “[t]he pharmaceutical industry … got a jolt of good news Monday [when] the justices askedthe U.S. solicitor general to weigh in on Merck’s petition for Supreme Court review of a [lower-court] ruling … that makes it ‘virtually impossible,’ in Merck’s words, for drug companies to win dismissal of personal injury suits by citing the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight of drug labeling.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upThis morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Murphy v. Smith, which asks who should pay attorney’s fees in successful civil-rights cases brought on behalf of prisoners. Charlotte Garden had this blog’s preview. D.E. Wagner and Leonardo Mangat preview the case for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Murphy v. Smith, which asks who should pay attorney’s fees in successful civil-rights cases brought on behalf of prisoners. Charlotte Garden had this blog’s preview. D.E. Wagner and Leonardo Mangat preview the case for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. The second case of the day is Marinello v. United States, in which the justices will consider the limits of tax-law obstruction-of-justice charges. Susan Morse previewed the case for this blog. While Robin Grieff and Hillary Rich have Cornell’s preview.

Yesterday the justices heard argument in one of the term’s most closely watched cases, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which they will decide whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding. Amy Howe has this blog’s argument analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Mark Walsh offers a “view” from the courtroom for this blog. At Bloomberg,  Greg Stohr reports that “[p]ivotal Justice Anthony Kennedy sent mixed messages” during the “spirited” argument. Additional coverage of the argument comes from Richard Wolf at USA Today, who also highlights some of the justices’ questions here; Bill Mears at Fox News; Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall for The Wall Street Journal; Nina Totenberg at NPR; Robert Barnes and Ann Marimow for The Washington Post; Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller; Adam Liptak for The New York Times; Lawrence Hurley at Reuters; Mark Sherman at the Associated Press; Mark Walsh at Education Week’s School Law Blog; Steven Mazie at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog; and Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog. Subscript has a graphic explainer for the case.

Ilya Shapiro discusses the argument at the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, finding it “disconcerting that Justice Sonia Sotomayor kept comparing this case to  cases from the Jim Crow Era when African Americans were denied service at restaurants altogether.” At Dorf on Law, Michael Dorf highlights three objections to a key hypothetical example offered by the solicitor general on behalf of the baker. Additional commentary on the argument comes from Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, who observes that” if Justice Kennedy is the deciding vote, his attention to the religious aspects of the challenge could make the free speech argument less consequential,” and Erica Goldberg at In a Crowded Theater, who details “the ways each Justice framed the case.” Commentary on the case comes from John Culhane at Politico Magazine, Roger Pilon in an op-ed for The Orange County Register, and Brian Miller in an op-ed for Forbes.

At ESPN, Ryan Rodenberg reports on Monday’s argument in Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional challenge to the federal ban on sports betting. At Legal Sports Report, Dustin Gouker recounts “some of the handicapping and justice counting that we’ve seen about the final outcome.”

Briefly:

  • Supreme Court Brief (subscription required) has adopted a new format; in their most recent posting, Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle look at the lawyers in Masterpiece Cakeshop, preview the lawyering in upcoming cases, and report on other developments at the court, including recusals.
  • At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie suggests that this week’s orders allowing the latest version of the administration’s entry ban to go into full effect pending appeals “hinted that if Mr Trump’s travel ban reaches [the Supreme Court], a majority may be unreceptive to arguments it should be struck down as executive overreach or a violation of the constitution.”
  • At SSRN, Jesse Snyder and Andrew Gann look at the implications of last term’s decision inExpressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, in which the court ruled that a New York’s credit-card surcharge ban regulates speech, suggesting that the case “portends a vehicle to challenge any law as abridging free-speech rights” and wondering whether “Schneiderman [is] the new Lochner.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Daily Podcast, Jay Schweikert discusses Collins v. Virginia, in which the court will decide whether a police officer can conduct a warrantless search of a car parked on private property near a house, noting that the case gives the Supreme Court “an opportunity to reaffirm that your home is truly your castle.”
  • At Florida Court Review, John Cavaliere notes that the Supreme Court denied review without comment Monday in a Florida capital case that “seemed to raise a preserved Eighth Amendment challenge to the Florida Supreme Court’s retroactive line-drawing.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upThe Supreme Court will hear oral argument this morning in a high-profile case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the justices will consider whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog. Jared Ham and […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument this morning in a high-profile case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the justices will consider whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog. Jared Ham and Amanda Wong did the same for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Additional coverage comes from Mark Matthews for The Denver Post, Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, Steven Mazie for The Economist’s Espresso blog, and Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, who reports that “[t]he case’s importance is underscored by the attention it has received: 100 amicus briefs have been filed and people began camping out Friday afternoon on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court to secure a spot” in the courtroom for the argument. At Fox News, Bill Mears reports that “[b]y wading again into the culture wars, the justices will have to confront recent decisions on both gay rights and religious liberty.” At Bloomberg BNA, Patrick Gregory profiles the women attorneys on each side of the case.

Commentary comes from the baker, Jack Phillips, in an op-ed for USA Today, Kristen Waggoner in an op-ed for The Washington Times, Jim Campbell in an op-ed for AZCentral, Michael Farris in an op-ed for Fox News, James Gottry in an op-ed for The Denver Post, Ross Runkel at his eponymous blog, Ryan Lockman at Lock Law Blog, Dorothy Samuels at The American Prospect, Steven Mazie at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Brian Miller at Quillette, David Gans at Take Care, who maintains that “even Justices … who broadly interpret the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of speech[] should be skeptical of these new complicity claims,” and Thomas Berg and Douglas Laycock at the Berkley Center, who argue that “[b]y recognizing a carefully defined right for Phillips, the Supreme Court can ensure meaningful protection for both same-sex couples and religious dissenters.”

Yesterday the justices issued orders allowing full enforcement of the latest version of the Trump administration’s entry ban while litigation continues in the lower courts. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage. At the Associated Press, Mark Sherman reports that “[t]he action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September.” Additional coverage comes from Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Brent Kendall for The Wall Street Journal, and Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, who also reports here that earlier in the day, a “civil rights group told the Supreme Court … about President Trump’s online relay of anti-Muslim videos circulated by a British organization.”

The justices also released orders from last Friday’s conference yesterday. At Reuters, Andrew Chung reports that they “refused to hear Houston’s appeal of a lower court ruling that threw into doubt the city’s spousal benefits to gay married municipal employees, allowing a case that tests the reach of the landmark 2015 decision legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide to proceed.” Additional coverage comes from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, who reports that “as that case had developed in lawyers’ filings, there were several layers of dispute between the two sides on procedural questions about whether the case had reached the Court prematurely.”

Yesterday the justices also heard oral argument in two cases. The first was Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional challenge to the federal ban on sports betting. Amy Howe has this blog’s argument analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Additional coverage of the argument comes from Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Mark Walsh at Education Week’s School Law Blog, Nina Totenberg at NPR, Tony Mauro at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Brent Kendall for The Wall Street Journal, David Savage for the Los Angeles Times, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Jessica Gresko at the Associated Press, and Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, who reports that “[c]onservative … justices … indicated they may be willing to allow New Jersey to legalize sports betting in a case that could pave the way for other states to do the same thing.” At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that the case “will provide further guidance as to how the federal government can coerce or encourage states to adopt certain policies[, and] … could have major implications for Trump administration priorities like sanctuary cities.” At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro offers a take on the oral argument. Subscript has a graphic explainer for the case.

Yesterday’s second argument was in Rubin v. Iran, in which the justices considered the contours of immunity in cases involving foreign state sponsors of terrorism. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog; her analysis was first published at Howe on the Court. Subscript’s graphic explainer for the case is here. At Law.com, Tony Mauro and Marcia Coyle provide an inside look at Rubin and Christie and survey the justices’ other doings this week.

For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that in Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, which asks whether the existence of probable cause defeats a retaliatory-arrest claim, Fane Lozman “has pulled off the rare feat of hauling the city into the Supreme Court in two separate cases.” At his eponymous blog, Sheldon Nahmod takes a look at the issues in the case.

Briefly:

  • At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Marcia Coyle reports that in its response to the government’s cert petition in Hargan v. Garza, “[t]he American Civil Liberties Union on Monday called ‘baseless’ the U.S. Justice Department’s accusation that lawyers for the group acted unethically in their advocacy for a pregnant immigrant teen who sought an abortion.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and others urge the court to review a case, Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, that “showcases the unique challenges faced by property owners asserting takings claims.”
  • In another posting at Cato at Liberty, Ilya Shapiro argues for another cert grant, in a case that asks the court to overturn the “misguided” “‘dual sovereignty’ exception to that Double Jeopardy Clause, which the Supreme Court created 60 years ago—the idea that federal and state prosecutions have to be counted separately.”
  • At SSRN, Hugo Farmer considers some of the issues discussed during last week’s oral argument in Digital Realty Trust Inc. v. Somers, which involves the whistleblower protections of the Dodd-Frank Act.

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upToday the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional challenge to the federal ban on sports betting. Amy Howe has this blog’s preview. Axel Schamis and Katherine Van Bramer preview the case for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Damon Root discusses […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

Today the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases. The first is Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, a constitutional challenge to the federal ban on sports betting. Amy Howe has this blog’s preview. Axel Schamis and Katherine Van Bramer preview the case for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Damon Root discusses the case in a Federalist Society video. For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[i]t’s not often that the high court tackles a case with so much weighty drama — not just sports and gambling, but a classic constitutional battle between the federal government and the states over the 225-year-old system of government known as federalism.” Additional coverage comes from Kimberly Robinson at Bloomberg BNA, David Porter and Jessica Gresko at the Associated Press, and Nina Totenberg at NPR, who notes that “[i]n the modern economic landscape, there is a growing tolerance for sports betting.”

This morning’s second argument is in Rubin v. Iran, in which the justices will consider the contours of immunity in cases involving foreign state sponsors of terrorism. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog; her preview was originally published at Howe on the Court. Ryan Powers and Larry Blocho have Cornell’s preview.

On Friday the court added one case to its merits docket, Salt River Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. SolarCity Corp., which asks when a state or local government can appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss based on state-action immunity. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court.

Also on Friday, the solicitor general asked the Supreme Court for a stay of a lower-court order requiring the government to review and potentially disclose numerous documents related to the decision to terminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that “government lawyers contended that the judge’s order would intrude deeply into the private deliberations of the Executive Branch, raising constitutional questions under the ‘separation of powers’ doctrine that prevents such intrusions.”

At Reuters, Lawrence Hurley reports that Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court will consider at oral argument tomorrow whether the First Amendment bars Colorado from requiring a baker to create a cake for a same-sex wedding, “has become a cultural flashpoint in the United States that underscores the tensions between gay rights proponents and conservative Christians.” Additional coverage of Masterpiece Cakeshop comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR and Mark Sherman at the Associated Press. At Public Discourse, Sharif Gergis weighs in on the case, contending that “this case is about whether political majorities—having won sweeping legal and cultural victories—can go on to regulate the speech of those who still dissent.” Other views on Masterpiece Cakeshop come from John Paul Schnapper-Casteras at the Harvard Law Review Blog, who maintains that “[r]eligious beliefs, no matter how sincerely felt or well-intentioned, simply cannot justify differential treatment of LGBTQ individuals or couples in places of public accommodation,” and Steve Sanders in an op-ed for The New York Times, who argues that “[b]eliefs may not be regulated by the government, but business practices can be.”

Briefly:

  • In the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and John-Michael Seibler “talk about the Court’s recent orders and arguments, and they interview criminal law expert Orin Kerr about the cellphone case at SCOTUS.”
  • At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost discusses last week’s oral argument in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, a challenge to the constitutionality of inter partes review, a process used to determine the validity of existing patents, observing that “the justices split predictably along party lines, defying efforts by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. among others to portray judges as  something other than politicians in black robes.”
  • At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that during “a recent Harvard Law School panel discussion on appellate advocacy that included Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., [at which] Topic A was how to prepare for and survive oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court,” more than one veteran advocate advised eating bananas for breakfast on argument day.
  • At The Least Dangerous Blog, Joel Nolette explains why a decision by the justices to grant the pending cert petition in Starr International Company, Inc. v. United States, “a case stemming from the government’s bailout of AIG during the recession last decade,” could “mark the end of prudential standing as we know it.”

We rely on our readers to send us links for our round-up.  If you have or know of a recent (published in the last two or three days) article, post, podcast, or op-ed relating to the Supreme Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com. Thank you!

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com