Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upThe Supreme Court decided two cases yesterday. In a major employment case that was argued on the first day of the term, Epic Systems v. Lewis, the court held 5-4 that arbitration clauses in employment contracts that require employees to forego class and collective actions are enforceable. Amy Howe has this blog’s opinion analysis, which […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

The Supreme Court decided two cases yesterday. In a major employment case that was argued on the first day of the term, Epic Systems v. Lewis, the court held 5-4 that arbitration clauses in employment contracts that require employees to forego class and collective actions are enforceable. Amy Howe has this blog’s opinion analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Subscript has a graphic explainer for the decision. For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that “[m]illions of workers routinely sign such arbitration agreements unknowingly, only to find out later that they are barred from collective action.” Additional coverage comes from Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Ariane de Vogue at CNN, Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller, Andrew Hanna and Josh Gerstein at Politico, Lydia Wheeler at The Hill, Elizabeth Lowman at Jurist, David Savage for the Los Angeles Times, Dave Jamieson at HuffPost, Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, and Nina Totenberg at NPR, who reports that the dissent warned of “huge underenforcement of federal and state statutes designed to advance the well-being of workers.” According to Joan Biskupic at CNN, the “forceful tone” of the dissent, parts of which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read from the bench, suggests that “Ginsburg and the three other liberals may increasingly be in the minority as the court nears the end of its annual session in late June — and more likely to speak out.”

At the Pacific Legal Foundation, Deborah La Fetra maintains that the “decision upholds workers’ and employers’ freedom to choose how to resolve workplace disputes,” one that “both workers and employers have reason to celebrate.” Not celebrating is Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress, who argues that “[a]s a practical matter, [the] decision … will enable employers to engage in small-scale wage theft with impunity, so long as they spread the impact of this theft among many employees.” Additional commentary comes from Ron Chapman and Christopher Murray at Ogletree Deakins, Anthony Glenn at The National Law Review, Mark Joseph Stern at Slate, Helaine Olen in an op-ed for The Washington Post, Russ Bleemer at CPR Speaks, R. Scott Oswald at The Employment Law Group, and Terri Gerstein and Sharon Block in an op-ed for The New York Times.

Yesterday’s second opinion was in Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, in which the justices, by a vote of 7-2, remanded a property dispute involving an Indian tribe to the lower court for it to consider an alternative common-law basis for its holding that the tribe was not immune from suit. Ronald Mann has this blog’s opinion analysis, and Subscript’s graphic explainer is here. Zachary Uram covers the decision at Jurist. Mark Walsh has a first-hand account of yesterday’s opinion announcements for this blog.

The court also added four cases to its merits docket for next term and asked for the views of the solicitor general in one case. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog; her coverage first appeared at Howe on the Court. At Jurist, Ashley Rundell recaps the new cases. At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger observes that in Royal v. Murphy, a newly granted capital case in which the justices will decide whether Congress has disestablished the boundaries of an Indian nation in Oklahoma, affecting the state’s ability to prosecute crimes involving Indians, “[b]eneath this legal question of Indian law and statutory construction is the justice of an actual murder case.”

At Constitution Daily, Scott Bomboy considers how last week’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the court struck down the federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting, could affect “the actions of some states to legalize medical or personal marijuana use.” In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Eric Tirschwell explains why the decision is “bad news for the gun lobby.”

At the Election Law Blog, Richard Pildes observes that after yesterday’s October-sitting opinion from Justice Neil Gorsuch, “it is most likely that Chief Justice Roberts is writing the opinion for the Court in [partisan-gerrymandering case Gill v. Whitford],” and that “the narrowest path to a decision in that context is for the Court to hold that there is no standing for individuals to bring partisan gerrymandering claims on a state-wide basis to a plan as a whole” Responding, also at the Election Law Blog, Nicholas Stephanopolous warns that “if the Court is drawn to district-specific claims because of their seemingly less expansive reach, it should be careful what it wishes for,” and that “[i]t may well find that in its effort to cabin partisan gerrymandering litigation, it has done exactly the opposite.”

Briefly:

  • For this blog, Andrew Hamm reports that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg received the Henry J. Friendly Medal yesterday at the American Law Institute.
  • At Washingtonian magazine, Amanda Whiting reports that “the battle over Maryland’s 6th [in Benisek v. Lamone] is different than other gerrymanders—and not just because Democrats are the culprits,” because “[t]he pols who rigged this district left behind a massive paper trail that lays out exactly how it all happened, an operation so fine-grained that mapmakers parked a district line less than a block from a candidate’s house.”
  • At The Hill, Lydia Wheeler covers the conflicting signals about the possible retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy that have “whipped [Washington] into a frenzy.”
  • At Law360 (subscription required), Amy Lee Rosen reports that a “Third Circuit ruling on appeal to the S. Supreme Courtthat prevented an electricity supplier from claiming a double deduction on a consolidated tax return has some practitioners worried that, if accepted, the justices could solidify a stand-alone tax doctrine previously used only as a method of statutory interpretation.”
  • At Politico, Katherine Landergan and Andrew Hanna report that “[b]lue state lawmakers are waging a preemptive strike against an anticipated U.S. Supreme Court decision [in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31] that could decimate the power of public-sector unions across the nation.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]
  • At The World and Everything In It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in Wisconsin Central Ltd.v. United States, which asks whether stock options are taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, and Chavez-Meza v. United States, which asks how fully a judge must explain a sentencing modification.
  • In an op-ed for Law360 (subscription required), Jay Lapeyre weighs in on patent case WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., which asks whether damages for infringement of a domestic patent overseas include lost profits for overseas contracts the patentholder would have obtained if the infringement had not occurred, arguing that “a rule that would make Ion liable for such lost profits would be very disruptive to economic development in the United States, particularly in the technology sector.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Andrew Grossman and Ilya Shapiro weigh in on New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, an arbitration case on next term’s docket, urging the court to “clarify, as it has many times before, that independent contractors are not employees and statutory terms such as ‘employee’ mean[] precisely what they say.”

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-upBriefly: Constitution Daily provides an “update on 12 significant decisions that will be handed down from the Court into late June.” At Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast, Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson break down the funniest moments from the Supreme Court’s 2017 term. At PrawfsBlawg, Richard Re remarks that although “[t]he Justices often intone […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

Briefly:

  • Constitution Daily provides an “update on 12 significant decisions that will be handed down from the Court into late June.”
  • At Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast, Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson break down the funniest moments from the Supreme Court’s 2017 term.
  • At PrawfsBlawg, Richard Re remarks that although “[t]he Justices often intone that theirs is ‘a court of review, not of first view,’” “last Monday’s decisions illustrate the complexities underlying that maxim,” suggesting that “the ‘first view’ principle is more discretionary than it often appears—and that the Court could do more to explain what guides its choices in this area.”
  • At Take Care, Leah Litman looks at one aspect of “the sentencing fallout from” In Sessions v. Dimaya, in which the court ruled that the catchall section of the immigration law’s criminal-removal provision is unconstitutionally vague, and urges the Sentencing Commission to “reconsider its reliance on language that the Supreme Court has determined is hopelessly unclear.”

  • At Racked, Nadra Little notes that “for nearly a decade, Chastity Jones, an African-American woman, has been trying to get the courts to agree that racial bias may shape corporate grooming policies,” but that last week “the Supreme Court denied her the chance to argue that the company that told her to ditch her dreads infringed on her rights.”
  • At FiveThirtyEight, Ty Schalter looks at the practical consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision last week in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the court struck down the federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting, observing that “even if our ability to place legal bets is changing, there’s one thing that will probably stay the same: our inability to place good bets.”

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-upBriefly: At CNN, Joan Biskupic lists five reasons why Justice Anthony Kennedy may not retire this term, “beginning with the fact that he has always lived for this.” In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates “review the RBG documentary and chat with SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe”; they […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Briefly:

  • At CNN, Joan Biskupic lists five reasons why Justice Anthony Kennedy may not retire this term, “beginning with the fact that he has always lived for this.”
  • In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates “review the RBG documentary and chat with SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe”; they also “break down recent decisions on sports betting, shackling, and more.”
  • At his eponymous blog, Michael Dorf suggests that Justice Clarence Thomas “deserves some credit for calling attention to the Court’s failure to fully justify or consistently approach severability issues” in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the justices struck down the federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting, but he maintains that Thomas “has not thought through his own commitments or even his own votes in recent severability cases.”
  • In two posts at the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice and Comment blog, here and here, Bernard Bell takes a close look at Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, in which the justices will decide next term whether the 20-employee minimum in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to state and local governments, concluding “that application of such numerosity requirements [to] governmental entities is not particularly appropriate.”

  • Counting to 5 (podcast) looks at “two newly granted cases and five new opinions in argued cases.”
  • At Ikuta Matata, law student Sean Smith tips his hat to Judge Sandra Ikuta of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, who he says showed “real talent for reprimanding her colleagues” when she dissented in two cases that were reversed this term by the Supreme Court.
  • At ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser argues that Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurring opinion this week (joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch) in Byrd v. United States, in which the court held that a driver can object under the Fourth Amendment to a search of a rental car even when he is not listed on the rental agreement, “suggests a wholesale rewrite of the Supreme Court’s decisions governing when police are allowed to intrude on a suspect’s privacy” and “could throw federal law enforcement into chaos.”
  • At Law360, Michael Waldman and Ralph Mayrell note that “at least six petitions raising [False Claims Act] issues currently remain on the docket” and they highlight three that “appear to have already piqued the court’s interest.”
  • At Howe on the Court, Amy Howe reports that “[w]hen the justices return to the bench next fall after their summer recess, a case involving computer giant Apple may very well be on their merits docket,” because “[l]ast week the U.S. government recommended that the Supreme Court grant review in a case arising from allegations that the company has monopolized the market to distribute apps for its iPhones.”
  • The Associated Press reports that “[t]he Ruth Bader Ginsburg documentary “RBG” is turning into a mini box office phenomenon,” “crack[ing] the top 10 this weekend with $1.2 million from only 180 screens nationwide.”

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 his eponymous blog, Michael Dorf explores the judicial politics at play in Monday’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the justices struck down the federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting, that might “explain[] the liberal wing of the Court’s acceptance of the anti-commandeering doctrine.” At PrawfsBlawg, Rick […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

At his eponymous blog, Michael Dorf explores the judicial politics at play in Monday’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the justices struck down the federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting, that might “explain[] the liberal wing of the Court’s acceptance of the anti-commandeering doctrine.” At PrawfsBlawg, Rick Hill suggests that the case “is an elegant illustration of how disagreements about baselines can make a hash of distinctions between ‘negative’ prohibitions and ‘affirmative’ mandates.” In an op-ed for The Daily Signal, Jonathan Wood asserts that “[r]egardless of your personal views of sports betting, you should celebrate this decision as a win for federalism, a core guarantee of democratic accountability.”

At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that “[t]wo surrogate mothers are petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to give greater credence to the constitutional rights of surrogates in custody disputes,” noting that “[a]t this stage of their cases, the women are not litigating the merits of their claims,” but “are fighting for the right to argue that their surrogacy contracts are unlawful.” Additional coverage comes from Ariana Eunjung Cha for The Washington Post.

Briefly:

  • At Law.com, Tony Mauro points out that, although “life-tenured Supreme Court justices don’t like to be told when to retire or move on,” “presidents and others keep trying,” and that “[i]f anything, hinting that it is time to go seems to stiffen justices’ resolve to stay.”
  • Subscript offers graphic explainers for three of Monday’s decisions: Byrd v. United States, here; United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, here; and Dahda v. United States, here.
  • At the Election Law Blog, Richard Pildes maintains that the partisan-gerrymanding cases currently before the court exhibit “much starker, more extreme records of partisan intent than in the two major prior cases from past decades,” and he “wonders whether a majority of the Court will find it so easy to permit all this to continue without any judicial constraint.”
  • At his eponymous blog, Sheldon Nahmod observes that the court’s decision earlier this term in District of Columbia v. Wesby, in which the court held that police officers sued for false arrest after arresting partygoers in an abandoned house had probable cause for the arrests and were entitled to immunity from the lawsuit, “signals to federal courts and litigants that it takes qualified immunity very seriously in the false arrest setting as well.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman examines “cases where states are involved or that come from state courts,” which “play an incredibly important role in the Supreme Court’s annual docket and … often have vast implications for state populations as well as for the nation as a whole.”
  • In an op-ed at Fox News, Karen Harned argues that a ruling against the union in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, in which the court will consider whetheran Illinois law allowing public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities violates the First Amendment, “could level the playing field for small businesses in states where organized labor wields inordinate influence.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]

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-upCourt-watchers continue to focus on Monday’s ruling in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the justices struck down the federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting. Scott Bomboy covers the decision for Constitution Daily. For The Washington Post, Amber Phillips offers “a step-by-step rundown of key moments in the debate on […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

Court-watchers continue to focus on Monday’s ruling in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, in which the justices struck down the federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting. Scott Bomboy covers the decision for Constitution Daily. For The Washington Post, Amber Phillips offers “a step-by-step rundown of key moments in the debate on gambling in America that got us to this monumental one.” For the Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports that the decision “trumpeted the independence of the states.” At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie calls it “a loss for the Trump administration,” which “would like to remove two … policies from the purview of state legislatures: the spreading legalisation of marijuana and ‘sanctuary city’ laws that partially shield undocumented immigrants from the reach of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.” At Medium, Daniel Hemel observes that “[n]ot only did the Supreme Court strike down the federal law at issue, … but it also appears to have invalidated a broad swath of congressional limitations on state tax authority. (Oh, and it also saved sanctuary cities.)” Additional commentary comes from Sam Kamin in an op-ed for The Hill, John Kindt in another Hill op-ed, Noah Feldman in an op-ed at Bloomberg, Mark Joseph Stern at Slate, and Ilya Somin at Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog. At Good Judgment, Ryan Adler “puts this as a win for the crowd,” noting that “forecasters held a tight range of a 75% to 80% chance that the Supreme Court would rule that Congress couldn’t prevent New Jersey from repealing its own state prohibitions on sports gambling.”

At Constitution Daily, Scott Bomboy reports that in McCoy v. Louisiana, in which the justices ruled that a defense attorney in a capital case cannot concede a defendant’s guilt to the jury over the defendant’s explicit objection, “[a]mong those submitting briefs supporting McCoy was The Criminal Bar Association Of England & Wales, which agreed with McCoy’s objections on originalist grounds rooted in English law.” In Justice Today curates analyses of the case and reactions to Monday’s decision. At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps argues that “[t]he logical result of [Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent] … would be a system where lawyers decide what is best for clients and ignore their wishes—where, in effect, a defense lawyer acts as judge and jury.”

Also at Constitution Daily, Scott Bomboy looks at Byrd v. United States, in which the court ruled on Monday that a driver can object under the Fourth Amendment to a search of a rental car even when he is not listed on the rental agreement, but “left two other questions open for a lower court to decide, about the alleged fraudulent procurement of a rental car to commit a crime and if probable cause justified the car search.” At the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Andrew Crocker hopes that the decision is “instructive to other courts, particularly those confronted with the argument that terms of service undermine users’ expectation of privacy in third party email.” At Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Orin Kerr unpacks the decision, agreeing that “[o]ne place Byrd will prove useful is in the context of e-mail privacy.”

Briefly:

  • At Howe on the Court, Amy Howe reports that the parties have reached a settlement in Quality Systems, Inc. v. City of Miami Fire Fighters’ and Police Officers’ Retirement Trust, a securities-law case that had “seemed like a strong candidate for a grant.”
  • At his eponymous blog, Ross Runkel looks at BNSF Railway Company v. Loos, in which the justices will decide next term whether a railroad’s payment to an employee for time lost from work can be taxed under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
  • At the Courthouse News Service, Barbara Leonard reports that “the Supreme Court agreed Mondayto resolve whether military widows can hold companies liable under maritime law for products that they did not make, sell or distribute,” in Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries.
  • Lyle Denniston reports at Constitution Daily that the justices “on Monday denied review, without an explanation, of a plea by gun rights advocates for the Court to recognize a Second Amendment right to sell guns, independent of any buyer’s right of access to such weapons,” “[c]ontinuing [the court’s] pattern of refusing to clarify the gun rights that are protected by the Second Amendment.”
  • At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie describes Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s litigation strategy in the sex-discrimination cases she argued before the Supreme Court, chronicled in the new documentary “RBG”: “By appealing to the justices’ sense of fairness and presenting them with sympathetic male and female plaintiffs, Ms Ginsburg built America’s gender equality standards brick by brick” and “laid a foundation for cutting-edge advances in civil liberties and civil rights for LGBT Americans.”
  • At the National Conference of State Legislatures Blog, Lisa Soronen discusses Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, in which the justices will decide next term whether the 20-employee minimum in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to local subdivisions, noting that “small special districts [are] particularly vulnerable to age discrimination lawsuits.”
  • At the Pacific Legal Foundation, Caleb Trotter urges the justices to review “a challenge by hair braiders in Missouri to the state’s requirement that braiders be licensed as a cosmetologist or barber” and “clarify that courts must consider evidence presented in the record that counters the government’s stated rationales in cases challenging economic regulations.”

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 Supreme Court made a dent in its backlog of decisions, issuing opinions in five cases. In Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the court struck down the federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting. Amy Howe has this blog’s opinion analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. At The […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Yesterday the Supreme Court made a dent in its backlog of decisions, issuing opinions in five cases. In Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, the court struck down the federal law that bars states from legalizing sports betting. Amy Howe has this blog’s opinion analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. At The Hill, Lydia Wheeler reports that the decision “opens the door to legalized sports gambling nationwide.” Additional coverage comes from Pete Williams at NBC News, Kevin Daley at the Daily Caller, Adam Liptak and Kevin Draper for The New York Times, Richard Wolf for USA Today, Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Peter Doocy for Fox News, Ariane de Vogue and Maegan Vazquez for CNN, David Savage for the Los Angeles Times, and Josh Gerstein and Ryan Hutchins at Politico, who report that “about 20 states have either enacted laws or introduced bill to legalize sports betting, all in anticipation of this moment.” At NPR, Nina Totenberg and others report that “[w]ith every player in the sports world seeing dollar signs, there is one problem player — the amateur athlete.” At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston writes that “[t]he decision … raised doubts about the Trump Administration’s power to compel states and cities to help enforce tight federal immigration restrictions – now being resisted by the so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions, and about the power of the federal government to stop states from allowing medical or even recreational use of marijuana.”

For The Washington Post, Rick Maese looks at the practical impact of the ruling, as do David Purdum and Ryan Rodenberg at ESPN. Commentary comes from Lisa Soronen at the National Conference of State Legislatures Blog, Ashley Rundell at Jurist’s Paper Chase blog, Ilya Shapiro at the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, and Garrett Epps at The Atlantic. Subscript has a graphic explainer for the decision.

In McCoy v. Louisiana, the justices ruled 6-3 that a defense attorney in a capital case cannot concede a defendant’s guilt to the jury over the defendant’s explicit objection. Amy Howe analyzes the opinion for this blog, in a post that was first published at Howe on the Court. For the Associated Press, Mark Sherman reports that “Louisiana’s Supreme Court had been alone among the highest state courts to allow a lawyer to concede guilt in the face of a client’s objections.” Additional coverage comes from Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Jordan Rubin at Bloomberg Law, Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, Nina Totenberg and others at NPR, and Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, who reports that the court held that the decision to concede guilt “belongs to the accused alone,” “no matter whether the evidence of guilt is overwhelming or that it would be a good legal strategy.” Jaclyn Belczyk discusses the ruling at Jurist’s Paper Chase blog. At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Jay Schweikert hails the decision “[a]s a small but important step toward restoring the centrality of the jury trial in our adversarial system of criminal justice.” At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger discusses McCoy and today’s other criminal-law opinions. Subscript’s graphic explainer is here.

Yesterday’s third opinion was in Byrd v. United States, in which a unanimous court held that a driver can object under the Fourth Amendment to a search of a rental car even when he is not listed on the rental agreement. Amy Howe has this blog’s opinion analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. At CNN, Ariane de Vogue and Maegan Vazquez report that “[t]he ruling is a victory for privacy rights advocates who were concerned that police could find reasons to stop rental car drivers for minor infractions knowing that they could engage in searches without the driver’s consent.” Lauren Moxley discusses the case at The National Law Review. Another look comes from Akira Tomlinson at Jurist’s Paper Chase blog.

 The justices also held unanimously in United States v. Sanchez-Gomez that defendants’ appeals challenging a federal district-wide policy of shackling them for pretrial proceedings became moot when their criminal cases ended before the court of appeals could render its decision. Howard Wasserman analyzes the opinion for this blog. At PrawfsBlawg, Wasserman observes that “[t]he opinion contains a fair bit of language emphasizing the individual nature of constitutional litigation, thereby supporting the view that injunctions must be particularized to the parties and not accord universal protection or limitations to non-parties.” Autumn Callan looks at the case for Jurist’s Paper Chase blog.

 Finally, in Dahda v. United States, a unanimous court ruled that a judge’s wiretap orders that authorized interception outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction were not facially insufficient. Richard Re has this blog’s argument analysis.

 The court also added two cases to its docket for next term. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog; her coverage first appeared at Howe on the Court. Another look at the new cert grants comes from Autumn Callan at Jurist’s Paper Chase blog.

Briefly:

  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman demonstrates that even after the five decisions released yesterday, “the Court is still behind its output every other year under Chief Justice John Roberts.”
  • At Law360 (subscription required), Amy Lee Rosen reports that “[t]he IRS has insisted further review by the S. Supreme Courtis not warranted for a lower court’s finding in support of the government in its denial of a $199 million tax deduction for a Pennsylvania-based electricity supplier, saying legal precedent was correctly applied and no circuit conflicts existed.”
  • For The New York Times, Adam Liptak wonders whether Justice Anthony Kennedy, “a fierce critic of solitary confinement,” may want to review two cases that ask whether “prisoners held in solitary confinement have a right to regular outdoor exercise.”
  • In an op-ed for The Hill, Wen Fa and Deborah LaFetra weigh in on Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, which asks whether a Minnesota law banning political apparel at polling places is facially overbroad under the First Amendment, asserting that “[w]henever politicians and bureaucrats are tempted to put their own convenience or agenda over the First Amendment’s protection of core rights of expression, they need to be dressed down.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and Aaron Barnes urge the justices to review a challenge by hair-braiders to a state licensing scheme, asserting that “[b]ecause the right to earn a living is one of the basic rights that our Constitution was formed to protect,” “courts must meaningfully examine government incursions against this essential liberty, regardless where in the Fourteenth Amendment it finds the relevant right.”
  • At LaborNotes, Donnie Killen lists several ways in which Mark Janus, the plaintiff in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, a First Amendment challenge to an Illinois law allowing public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities, “benefits from union representation.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]
  • In an op-ed for The Hill, Richard Bernstein maintains that “a ruling upholding the travel ban [in Trump v. Hawaii] would have far-reaching consequences for banning immigrants and travelers from all over the world and for our constitutional system itself.”
  • At The World and Everything In It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in Abbott v. Perez, two complex redistricting cases from Texas, and Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., in which the justices will decide how much courts should defer to a foreign government’s interpretation of its own 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 Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upBriefly: At the Pew Research Center’s FactTank blog, Kristen Bialik discusses a new Pew report showing that “[a] majority of Americans (55%) now say the U.S. Supreme Court should base its rulings on what the Constitution “means in current times,” while 41% say rulings should be based on what it “meant as originally written,” representing […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

Briefly:

  • At the Pew Research Center’s FactTank blog, Kristen Bialik discusses a new Pew report showing that “[a] majority of Americans (55%) now say the U.S. Supreme Court should base its rulings on what the Constitution “means in current times,” while 41% say rulings should be based on what it “meant as originally written,” representing “a shift in public opinion, which was divided on this question for more than a decade.”
  • At Legal Sports Report, Ryan Rodenberg notes that “[a]fter nearly six years of sustained litigation, the US Supreme Court sports betting case could be decided anytime between Monday and the end of June,” and lists “the most memorable quotes from lawyers, judges, and sports league executives in various court proceedings leading up to the dispute landing on the Supreme Court’s steps.”
  • At In Defense of Liberty, Timothy Sandefur urges the court to review a challenge to “a Missouri law making it illegal to braid hair for a living without government permission—and requiring extensive training and education before people can get that permission,” which presents “the question of whether the rational basis test really allows judges to simply make things up.”
  • At Potomac Litigation, Tony Cummins looks at “two data privacy class actions [on] next fall’s docket: Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela[, which] concerns a threshold issue, when plaintiffs can proceed as a class in arbitration[, and] Frank v. Gaos[, which] concerns an ultimate issue, securing court approval of a class settlement (and not just any settlement — but one in which you yourself are a class member, assuming that you’ve used Google).”
  • At The National Law Journal, Tony Mauro calls “RBG,” the new documentary about Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “a very accessible movie about the human and professional sides of an increasingly larger-than-life judicial icon, now 85.”

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-upLawrence Hurley reports at Reuters that “[t]he Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republican chairman [Chuck Grassley] said on Thursday any Supreme Court justice considering retirement from the lifetime job should announce immediately so a successor can be confirmed before the November U.S. midterm election.” Eric Levitz discusses Grassley’s comments at New York magazine’s Daily Intelligencer blog. The […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Lawrence Hurley reports at Reuters that “[t]he Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republican chairman [Chuck Grassley] said on Thursday any Supreme Court justice considering retirement from the lifetime job should announce immediately so a successor can be confirmed before the November U.S. midterm election.” Eric Levitz discusses Grassley’s comments at New York magazine’s Daily Intelligencer blog.

The solicitor general’s letter to the court correcting a statement he made at oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii continues to attract comment. At Take Care, Leah Litman maintains that the “reasons to be skeptical of the Solicitor General’s claim that the president made ‘crystal clear’ that he had no intention of imposing a Muslim ban” “include statements that the President made after his purported disavowal, as well as statements that he (and other members of his administration) made after the Supreme Court argument itself,” raising “the possibility that the President or his administration would make post-decision statements about the entry ban.” At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie suggests that “the post-hearing rumpus shows that if the Supreme Court upholds the president’s proclamation when it hands down its judgment in June, it will do so without any assurances that the policy is far removed from a most incendiary campaign promise.”

Briefly:

  • For the Associated Press, Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko report that “[s]pring is the season of mystery at the Supreme Court,” and that one “puzzle this year concerns an unusual appeal the Trump administration filed more than six months ago, calling out ACLU lawyers as dishonest in a dispute over a pregnant teen-aged immigrant who wanted an abortion,” in Azar v. Garza.
  • At Law360 (subscription required), Alex Wolf reports that in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, the justices are “wrestling with the question of whether an individual who may have lied to obtain credit can have the debt wiped away in personal bankruptcy proceedings, an issue that has pitted financially distressed Americans seeking a fresh start against small businesses worried about being swindled.”
  • In an op-ed for The Nation, David Cole wonders whether, in the “many blockbuster cases still to be decided this term—in nearly all of which the administration has urged the Court to adopt radical positions, overruling or disregarding precedent to further the White House’s political ends” – “the Supreme Court will go along for the ride, or stand up for the rule of law when the executive branch has so radically thrown it overboard.”
  • At Law Sites, Robert Ambrogi tests Justice Neil Gorsuch’s writing against three legal-editing programs.
  • Andrew Hamm reports on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s contribution to a recent debate between two constitutional-law scholars for this blog.
  • For The New York Times, Melena Ryzik remarks that “[w]hat makes [Ginsburg’s] ascendance to pop culture icon … truly surprising is that, at 85, she is having fun with her unexpected fame, and making careful and inspired use of it for her own savvy ends.”
  • The latest episode of Counting to 5 (podcast) “answer[s] listener questions about the Court’s Order Lists, Special Masters, and more.”
  • At The Conversation, Robert Sedler maintains that “the American right to silence is on trial this year” in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a challenge by crisis-pregnancy centers to a California law mandating disclosures about the availability of publicly funded family-planning services, and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, which asks whether an Illinois law allowing public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for collective-bargaining activities violates the First Amendment. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in Janus.]

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-upBriefly: At Pacific Standard, Tom Jacobs looks at a new “analysis of 313 Supreme Court cases [that] found ‘male justices evaluate counsel based on their compliance with traditional gender norms, rewarding male counsel for cool, unemotional arguments, and rewarding female counsel for emotionally compelling arguments.’” For The Wall Street Journal, Eric Morath reports on a […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Briefly:

  • At Pacific Standard, Tom Jacobs looks at a new “analysis of 313 Supreme Court cases [that] found ‘male justices evaluate counsel based on their compliance with traditional gender norms, rewarding male counsel for cool, unemotional arguments, and rewarding female counsel for emotionally compelling arguments.’”
  • For The Wall Street Journal, Eric Morath reports on a recent study concluding that “[l]abor unions could lose hundreds of thousands of members if the Supreme Court determines this spring [in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31] that public employees cannot be required to pay union dues.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondents in this case.]
  • At the Human Rights at Home Blog, Christopher Whytock “speculate[s] … about what might happen for human rights litigation after the … decision” in Jesner v. Arab Bank, in which the court held that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute.
  • In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse suggests that the upcoming decisions in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Trump v. Hawaii “will tell us a lot about how the current court thinks about religion — specifically, how it defines religious discrimination and who it thinks needs the court’s protection.”

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 Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson reports that although the court’s “’opinions related to orders’ get less attention than [its] merits opinions,” “they give courtwatchers clues about the justices who write them.” Melissa Quinn reports for the Washington Examiner that “‘t]he Washington rumor mill is churning with speculation about whether Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire at the […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

Briefly:

  • At Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson reports that although the court’s “’opinions related to orders’ get less attention than [its] merits opinions,” “they give courtwatchers clues about the justices who write them.”
  • Melissa Quinn reports for the Washington Examiner that “‘t]he Washington rumor mill is churning with speculation about whether Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire at the end of the Supreme Court’s term next month,” and that “outside groups are laying the groundwork for a vacancy.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman analyzes this term’s oral arguments by looking at, among other things, the number of words spoken by the justices and advocates.
  • At Take Care, Leah Litman maintains that a letter from the solicitor general to the court correcting the record after the oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii, a challenge to the latest version of the Trump administration’s entry ban, betrays “the degree of looseness with the facts the SG’s office is apparently now willing to tolerate.”
  • At The World and Everything In It, Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in Washington v. United States, in which the justices considered the scope of tribal fishing rights; bankruptcy case Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling; and Pereira v. Sessions, which asks how to interpret a provision of the criminal-removal statute. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Pereira.]
  • In an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, William Perry Pendley urges the justices to grant a cert petition filed by “a Colorado woman whose hard-earned, rare, and valuable claims to minerals she discovered on federal land were seized by the Obama administration.”

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