Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upBriefly: At CNBC, Tucker Higgins reports that “Justice Brett Kavanaugh has only been on the bench for two months, but a controversial decision announced this week has abortion opponents starting to worry that he may not be the ally on the high court that they expected.” Lyle Denniston reports at Constitution Daily Lyle Denniston that”[a] […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Briefly:

  • At CNBC, Tucker Higgins reports that “Justice Brett Kavanaugh has only been on the bench for two months, but a controversial decision announced this week has abortion opponents starting to worry that he may not be the ally on the high court that they expected.”
  • Lyle Denniston reports at Constitution Daily Lyle Denniston that”[a] group of Maryland Republican voters, claiming that they were penalized for supporting their party’s candidates in the polling booth, asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to make a sweeping review of the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering, and to do so before next summer,” “call[ing] for back-to-back hearings, on the same day, in their case and in a similar pending case from North Carolina.”
  • At Law360, Edward Zelinsky writes that the justices’ comments during oral argument in Dawson v. Steager “suggest that they are grappling with how broadly they should rule as they invalidate West Virginia’s tax scheme which taxes the pensions of federal retirees but exempts from income taxation the retirement payments of certain state retirees.”
  • At Greenwire (subscription required), Ellen Gilmer reports that “[t]he lead players of several landmark Clean Water Act scuffles are urging the Supreme Court to take up a new case involving the scope of the law,” filing an amicus brief in support “of a Montana landowner criminally prosecuted for digging ponds and diverting a creek on private property and national forestland.”

  • At Justia’s Verdict blog, Michael Dorf considers the non-implications of the oral argument in Gamble v. United States, which involves an exception to the double jeopardy clause that allows a defendant to be prosecuted for the same crime in both federal and state court, for state-court prosecutions of potential recipients of presidential pardons; in an accompanying essay on his eponymous blog, he discusses the relation between originalism and stare decisis as invoked by Justice Brett Kavanaugh during the Gamble 
  • In an op-ed for The New York Times, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter weighs in on Apple v. Pepper, in which the justices will decide whether iPhone-app purchasers can bring an antitrust suit against Apple, arguing that “America is grappling with serious questions about the levels of concentration and competition in our economy, and the Supreme Court should reinforce rather than constrict the ability of consumers to seek justice for illegal abuses of market power.”
  • At Florida Court Review, John Cavaliere looks at the cert petition and stay application filed by Florida inmate Jose Antonio Jimenez, who is scheduled to be executed today and is challenging Florida’s three-drug lethal injection protocol.

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-upAmy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that the Trump administration yesterday asked the Supreme Court to put a hold on a lower-court ruling that bars enforcement of a new policy prohibiting immigrants who enter the country illegally across the U.S.-Mexico border from requesting asylum. […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, that the Trump administration yesterday asked the Supreme Court to put a hold on a lower-court ruling that bars enforcement of a new policy prohibiting immigrants who enter the country illegally across the U.S.-Mexico border from requesting asylum. Additional coverage comes from Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Andrew Chung at Reuters, Bob Egelko at the San Francisco Chronicle, Michael Burke at The Hill, Gregg Re at Fox News, and Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed.News.

At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery and Melanie Israel lament that “[t]he Supreme Court on Monday missed an opportunity to bring clarity to an area of the law about which the lower courts are divided: Whether states can prevent Medicaid funds from going to pay for non-abortion services at Planned Parenthood clinics.” At People for the American Way, Eliot Mincberg warns against being “fooled into thinking that” Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s decision not to join three of his conservative colleagues in voting to review two cases raising this issue, in which the lower courts blocked efforts by states to strip Planned Parenthood of its Medicaid funding, “means that Kavanaugh has abandoned his anti-reproductive choice views or his interest in overturning important Court precedents.” Additional commentary comes from Jessica Mason Pieklo at Rewire.News.

Briefly:

  • At Reuters, Lawrence Hurley reports that “[t]he U.S. Supreme Court’s reluctance to take up new cases on volatile social issues is putting it on a collision course with President Donald Trump, whose Justice Department is trying to rush such disputes through the appeals system to get them before the nine justices as quickly as possible.”
  • At The Regulatory Review, Daniel Walters weighs in Kisor v. Wilkie, in which the justices have been asked to overrule Auer v. Robbins, which instructs courts generally to defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own regulations, arguing that “if the Court proceeds to overrule Auer, it will be acting on the basis of a wildly speculative hunch that is contradicted by the best evidence available.”

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 issued additional orders from its conference last Friday, adding one case to its merits docket. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. At Education Week’s School Law Blog, Mark Walsh reports that the court agreed to review Kisor […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued additional orders from its conference last Friday, adding one case to its merits docket. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. At Education Week’s School Law Blog, Mark Walsh reports that the court agreed to review Kisor v. Wilkie, which raises “an important question about when courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations.” Additional coverage comes from Tony Mauro at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required) and from Ellen Gilmer at E&E News, who reports that the case “centers on veteran benefits but has broader implications for the degree to which judges yield to agency decisionmaking.” Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson report for Bloomberg Law that “what the justices say could suggest that Chevron deference—the rule giving deference to agency interpretations of statutes—could itself be in the cross hairs.”

For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that, over a dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, the court also “declined … to review lower court decisions that blocked efforts in two states to cut off public funding for Planned Parenthood, refusing for now to get involved in state battles over abortion rights.” For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that the cert denial “let stand federal appeals court rulings that allowed the reproductive health organization’s patients to contest laws in Louisiana and Kansas that stripped its Medicaid funds.” Jess Bravin reports for The Wall Street Journal that, “[a]part from the abortion issue, conservatives have been skeptical that federal laws give individuals a right to sue over denial of benefits and similar matters unless Congress explicitly provided for such actions.” Additional coverage comes from Nina Totenberg and Domenico Montanaro at NPR, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Andrew Chung at Reuters, David Savage for the Los Angeles Times, Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller, and Mark Sherman at AP, who reports that “[t]he court’s order reflected a split among its conservative justices and an accusation from Justice Clarence Thomas that his colleagues seemed to be ducking the case for political reasons.” Another look at the cert denial in the Planned Parenthood cases comes in an episode of Tatter (podcast).

The justices also issued one opinion yesterday: In United States v. Stitt, the court held 9-0 that the term “burglary” in the Armed Career Criminal Act, which requires longer sentences for gun offenders who have three prior convictions for certain drug offenses or violent crimes, includes burglary of a structure or vehicle that has been adapted or is customarily used to sleep in overnight, such as an RV or a mobile home. Rory Little analyzes the opinion for this blog. Subscript Law provides a graphic explainer for the decision. Additional coverage comes from Jordan Rubin at Bloomberg Law and Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service.

Briefly:

  • At SCOTUS OA, Tonja Jacobi and Matthew Sag follow up on their previous analysis of “the implications of justices cross-referencing other justices at oral argument,” “focus[ing] on the content of those cross-references.”
  • At Law.com, Tony Mauro reports that “[a] handful of organizations have recently resorted to GoFundMe campaigns to generate donations for covering the cost of producing amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court,” but that “because GoFundMe allows for anonymous contributions, the nascent trend has hit a speed bump”: “the high court’s Rule 37.6, which requires that amicus brief filers ‘shall identify every person other than the amicus curiae, its members or its counsel, who made such a monetary contribution.’”
  • In the most recent episode of First Mondays (podcast), which features “twice as many women … as there were at the Supreme Court podium in the whole December sitting,” Leah Litman guest host Jaime Santos recap last week’s arguments.
  • At The World and Everything In It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in Nieves v. Bartlett, which revisits the question of whether probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim, and Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, which involves the timeliness of an appeal from a denial of class-action certification.
  • A recent episode of Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast features a conversation between law professor Steve Vladeck and “Tom Goldstein, the veteran U.S. Supreme Court lawyer and publisher of SCOTUSblog, who is challenging [Acting Attorney General Matthew] Whitaker’s appointment at the high court in an unusual motion.”
  • At The Progressive, Bill Blum observes that during the oral argument last week in Gamble v. United States, which asks whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause that allows a defendant to be prosecuted for the same crime in both federal and state court, “the court appeared as divided as the litigants and the amici, but not along the usual ideological lines.”

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: For The New York Times, Adam Liptak takes a look at the history behind “an awkward and illuminating tradition at the Supreme Court: the group photographs prepared when a new justice joins the court.” As Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, on Friday […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

Briefly:

  • For The New York Times, Adam Liptak takes a look at the history behind “an awkward and illuminating tradition at the Supreme Court: the group photographs prepared when a new justice joins the court.”
  • As Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court, on Friday the justices issued orders from their private conference; they added one case to their merits docket: maritime-law dispute The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
  • At CNN, Joan Biskupic reports that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “relentless” questioning in a double jeopardy case last week sent a “message, explicit then, and implicit in other instances over the past month: I’m still here.”
  • Tony Mauro observes at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required) that “[i]t is rare for justices to compliment the lawyers before them for the quality of their briefs, but Justice Stephen Breyer did just that during oral argument” last week in patent case Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals.
  • At Good Judgment, Ryan Adler invites readers to forecast the result in Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair, “a challenge to the state of Tennessee’s durational residency requirements for liquor licensing”  in which the court will confront a “dichotomy between … two constitutional tenets”:  the 21st Amendment and the dormant commerce clause.

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-upAmy Howe analyzes yesterday’s argument in Gamble v. United States, which asks whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause that allows a defendant to be prosecuted for the same crime in both federal and state court, for this blog, in a post that was first published at […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s argument in Gamble v. United States, which asks whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause that allows a defendant to be prosecuted for the same crime in both federal and state court, for this blog, in a post that was first published at Howe on the Court. At Fox News, Bill Mears reports that “[t]he justices raised tough questions Thursday about being tried twice for the same crime in different jurisdictions – ‘a double whammy,’ as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg put it – yet a majority seemed inclined to preserve what the Trump administration calls 170 years of precedent allowing an exception to the double jeopardy provision.” At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that “[t]he case is carefully followed in Washington because of its potential ramifications for special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.” But Adam Liptak reports for The New York Times that “the justices gave no indications on Thursday that they were focused on such issues.” Additional coverage of the argument comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR, Ariane de Vogue at CNN, Mark Sherman at AP, Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, Richard Wolf for USA Today, and Robert Barnes for The Washington Post.

At Roll Call, Todd Ruger reports that the case “gave retiring Sen. Orrin G. Hatch a final chance to broadcast his views beyond the Capitol building to the nine justices across the street,” when Hatch “filed a brief known as an amicus curiae — or a ‘friend of the court’ who is not a party in a case.” The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal counsels that “[t]here are strong legal arguments on both sides, but the implications of jettisoning longtime precedent counsel judicial restraint.” Another look at the case comes from Garrett Epps at The Atlantic.

Briefly:

  • At The Hill, Lydia Wheeler reports that “[a] bruising battle over the court’s latest appointee and a recent health scare involving the oldest justice has renewed interest in the age-old debate over whether there should be term limits for the Supreme Court.”
  • In the most recent episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, “John-Michael Seibler joins Elizabeth Slattery to discuss retired Justice Kennedy lingering at the Court and share holiday gift recommendations for the SCOTUS nerd in your life.”
  • In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse remarks on an enduring legacy of the late President George H.W. Bush: his appointment of “Clarence Thomas, [who] is now in his 27th year as a justice and, at age 70, is on track to become one of the longest-serving Supreme Court justices in history,” noting that “[a]cross all his federal court nominations, … [P]resident [Donald Trump] has chosen two dozen former Supreme Court law clerks, including 10 who clerked for Justice Thomas — more than for any other justice.”

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-upThis morning the Supreme Court rounds out its December sitting with an oral argument in Gamble v. United States, which asks whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause that allows a defendant to be prosecuted for the same crime in both federal and state court. Amy Howe […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

This morning the Supreme Court rounds out its December sitting with an oral argument in Gamble v. United States, which asks whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause that allows a defendant to be prosecuted for the same crime in both federal and state court. Amy Howe had this blog’s preview, which was first published at Howe on the Court. Garion Liberti and Tayler Woelcke preview the case at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Nina Totenberg reports for NPR that “[t]he case has attracted extra attention because of President Trump’s comments that he could possibly pardon his onetime campaign chairman Paul Manafort and other Trump associates who have been — or could be — convicted in prosecutions brought by [Special Counsel Robert] Mueller.” At Bloomberg Law, Jordan Rubin reports that “the extent to which a decision in Gamble’s favor would actually benefit any Trump associates is far from certain.” Additional coverage comes from Steven Mazie at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog and Bill Lucia at Route Fifty.

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-upRonald Mann has this blog’s argument analysis in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, in which the justices considered yesterday whether the “on sale” bar to the patentability of an invention is triggered by a sale in which the purchaser is required to keep the details of the invention confidential. At Law360 (subscription required), Matthew Butman […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

Ronald Mann has this blog’s argument analysis in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, in which the justices considered yesterday whether the “on sale” bar to the patentability of an invention is triggered by a sale in which the purchaser is required to keep the details of the invention confidential. At Law360 (subscription required), Matthew Butman reports that the justices “wrestled with the idea that the America Invents Act may have narrowed the on-sale bar in patent cases, while leaving open the door for a possible exception to the bar for activities that aren’t commercial sales.”

For the Los Angeles Times, David Savage reports that Monday’s order in Fleck v. Wetch, requiring a lower court to reconsider a challenge to North Dakota’s mandatory bar dues in light of last term’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which held that public employees who don’t belong to a union can’t be required to pay fees to fund the union’s collective-bargaining activities, suggests that “the court’s majority now doubts the constitutionality of requiring lawyers to support a private bar association.” Commentary on the ruling comes from Deborah LaFetra in an op-ed at the Daily Journal.

Briefly:

  • At CNBC, Tucker Higgins writes that President George H.W. Bush, “who died Friday at 94, may have left his most enduring legacy on the Supreme Court, where he nominated two justices and paved the way for two more.”
  • As Ronald Mann recounts for this blog, the justices yesterday called for additional briefing in Carpenter v. Murphy, a capital case in which the justices are considering whether Congress has disestablished the boundaries of an Indian reservation in Oklahoma, affecting the state’s ability to prosecute crimes in the affected area.
  • At Constitution Daily, Lyle Denniston reports that, “[a]rguing that a state should not have to re-draw its congressional districts twice in a short time span, Maryland officials asked the Supreme Court on Monday to rule that the existing map can be used again in 2020 despite a lower court ruling that it is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.”
  • Mark Sherman reports for AP that “[w]hen you sit through almost all the Supreme Court arguments in a week, a month or even a term (as The Associated Press does), you hear the same phrases over and over,” and that “[s]ome justices have a sort of verbal signature, phrases they employ to disagree — more or less politely — with a lawyer arguing in front of them.”
  • At E&E News, Ellen Gilmer reports that “[t]he Supreme Court has signaled its interest in a potentially game-changing debate over the scope of the Clean Water Act” by asking the solicitor general to provide the government’s views in two cases that raise the question of “whether the law applies to pollutants that travel through groundwater before reaching surface water.”
  • At Law.com, Marcia Coyle looks into whether there is “a right way or a wrong way for an advocate to tell a U.S. Supreme Court justice that he or she is wrong during oral arguments.”
  • The American Constitution Society has published the second edition of its Supreme Court Review, which “features a series of critical essays, penned by the nation’s top legal scholars and practitioners, on the most important cases and themes from the Supreme Court’s October 2017 Term.”
  • The Buckeye Institute announces that it has “filed the first significant First Amendment labor-law challenge in the Supreme Court of the United States since the landmark June 27 decision in Janus v. AFSCME[:] The case, Uradnik v. Inter Faculty Organization, calls for an immediate end to laws that force public-sector employees to accept a union’s exclusive representation.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Luke Wake and others urge the justices to review Colony Cove v. City of Carson, a regulatory-takings case, and to hold that “[i]n the context of a temporary takings claim, … the analysis must focus on the economic impact of the restriction during the imposition rather than on the value remaining after a temporary restriction is lifted.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman “examines the 2017 term [Supreme Court] case pipelines to see how partisanship helps us predict how judges vote in complex 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-upThere are two oral arguments on the Supreme Court’s agenda today. The first is in Biestek v. Berryhill, in which the justices will consider social-security-benefits claimants’ ability to scrutinize the data on which benefits denials are based. David Super had this blog’s preview. Tyler Schmitt and Grace Brosofsky preview the case for Cornell Law School’s […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

There are two oral arguments on the Supreme Court’s agenda today. The first is in Biestek v. Berryhill, in which the justices will consider social-security-benefits claimants’ ability to scrutinize the data on which benefits denials are based. David Super had this blog’s preview. Tyler Schmitt and Grace Brosofsky preview the case for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. This morning’s second case is Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, which asks whether the “on sale” bar to the patentability of an invention is triggered by a sale in which the purchaser is required to keep the details of the invention confidential. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog. Lauren Kloss and Nayanthika Ramakrishnan have a preview for Cornell.

Yesterday the justices issued orders from last week’s conference; Amy Howe has this blog’s coverage, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. At Greenwire (subscription required), Ellen Gilmer reports that the court “invited the solicitor general to weigh in on two closely watched cases involving pollution that moves through groundwater before reaching a surface waterway.” Kevin Daley reports at The Daily Caller that the justices “declined to take up a challenge to President Donald Trump’s border wall …, which asserted that the administration violated the Constitution when it exempted border barrier projects from environmental regulations.” At the Pacific Legal Foundation’s blog, Deborah LaFetra comments on the court’s order in Fleck v. Wetch, a challenge to North Dakota’s mandatory bar dues, that the court of appeals reconsider the case in light of Janus v. AFSCME; she argues that “[t]he First Amendment principles outlined in Janus … demand that no one should be forced into associations as the price of earning a living, including attorneys.”

Mark Walsh has a first-hand view of yesterday’s courtroom proceedings, which featured nods to both the late President George H.W. Bush and recently retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, for this blog. Daniel Hemel has this blog’s analysis of yesterday’s oral argument in Dawson v. Steager, which asks whether federal law or the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity prevents West Virginia from differential taxation of retirement benefits of certain former state and federal employees. At AP, Jessica Gresko reports that the justices “seemed inclined … to side with a retired U.S. marshal who argues West Virginia is discriminating against former federal law enforcement officers like him by giving a more generous tax break to former state law enforcement officers.”

Ronald Mann analyzes the oral argument in yesterday’s second case, Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, in which the justices considered whether someone who distributed false statements drafted by someone else can be held liable under federal securities laws for participating in a fraudulent scheme, for this blog. At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr and Benjamin Bain report that the court appeared “likely to reinforce the Securities and Exchange Commission’s powers,” and that a “ruling favoring the SEC would mark a turnaround from a trend of Supreme Court rulings against the agency.” The editorial board of The Wall Street Journal calls the case “a textbook example of regulators stretching the law to make an example of an unsympathetic defendant.”

Briefly:

  • For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes explains why, when the Supreme Court “takes up the case of a small-time Alabama felon, Terance Gamble, who complains [in Gamble v. United States] that his convictions by state and federal prosecutors for the same gun possession crime violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy,” “likely to be watching the proceedings closely will be those concerned about a big-time felon, Republican consultant and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who was prosecuted by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III for tax fraud.”
  • At PrawfsBlawg, Rory Little weighs in on last week’s oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana, which asks whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states, noting that “for one Bill of Rights provision in particular – the Fifth Amendment’s right to be charged by a Grand Jury for any ‘capital or otherwise infamous crime’ – the decision to not incorporate is long-standing and quite considered”; “[y]et … it appears to be a “blank spot” in the doctrinal understanding of the Court’s two newest Justices, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.”
  • At The World and Everything In It, Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in Apple v. Pepper, in which the justices considered whether iPhone-app purchasers can bring an antitrust suit against Apple for monopolizing the market for the apps and making consumers overpay, and Frank v. Gaos, in which the court has been asked to make it harder for companies to settle class-action lawsuits without providing direct compensation to class members, through a process known as cy pres.
  • At E&E News, Ellen Gilmer looks at the implications of the court’s recent decision in Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in which the court held that the Endangered Species Act allows the government to designate land as a “critical habitat” only if it is habitat for the listed species, and that the designating agency’s assessment of the costs and benefits of the designation is reviewable in court; she notes that “[t]hough narrow in its holdings, the justices’ unanimous opinion… is expected to have ripple effects in federal courts.”

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 second week of the Supreme Court’s December session begins with two oral arguments. First up is Dawson v. Steager, which asks whether federal law or the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity prevents West Virginia from differential taxation of retirement benefits of certain former state and federal employees. Daniel Hemel had this blog’s preview. Lauren […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

The second week of the Supreme Court’s December session begins with two oral arguments. First up is Dawson v. Steager, which asks whether federal law or the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity prevents West Virginia from differential taxation of retirement benefits of certain former state and federal employees. Daniel Hemel had this blog’s preview. Lauren Devendorf and Luis Lozada preview the case for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Subscript Law has a graphic explainer. Today’s second argument is in Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission, a securities-fraud case in which the justices will consider whether someone who distributed false statements drafted by someone else can be held liable for participating in a fraudulent scheme. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog; Isaac Syed and Yuexin Angela Zhu have Cornell’s preview.

In a podcast at Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin offer a sneak peek at all the cases on this week’s argument docket. In a podcast at Howe on the Court, Amy Howe has a rundown of last week’s Supreme Court news, “including the oral arguments in a dispute over Apple’s sale of apps to iPhone users and the second opinion of the term.” At First Mondays (podcast), Dan Epps and Leah Litman recap some of last week’s arguments and look ahead to Thursday’s argument in Gamble v. United States, which asks whether the Supreme Court should overrule an exception to the double jeopardy clause that allows a defendant to be prosecuted for the same crime in both federal and state court.

At Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson takes a look at the potential impact on state courts if the Supreme Court applied the Bill of Rights to the states as completely as some justices discussed during the oral argument last week in Timbs v. Indiana, in which the court considered whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states. At The Daily Signal, Jason Snead and Elizabeth Slattery discuss the oral argument in Timbs, noting that, “while there seemed to be broad support for incorporating the Excessive Fines Clause, and possibly for holding that the clause does indeed apply to civil forfeitures that are punitive in nature, there was no clear agreement about how to define an ‘excessive’ civil forfeiture.” A podcast at the Daily Journal offers competing views on the issues in Timbs. Another look at the case comes from Kenneth Jost at Jost on Justice.

Briefly:

  • At The National Law Journal, Tony Mauro reports that a “coalition of 18 law firms that specialize in Supreme Court advocacy told the court Friday that proposed rules aimed at trimming the length of briefs ‘would be harmful’ to lawyers’ ability to ‘thoroughly and thoughtfully brief issues that are critical to the court’s resolution of the cases before it.’”
  • At Florida Court Review, John Cavaliere writes that when the Supreme Court rules on the cert petition filed by Florida death-row inmate Jose Antonio Jimenez, “[w]e’ll find out whether any of the justices think the Florida Supreme Court should’ve specifically ruled on Jimenez’s Due Process argument or if they will continue their streak of denying relief without comment in Florida death warrant cases.”
  • At ACS Blog, Justin Pidot looks at Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion for a unanimous court last week in Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, suggesting that “[t]he result may telegraph more about the Chief Justice’s concern with the institution of the Supreme Court than about his views about the case itself.”

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 Economist, Steven Mazie reports after Wednesday’s oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana, in which the justices considered whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states, that “[t]he unusual left-right coalition of organisations urging the Supreme Court to side with Mr Timbs—Christian conservatives, libertarians, anti-poverty activists, the Chamber of Commerce—seems to […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

For The Economist, Steven Mazie reports after Wednesday’s oral argument in Timbs v. Indiana, in which the justices considered whether the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states, that “[t]he unusual left-right coalition of organisations urging the Supreme Court to side with Mr Timbs—Christian conservatives, libertarians, anti-poverty activists, the Chamber of Commerce—seems to have the support of an ideologically diverse array of justices.” At Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Ilya Somin writes that “[e]ven if the justices punt on the excessiveness issue, a ruling that incorporates the Excessive Fines Clause against the states and holds that the Clause applies to at least some substantial number of civil asset forfeitures would be an important victory for civil liberties and property rights.”

Briefly:

  • At The Daily Caller, Kevin Daley reports that “[c]onservative legal luminary Ken Starr is backing a Texas death row inmate who is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to stop his pending execution because he is mentally disabled.”
  • In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, “Sheldon Gilbert from the National Constitution Center joins Elizabeth Slattery to talk about recent oral arguments, the return of Coach K, and John Roberts v. Donald Trump.”
  • In an op-ed for USA Today, Alexis Lightcap urges the justices to review Doe v. Boyertown Area School District, in which she and other Pennsylvania high school students are challenging their school district’s policy of permitting transgender students to use restrooms or locker rooms consistent with their gender identity, arguing that “my privacy shouldn’t depend on what others believe about their own gender.”
  • At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, Bernard Bell offers the last in a three-part series of posts on PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic Inc., which asks whether the Hobbs Act, a jurisdictional-channeling statute, requires courts to accept the Federal Communications Commission’s interpretation of a statute allowing recipients of “junk faxes” to sue the senders for damages; he concludes that “the district court’s conception of ‘advertisement’ was too narrow,” and that “even under that narrow definition, PDR Network’s ‘commercial aim’ in sending the fax sufficed to make the fax an ‘advertisement.’”
  • At National Review, John Yoo and James Phillips hopes the court will use its decision in American Legion v. American Humanist Association, an establishment clause challenge to the placement on public land of a World War I memorial shaped like a cross, to “return to an establishment-clause jurisprudence that supports the free exercise of religion rather than undermining 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 Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com