Friday round-up

Friday round-upYesterday the federal government asked the justices to halt discovery and an upcoming trial in a lawsuit filed by a group of teenagers who allege that the government’s environmental policies are contributing to climate change. Amy Howe covers the filing for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Additional […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Yesterday the federal government asked the justices to halt discovery and an upcoming trial in a lawsuit filed by a group of teenagers who allege that the government’s environmental policies are contributing to climate change. Amy Howe covers the filing for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Additional coverage comes from Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Ariane de Vogue at CNN, and Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, who reports that “[t]he federal lawyers argued that the mere existence of the lawsuit violates a host of federal laws and undermines the Constitution’s doctrine of separating powers between the branches of the federal government, with the judiciary taking over from the politically elected branches.”

Briefly:

  • For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that although “Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s doctoral study on a conservative philosophy called natural law is a prime reason right-leaning legal thinkers recommended him to President Trump,” “the public won’t have a chance to learn the jurist’s latest thoughts on the theory when he speaks Friday at a conference of Catholic legal scholars seeking to expand Christian influence on public policy,” because “[t]he sponsor, the Thomistic Institute, is barring journalists from covering the conference.”
  • At Slate, Richard Hasen suggests that “[i]t’s a great time for liberals to brush up on their knowledge of originalism and textualism” if they want to succeed before the newly constituted Supreme Court.
  • In The National Law Journal’s Supreme Court Brief, Anthony Franze and R. Reeves Anderson offer their annual analysis of Supreme Court amicus briefs, noting that “[a]fter a relatively quiet 2016–17 term, friends of the court roared back last term, with amici participating in every argued case and filing more briefs than ever.”
  • In a new episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and Sheldon Gilbert from the National Constitution Center “talk about Justice Kavanaugh’s first week at SCOTUS and what might happen with potential 4-4 decisions.”
  • Tony Mauro reports for The National Law Journal that “Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said this week that the arrival of Brett Kavanaugh has been greeted with the traditional ‘welcoming for a new member of our court,’ adding that “we are going to let these times pass,’” an apparent reference to his stormy confirmation process.”

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-upCourt-watchers continue to consider the effect of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation on future Supreme Court decisions and on the court as an institution. At CNN, Joan Biskupic writes that although “[i]n the wake of the divisive Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday tried to assure the public that the US Supreme Court […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Court-watchers continue to consider the effect of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation on future Supreme Court decisions and on the court as an institution. At CNN, Joan Biskupic writes that although “[i]n the wake of the divisive Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday tried to assure the public that the US Supreme Court serves the whole country, not one political party over another, and that it is committed to collegiality,” “America’s highest court is deeply split along ideological and political lines, and Roberts sometimes fosters that divide.” In an episode of New York magazine Daily Intelligencer’s 2038 podcast, Dahlia Lithwick talks about what the court might look like in 20 years. Focusing on the nearer future, Daniel Hemel points out at Take Care that “Roberts Court doctrines regarding the Commerce Clause, compelled speech, commercial speech, RFRA, federalism, and agency deference don’t always tilt toward the right.” At National Review, Conrad Black maintains that “[n]ow that the dust is settling on the Kavanaugh affair, it is well to remember that much of the concern over the stance he may take as a judge could be unjustified,” and that because “[t]hese are life appointments, and judges’ views change once they are installed,” “[t]he calculation of a solid conservative majority is apt to be fragile in fact.”

Briefly:

  • At Law360 (subscription required), Emma Cueto reports that “[a] whistleblower has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider whether federal courts can impose sanctions for behavior that happened before a suit was filed, saying a Tenth Circuit decision upholding sanctions against him created a circuit split.”
  • Jordan Rubin reports at Bloomberg Law that “[a] Missouri death row inmate’s Supreme Court fight has support from unlikely allies: former executioners,” who have filed a “‘friend of the court’—brief with the justices to share firsthand reflections on administering the ultimate punishment” in Bucklew v. Precythe, in which an inmate argues that because he suffers from a rare medical condition, execution by lethal injection will cause him intolerable pain. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in this case.]
  • At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie writes that the issue in the court’s most recent grant, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, which asks whether a private operator of a public-access TV channel is a “state actor” who can be sued for violations of the First Amendment, “goes to the heart of a fraught area of First Amendment law that could have significant implications for media companies—from Twitter to National Public Radio—that curate content on their platforms.”
  • For The Atlantic, Bob Bauer offers several suggestions for reforming the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Supreme Court confirmation process.
  • At the Brookings Institution’s FixGov blog, Russell Wheeler explains that “judicial misconduct complaints against now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh … won’t proceed because Supreme Court justices are not subject to the federal court’s disciplinary mechanism.”

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-upIn a speech yesterday referring to “the contentious events in Washington of recent weeks,” Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the independence of the Supreme Court. Andrew Hamm covers Roberts’ remarks for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Josh Gerstein at Politico, Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Brent Kendall for The Wall Street Journal, and […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

In a speech yesterday referring to “the contentious events in Washington of recent weeks,” Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the independence of the Supreme Court. Andrew Hamm covers Roberts’ remarks for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Josh Gerstein at Politico, Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, Brent Kendall for The Wall Street Journal, and Ariane de Vogue at CNN, who reports that “Roberts commended recent remarks by his ‘newest colleague’ during his ceremonial swearing-in at the White House,” at which Justice Brett “Kavanaugh said he would not serve ‘one party or one interest.’”

Briefly:

  • At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that “[l]awyers for the Trump Administration plan to ask the Supreme Court [today] to halt a trial set to begin in two weeks of a massive lawsuit against government environmental policy stretching back decades”; “[t]he case, Juliana v. U.S., seeks to establish a constitutional right to ‘a climate system capable of sustaining human life.’”
  • At the ImmigrationProf Blog, Spyros Orfanos and Jessica Rofé weigh in on Nielsen v. Preap, which involves the immigration law’s mandatory detention provision, deploring “the serious negative mental health consequences of the abrupt disruptions of family life that are caused by the government’s expansive reading of the mandatory detention statute.”
  • At CNBC, Tucker Higgins reports that the latest addition to this term’s docket, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, “could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.”
  • In an episode of Bloomberg Law’s Cases and Controversies podcast, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin recap Kavanaugh’s journey to the Supreme Court bench, “discuss[] his demeanor during arguments, and highlight[] relationships to watch.”
  • At FiveThirtyEight, Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux explains that Supreme Court “history has a lot to tell us about how much leeway the court’s new majority has when deciding future cases on issues where a conservative ruling might spark a backlash, like abortion.”

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 justices issued orders from last week’s conference, granting no new cases and taking no action on several high-profile cert petitions. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in a post first published at Howe on the Court. At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that the justices “rejected appeals from Sherwin-Williams Co. and Conagra Brands Inc., […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Yesterday the justices issued orders from last week’s conference, granting no new cases and taking no action on several high-profile cert petitions. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in a post first published at Howe on the Court. At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that the justices “rejected appeals from Sherwin-Williams Co. and Conagra Brands Inc., leaving intact a ruling that requires [the companies] to pay more than $400 million for lead-paint remediation in California.” Additional coverage comes from David Savage for the Los Angeles Times, who reports that “[b]usiness lawyers said they fear the decision will give a green light to other suits seeking to hold manufacturers liable for damage inflicted on the public, including the opioid crisis and climate change.”In an op-ed for Forbes, Richard Samp writes that in Nielsen v. Preap, which involves the immigration law’s mandatory detention provision, last week’s “oral argument left little doubt about the likely outcome: Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh will vote to overturn the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s constricted interpretation of the government’s detention authority.” At SCOTUS OA, Tonja Jacobi and Matthew Sag agree with this prediction, noting that their “empirical analysis of the Preap oral argument suggests that Kavanaugh will be loyal to the Republicans”; they go on to observe that “[c]onsidering all four cases the Court heard in Kavanaugh’s first week on the Bench, the newest justice may not be ideologically moderate, but so far he has been moderate in his behavior, in some senses.”

Briefly:

  • At Law360 (subscription required), Jimmy Hoover and others present the results of a series of interviews in which “practitioners and experts described how everything from the pipeline of Supreme Court clerks to the preferences of corporate clients — perhaps the most important factor — contributes to the sharp gender disparity [in oral arguments] at the high court.”
  • At Take Care, Michael Klarman explains why Democrats should favor adding additional seats to the Supreme Court.
  • At USA Today, Joel Shannon reports that “[a] Brooklyn, New York, bookstore is planning an event for people angered by the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court: A public hex.”
  • In The World and Everything in It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in two cases involving the Armed Career Criminal Act’s sentencing-enhancement provisions — Stokeling v. United States and United States v. Sims – and in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which asks whether a property owner with a Fifth Amendment takings claim can go straight to federal court.

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-upOn Friday the court granted cert in one new case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, which asks whether a private operator of a public-access TV channel is a “state actor” who can be sued for violations of the First Amendment. Amy Howe covers the grant for this blog, in a post that first appeared […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

On Friday the court granted cert in one new case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, which asks whether a private operator of a public-access TV channel is a “state actor” who can be sued for violations of the First Amendment. Amy Howe covers the grant for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. In a podcast at Howe on the Court, Amy discusses “the week’s orders, oral arguments, and — perhaps most importantly — emergency appeals.” The most recent episode of First Mondays (podcast) recaps last week’s cases and “take[s] a look at the so-called ‘shadow docket’ to see what the justices are up to outside of the courtroom.”

Briefly:

  • For The New York Times, Adam Liptak writes that Theodore Frank, who will argue before the court later this month in Frank v. Gaos, a challenge to class-action settlement practices, is about to “join a small group of lawyers who have handled the Supreme Court arguments in their own cases.”
  • In an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, Jeremy Dys explains why the Supreme Court should review a lower-court decision holding that a war memorial in the shape of a cross on public land in the Washington, D.C., suburbs violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
  • At The Takeaway (podcast), host Amy Walter talks to Amy Howe about whether President Donald Trump has kept his campaign promise to appoint Supreme Court justices who would expand Second Amendment protections and repeal Roe v. Wade.
  • At the ImmigrationProf Blog, Kevin Johnson looks at last week’s oral argument in Nielsen v. Preap, which involves the immigration law’s mandatory detention provision,, concluding that “the justices were troubled by what they viewed as the extreme positions posed by the opposing sides” and that perhaps “a majority could be cobbled around Justice Breyer’s suggestion that the U.S. government be permitted to subject a noncitizen to mandatory detention if taken into custody within a reasonable time of release from state custody.”
  • For The Washington Post, Deborah Pearlstein reviews “The Most Dangerous Branch,” David Kaplan’s new book about the Supreme Court, in which Kaplan argues that the court “lost its legitimacy as an apolitical arbiter of the nation’s most important constitutional disputes long ago.”
  • At Ikuta Matata, Sean Smith notes that in resolving a case brought by a baker who refused on religious grounds to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, the United Kingdom Supreme Court last week cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and similarly “handed victory to the objecting baker, although the British judges arguably provided a much less opaque answer to the underlying legal questions than Anthony Kennedy did in his more cautious majority opinion.”
  • At Good Judgment, Ryan Adler invites court-watchers to forecast the result 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 Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost argues that the justices’ repeated rescheduling of the cert petition in Wood v. Oklahoma, which uses statistical evidence to challenge racial disparities in the administration of the death penalty in that state, “implicates the justices as well in the racial bias all too evident in the United States’ flawed death penalty machinery.”

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-upAt the close of October Term 2018’s first oral argument session, Jennifer Chacon has this blog’s analysis of Wednesday’s argument in Nielsen v. Preap, which involves the immigration law’s mandatory detention provision. At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie reports that the case “boils down to how harshly the government can treat immigrants,” […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

At the close of October Term 2018’s first oral argument session, Jennifer Chacon has this blog’s analysis of Wednesday’s argument in Nielsen v. Preap, which involves the immigration law’s mandatory detention provision. At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie reports that the case “boils down to how harshly the government can treat immigrants,” and that “all nine justices struggled to interpret a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) hinging on the meaning of ‘when’—and were split over how to read it.” This blog’s analysis of Wednesday’s second argument, in Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, which asks whether companies can be held liable under maritime law for injuries caused by asbestos that was added to the companies’ products by third parties after the point of sale, comes from Ronald Mann. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in this case.] Additional coverage comes from Brandi Buchman at Courthouse News Service.

For The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that “new Justice Brett Kavanaugh has decided to join the court’s ‘cert pool,’ a system for sharing law clerks to screen the thousands of incoming petitions for review.” At Balkinization, Deborah Pearlstein considers the possible effect of Kavanaugh’s confirmation process on “public perceptions of the Court.” Another look whether the court is facing a “crisis of legitimacy” in the aftermath of the confirmation comes from Ilya Somin at Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog.

Briefly:

  • For this blog, Amy Howe reports that, over dissents from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer, the Supreme Court last night vacated a lower-court order staying the execution of Tennessee death-row inmate Edmund Zagorski, but that “the state’s governor gave Zagorski a brief reprieve to provide the state with enough time to prepare the electric chair that Zagorski has requested for use in his execution.”

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 court heard argument in Nielsen v. Preap, which involves the immigration law’s mandatory detention provision. Robert Barnes reports for The Washington Post that “President Trump’s two nominees to the Supreme Court might play key roles in deciding the rights of some immigrants to challenge their detention during deportation hearings,” “[b]ut it wasn’t clear […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Yesterday the court heard argument in Nielsen v. Preap, which involves the immigration law’s mandatory detention provision. Robert Barnes reports for The Washington Post that “President Trump’s two nominees to the Supreme Court might play key roles in deciding the rights of some immigrants to challenge their detention during deportation hearings,” “[b]ut it wasn’t clear that they would arrive at the same conclusion.” For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “[t]he question in the case was whether federal authorities must detain immigrants who had committed crimes, often minor ones, no matter how long ago they were released from criminal custody,” and that Justice Brett “Kavanaugh said a 1996 federal law required detention even years later, without an opportunity for a bail hearing.” Lawrence Hurley reports for Reuters that “[a] majority of justices, including [Justice Neil] Gorsuch, appeared concerned about immigrants being detained without a hearing years after they committed criminal offenses,” but “the sticking point appeared to be how to define what would be a reasonable period of time for immigration agents to detain a person whose criminal sentence is completed.” Additional coverage comes from Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller, Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, David Savage for the Los Angeles Times, and Richard Wolf at USA Today. Commentary comes from Liz Martinez in an op-ed for The Hill.

Amy Howe reports for this blog, in a post originally published at Howe on the Court, that on Tuesday the Supreme Court “declined to intervene in a challenge to a North Dakota law that requires voters to present identification that includes a current residential street address.” For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that the challengers had argued “that the measure would harm Native Americans who are less likely to live at standardized addresses or possess the identification cards required by the statute.”

At CNN, Ariane de Vogue reports that “Chief Justice John Roberts said in a letter on Wednesday that he had transferred judicial misconduct complaints related to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Judicial Council of the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals for further review.” Additional coverage comes from Ann Marimow and Tom Hamburger for The Washington Post, who report that “[t]he judiciary’s rules on misconduct do not apply to Supreme Court justices, and the 10th Circuit could decide to dismiss the complaints as moot now that Kavanaugh has joined the high court.”

At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman looks for empirical indications about what kind of justice Kavanaugh will be, noting that “[w]hile much about Kavanaugh’s behavior as a justice on the Supreme Court will take years to process, we should start seeing inklings of his judicial behavior early this term.” For The Economist, Steven Mazie explains that “[i]n the short run, the 114th justice’s impact will not be earth-shaking,” because a “docket of smaller-stakes cases this year … limits the potential impact of Justice Kavanaugh’s ascent to the Supreme Court,” but that “the newly entrenched right-leaning majority will eventually find an appetite for cases with openings to push American law in their direction.” Commentary comes from Linda Greenhouse in an op-ed for The New York Times and from Hans von Spakovsky in an op-ed for Fox News.

Briefly:

  • At Law360 (subscription required), Edward Zelinsky looks at 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; Zelinsky predicts the court will hold “that any income tax exemption a state extends to any of its former employees must also be given to all federal retirees living in the state.”
  • At Route Fifty, Bill Lucia reports that “[t]op officials from 17 Republican-leaning states are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge a firearms group and gun owners have brought against a New York City handgun law … that bans people from transporting licensed and unloaded handguns to destinations other than one of seven shooting ranges in the city.”
  • At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger weighs in on the debate over whether video cameras should be permitted in the Supreme Court courtroom, suggesting that the court “should not stream its arguments live but instead should make them available on video largely the same way it presently does in audio.”
  • At the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, Bernard Bell offers the last in a series of posts on Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, which involves the scope of the Freedom of Information Act’s trade-secrets exemption and in which the Supreme Court recently recalled the mandate; he concludes that “the Court should hesitate before upending uniform court of appeals precedent that has been extant for more than 40 years.”
  • At the Cato Institute, Bradley Benbrook and others urge the justices to review “a farm business’s challenge to a California state-established commission that compels grape growers to contribute money for government-sponsored advertisements,” arguing that the court should “treat forced subsidies for generic advertising the same way it treats other such subsidies: as violations of the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association.”

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 justices will wrap up the October sitting by hearing argument in two cases. The first is Nielsen v. Preap, which involves the immigration law’s mandatory detention provision. Jennifer Chacon previewed the case for this blog. Ushin Hong and Russell Mendelson have a preview for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Today’s second […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

This morning the justices will wrap up the October sitting by hearing argument in two cases. The first is Nielsen v. Preap, which involves the immigration law’s mandatory detention provision. Jennifer Chacon previewed the case for this blog. Ushin Hong and Russell Mendelson have a preview for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Today’s second argument is in Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, which asks whether companies can be held liable under maritime law for injuries caused by asbestos that was added to the companies’ products by third parties after the point of sale. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in this case.] This blog’s preview came from Ronald Mann. Cecilia Bruni and Brady Plastaras preview the case for Cornell, and Subscript Law has a graphic explainer.

Yesterday marked Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s debut on the Supreme Court bench. Mark Walsh offers a first-hand view for this blog. At Fox News, Bill Mears reports that “Kavanaugh received a warm welcome from his new colleagues Tuesday as he made a low-key public debut at the Supreme Court, in a collegial scene that stood in sharp contrast to the chaos of his confirmation process.” Additional coverage of Kavanaugh’s first day as a justice comes from Jessica Gresko and Mark Sherman for the Associated Press, Kevin Daley at The Daily Caller, Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley at Reuters, Greg Stohr and Sahil Kapur at Bloomberg, Robert Barnes and others for The Washington Post, Richard Wolf for USA Today, and Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal. In Stokeling v. United States, the court considered whether a state-law robbery offense meets the Armed Career Criminal Act’s definition of a violent felony. The next argument was in two consolidated cases, United States v. Stitt and United States v. Sims, both of which involve the “generic” definition of burglary for the purposes of an ACCA enhancement. Rory Little analyzes both arguments for this blog.

For this blog, as first posted at Howe on the Court, Amy Howe reports that in the order list from last Friday’s conference, the justices “did not add any new cases to their docket, and they did not act at all on several high-profile petitions for review – potentially pushing those off until a future conference, at which all nine justices can vote.” At E&E News (subscription required), Ellen Gilmer reports that “[e]nvironmentalists and business interests had hoped the justices would accept a case involving a 2015 EPA rule aimed at phasing out the use of powerful greenhouse gases known as hydrofluorocarbons,” but “[t]he justices denied their petition [yesterday], declining to review a lower-court decision that struck down the program.”

For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that over time, “Kavanaugh is expected to provide a consistent vote to implement the conservative movement’s legal agenda in a range of areas where the Supreme Court has failed to produce ideologically consistent results, despite Republican presidents having appointed 14 of 18 justices since 1969.” Ellen Gilmer reports for E&E News that “[c]onservative lawyers are mapping out the next environmental battles they want to wage before the newly constituted Supreme Court,” which may herald “a potential uptick in cases involving property rights, agency power and cornerstone environmental laws including the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act.” At the Pacific Legal Foundation Blog, Mark Miller considers the potential impact of  Kavanaugh’s appointment “on the Court’s practice and jurisprudence.” For the Jewish Policy Center’s InFOCUS magazine, Ilya Shapiro observes that “the Court’s ideological dynamic that we’ve all gotten used to, with four liberals, four conservatives, and a ‘swing,’ is now done.”

Briefly:

  • At SCOTUS OA, Tonya Jacobi and Matthew Sag “predict a unique alliance” based on last week’s oral argument in Gundy v. United States, in which the justices will decide whether a provision of the federal sex-offender act violates the nondelegation doctrine: “a dissenting coalition of the liberal Justice Sotomayor and the conservative Justice Gorsuch,” producing “a 5:3 ruling in favor of the government, with Sotomayor and Gorsuch joined by the silent Justice Thomas, based on his previous positions.”

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-upThis morning, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will join the Supreme Court bench for the first time to hear argument in two cases, both involving the mandatory sentencing enhancement provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act. In Stokeling v. United States, the court will consider whether a state-law robbery offense meets the ACCA’s definition of a violent […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

This morning, Justice Brett Kavanaugh will join the Supreme Court bench for the first time to hear argument in two cases, both involving the mandatory sentencing enhancement provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act. In Stokeling v. United States, the court will consider whether a state-law robbery offense meets the ACCA’s definition of a violent felony. Rory Little previewed the case for this blog. Matt Farnum and Trevor O’Bryan have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. The second argument is in two consolidated cases, United States v. Stitt and United States v. Sims, both of which involve the “generic” definition of burglary for the purposes of an ACCA enhancement. This blog’s preview again came from Rory Little, while Clotilde Le Roy and Jarrett Field preview Stitt and Sims for Cornell. Subscript Law has a graphic explainer.

Last night Kavanaugh took his ceremonial oath, which had already been administered privately on Saturday, during a public event in the East Room of the White House. Mark Walsh covers the event for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Richard Wolf for USA Today, who reports that Kavanaugh’s appearance at the ceremony “follows a whirlwind weekend in which he was confirmed by the Senate, sworn in, hired law clerks and assembled his high court chambers.” For The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Kavanaugh has made good on his pledge to hire women to serve as his law clerks, becoming the first justice to have an all-female staff.”

Joan Biskupic writes at CNN that “with the addition of Kavanaugh, the high court passed a new marker of exclusivity: For the first time ever, a majority of the sitting justices once served as Supreme Court law clerks.” At The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports on the extent to which Justice Clarence Thomas’ experience “may foreshadow how … Kavanaugh will be received when he joins his new colleagues.” Commentary and analysis on Kavanaugh confirmation come from Garrett Epps for The Atlantic, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, Lisa Keen at Keen News Service, Joan Biskupic for CNN, David French at National Review, Michael Dorf at Take Care, Kenneth Jost at Jost on Justice, Julio Gonzales at The Federalist, Katrina Trinko at The Daily Signal, Tom Ginsburg and Aziz Huq at Take Care, Bill Blum at truthdig, Andrew McCarthy in an op-ed at The Hill, and Michael Bobelian at Forbes.

The latest episode of First Mondays (podcast) “cover[s] labor law’s intersection with arbitration, the takings clause and immigration,” recapping  “last week’s arguments in Knick v. Township of Scott and New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira while also previewing this week’s argument in Nielsen v. Preap.” In a podcast at Howe on the Court, Amy Howe “run down the Supreme-Court-related news of the week, including the first oral argument of the term in a death penalty case, the justices’ latest orders and the process leading to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.” More discussion of last week’s oral arguments comes from Mary Reichard at The World and Everything In It.

Briefly:

  • In two posts at the Yale Journal on Regulation’s Notice & Comment blog, here and here, Bernard Bell previews Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority, in which the justices will decide whether an implied discretionary function exception bars a negligence claim against the TVA.
  • At Outsourcing Justice, Imre Szalai discusses last week’s oral argument in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, about the scope of an exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act for transportation workers involved in interstate commerce, suggesting that “after the oral argument, it looks like an 8-0 decision in favor of the workers could actually occur.”
  • At The Atlantic, Garrett Epps looks at Nielsen v. Preap, a case on tomorrow’s argument docket involving the immigration law’s mandatory detention provision, noting that “the heart of the dispute is an everyday word: when.”  

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

Friday round-up

Friday round-upFor The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim and John Wagner report that “Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh moved closer to confirmation as the Senate prepared for a key vote [today], with Republicans arguing that an FBI report on sexual misconduct allegations exonerated the judge.” Nicholas Fandos and Sheryl Gay Stolberg report for The New […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

For The Washington Post, Seung Min Kim and John Wagner report that “Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh moved closer to confirmation as the Senate prepared for a key vote [today], with Republicans arguing that an FBI report on sexual misconduct allegations exonerated the judge.” Nicholas Fandos and Sheryl Gay Stolberg report for The New York Times that “[w]ith four senators still undecided — the Democrat Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and the Republicans Jeff Flake of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation was still not assured.” In an op-ed published last night in The Wall Street Journal, Kavanaugh wrote that he “might have been too emotional” at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the allegations last week, and that he “said a few things I should not have said,” but that “[g]oing forward, you can count on me to be the same kind of judge and person I have been for my entire 28-year legal career: hardworking, even-keeled, open-minded, independent and dedicated to the Constitution and the public good.” Coverage comes from Tony Mauro at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required).

Miriam Siefert analyzes Wednesday’s argument in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, which asks whether the court should reconsider a precedent that requires property owners to exhaust state remedies before bringing federal takings claims under the Constitution, for this blog. At Bloomberg Law, Kimberly Robinson reports that “Justice Elena Kagan appears to be the deciding vote in whether to overturn a more than 30-year-old decision that opponents say closes the federal courthouse to many citizens whose private property is taken by government for federal use.” At Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Ilya Somin writes that although “[p]redicting the justices’ votes based on oral argument is far from an exact science,” “property rights advocates have grounds for cautious optimism.”

Briefly:

  • At the Federalist Society Review, John Baker and Michael Krauss urge the justices to “review a California Court of Appeal’s decision that holds three former lead paint manufacturers solely responsible for remediating lead paint inside hundreds of thousands of houses,” arguing that “[t]he California courts ignored two critical elements essential to any public nuisance complaint — causation and the very definition of public nuisance.”
  • At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern weighs in on Gundy v. United States, in which the justices considered on Tuesday whether a provision of the federal sex-offender act violates the nondelegation doctrine, maintaining that “while a ruling against the government would be a victory for criminal justice reform, it could also be very dangerous to the progressive project.”
  • In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundation’s SCOTUS 101 podcast, Elizabeth Slattery and John-Michael Seibler “break down recent oral arguments in cases dealing with frogs, cemeteries, and an intelligible principle.”
  • For this blog, Andrew Hamm reports that Justice Stephen Breyer yesterday “extolled the value of poetry and literature, especially in the works of William Shakespeare,” as tools for bridging differences.

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