Friday round-up

Friday round-upYesterday the court held a formal investiture ceremony for the newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh. Amy Howe offers a firsthand account of the event for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall report that “[a]lthough it followed an age-old ceremonial […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Yesterday the court held a formal investiture ceremony for the newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh. Amy Howe offers a firsthand account of the event for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall report that “[a]lthough it followed an age-old ceremonial script, Thursday’s investiture couldn’t avoid implicit references to the political struggles surrounding the court.” Additional coverage comes from Jennifer Jacobs and Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Tony Mauro for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Ariane de Vogue at CNN, and Robert Barnes for The Washington Post.

The court announced yesterday that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fell in her office on Wednesday evening, breaking three ribs, and was admitted to the hospital yesterday morning for observation and treatment. Coverage comes from William Cummings and Richard Wolf for USA Today, John Wagner for The Washington Post, Tucker Higgins at CNBC, Lydia Wheeler at The Hill, Pete Williams at NBC News, Jesus Rodriguez at Politico, and Eileen Sullivan for The New York Times, who reports that “[t]he next sitting of the Supreme Court begins Nov. 26, and Justice Ginsburg’s history suggests the injuries are not likely to keep her away.” At Vox, Aja Romano writes that news of Ginsburg’s hospitalization “has created a stir on social media.”

At NPR, Tim Mak reports that “Christine Blasey Ford is still being harassed after leveling sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, her lawyers say.” Anna North discusses this story at Vox.

Briefly:

  • Richard Wolf reports for USA Today that “[s]o far, at least, [Kavanaugh] has emphasized ‘common sense’ over conservatism” from the Supreme Court bench.
  • For The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that, on the wake of the Supreme Court’s “inconclusive technical ruling[]” last term in Benisek v. Lamone, “[a] federal court struck down a Maryland congressional district drawn by Democrats to eliminate a Republican House seat, setting the stage for another Supreme Court battle over gerrymandering.”
  • Kathryn Moore analyzes Wednesday’s argument in Culbertson v. Berryhill, which involves a statutory cap on attorney’s fees in Social Security benefit cases, for this blog.
  • At National Review, Carrie Severino argues that the midterm election results reflect “that there were tangible electoral consequences for red state Democrats who voted against Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation.”

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-upAmy Howe analyzes yesterday’s oral argument in Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, which involves service of process on foreign governments under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Jess Bravin reports for The Wall Street Journal that “Sudan’s government argued … that it […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Amy Howe analyzes yesterday’s oral argument in Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, which involves service of process on foreign governments under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. Jess Bravin reports for The Wall Street Journal that “Sudan’s government argued … that it shouldn’t have to pay a $315 million judgment for helping terrorists attack a U.S. warship because the plaintiffs sent the legal papers to the wrong place.” At NPR, Nina Totenberg reports that “to the consternation of the victims and veterans groups, the Trump administration is siding with Sudan, long designated a state sponsor of terrorism and now on the Trump travel ban list.” Jessica Gresko reports at AP that “[i]t wasn’t clear how the justices would rule,” and that the case did not seem to “split the court along typical ideological lines.” Additional coverage comes Adam Liptak for The New York Times and Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, who reports that “[i]f the court rules for Sudan, the judgment for the families probably would be thrown out, and the legal process must begin anew.” Jared Hubbard provides an account of the argument at Letters Blogatory.

Briefly:

  • This blog’s argument analysis BNSF Railway Company v. Loos, in which the justices considered on Tuesday whether a railroad’s payment to an employee for time lost from work can be taxed under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, comes from Daniel Hemel.
  • For Capitol Media Services (via Tucson.com), Howard Fischer reports that this week’s ruling against an Arizona fire district, Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, in which the justices held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to all state and local governments, no matter how many employees they have, “has implications nationwide, subjecting other small local governments to the same anti-discrimination laws that larger entities already must obey.”
  • At the Pacific Legal Foundation blog, Christina Martin suggests that the court may have ordered reargument 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, “because the justices were deadlocked and need Justice Kavanaugh—who had not yet been confirmed when [the] case was argued—to break the tie,” or “that the Court is still deciding upon the best theory for overturning the 33-year old precedent.”
  • In an op-ed for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse argues that, with its recent requests that the Supreme Court “keep[] the public from learning how the decision to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census actually came about” and grant “immediate review of decisions by three Federal District Courts that have prevented the administration from shutting down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program,” “[t]he Trump administration [is treating] the Supreme Court as a wholly owned subsidiary.” 

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

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upThis morning the Supreme Court will wrap up its November session with two oral arguments. The first case today is Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, which involves service of process on foreign governments under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Amy Howe had this blog’s preview, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Kathryn Adamson […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

This morning the Supreme Court will wrap up its November session with two oral arguments. The first case today is Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, which involves service of process on foreign governments under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. Amy Howe had this blog’s preview, which first appeared at Howe on the Court. Kathryn Adamson and Sarah Evans have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. This morning’s second case is Culbertson v. Berryhill, which asks whether a statutory cap on attorney’s fees in Social Security benefit cases is limited to fees incurred in representing a client before the agency or also applies to representation in court. Kathryn Moore previewed the case for this blog; Ushin Hong and Russell Mendelson have Cornell’s preview.

Yesterday the court issued its first decision of the term, in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, in which the justices held unanimously that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to all state and local governments, no matter how many employees they have. Charlotte Garden analyzes the opinion for this blog. At Education Week’s School Law Blog, Mark Walsh reports that “[t]he 8-0 decision rejects an argument that the ADEA’s provision applying the law to private employers with 20 or more workers should also be read to apply to public employers.” Lisa Soronen discusses the opinion at the Council of State Governments’ Knowledge Center blog. Another look at the opinion comes from Tibor Nagy Jr. and Hera Arson at Ogletree Deakins.

Amy Howe has this blog’s analysis of yesterday’s oral argument 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 and would therefore violate the Eighth Amendment; her analysis first appeared at Howe on the Court. [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.] Jess Bravin reports for The Wall Street Journal that, “[a]s conservative and liberal justices appeared to divide in predictable fashion over the case, the court’s newest member, Brett Kavanaugh, emerged as a potential swing vote, ready to question capital punishment like the justice he succeeded, Anthony Kennedy.” At Reason’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, Paul Cassell “urge[s] the Court to reject Bucklew’s arguments because of his deliberate dilatory tactics.”

This blog’s analysis of Monday’s argument in Sturgeon v, Frost, in which the court considered whether the National Park Service can regulate activities on navigable waters within the national park system in Alaska, comes from Sandi Zellmer. Emily Hammond analyzes the argument in Monday’s second case, Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, which asks whether a Virginia moratorium on uranium mining is pre-empted by the Atomic Energy Act, for this blog.

Briefly:

  • For The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that “[t]he court announced that Deepak Gupta of Washington’s Gupta Wessler was ‘invited to brief and argue’ as amicus curiae ‘in support of the judgment below’ in a Social Security case from Kentucky captioned Smith v. Berryhill,” meaning that means that “Gupta will argue a position in the case that the U.S. Justice Department—representing Social Security official Nancy Berryhill—no longer embraces.”
  • Ronald Mann reports for this blog that yesterday the justices called for additional briefing in Frank v. Gaos, a case argued last week 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; the parties have been asked to address “the justices’ concern that the plaintiffs in this case may not have ‘standing’ to bring the class action.”
  • At the Council of State Governments’ Knowledge Center blog, Lisa Soronen observes that American Legion v. American Humanist Association, in which “the Supreme Court will decide whether a local government has violated the First Amendment by displaying and maintaining a 93-year-old, 40-foot tall Latin cross memorializing soldiers who died in World War I,” “may have a big impact on state and local governments across the country that own land with veteran’s memorials containing religious symbols.”   

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 the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases. First up is 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 and would violate the Eighth Amendment. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog, […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

This morning the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases. First up is 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 and would violate the Eighth Amendment. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog, in a post first published at Howe on the Court. Benjamin Rodd and Julia Hollreiser have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. [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.] This morning’s second case is BNSF Railway Company v. Loos, in which the justices will decide whether a railroad’s payment to an employee for time lost from work can be taxed under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. Daniel Hemel had this blog’s preview. Cecilia Bruni and Brady Plastaras preview the case for Cornell. Subscript Law offers a graphic explainer.

Amy Howe reports for this blog that last night the federal government asked the Supreme Court “to intervene in a dispute over the Trump administration’s decision to end the program known as ‘Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,’ which allows undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to apply for protection from deportation.” Additional coverage comes from Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Richard Wolf at USA Today, and Bill Mears at Fox News, who reports that “[t]he Justice Department wants the justices to use their authority to decide the matter without waiting for lower courts to rule,” but “[i]t is rare the high court grants such a so-called fast-track petition before all the lower courts have weighed in on the merits.”

Yesterday the justices released orders from their conference last Friday. They did not grant any cert petitions, and they declined to vacate a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upholding the Obama administration’s “net neutrality” rules, which have since been rolled back under the Trump administration. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in a post that was first published at Howe on the Court. For The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall reports that the “new Trump rollback rules are facing their own legal challenges, this time from Democratic state attorneys general and consumer advocates” and that “[i]f those regulations are struck down in court, it’s possible the previous net-neutrality rules would again take effect, at least temporarily.” Additional coverage comes from Lawrence Hurley at Reuters. For Education Week, Mark Walsh reports that the court also “declined to take up the appeal of a Hebrew-language teacher at a Jewish day school who claims she was fired in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,” in a case that “would have given the justices a chance to further define the ‘ministerial exception’ it recognized six years ago, in which church and religious school employers are exempt from anti-discrimination laws for employees who are deemed to be ministers of that faith.”

Yesterday the justices heard oral argument in Sturgeon v, Frost, revisiting the question of whether the National Park Service can regulate activities on navigable waters within the national park system in Alaska. At Reuters, Lawrence Hurley reports that “some of the nine justices questioned the scope of authority that the National Park Service seeks to exercise in Alaska.” In an op-ed for The Hill, Tony Francois argues that the lower court’s “lax version of federal reserved water rights should be reversed, and replaced with the Supreme Court’s strict, limited standard,” in order “to protect water developments and the communities that depend on them from arbitrary federal interference nationwide.”

Monday’s second case was Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, which asks whether a Virginia moratorium on uranium mining is pre-empted by the Atomic Energy Act. Kevin Daley reports for The Daily Caller that “[a] majority on the Supreme Court seemed to side with Virginia, citing reluctance to probe the intentions of the state legislature, a famously difficult task.” Additional coverage comes from Richard Wolf for USA Today, Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, and Andrew Chung at Reuters.

Briefly:

  • At The World and Everything In It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in two arbitration cases, Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. and Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, as well as in Garza v. Idaho, which asks whether a criminal lawyer can refuse to file an appeal from a guilty plea because of a plea waiver.
  • Tony Mauro reports for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required) that “[t]he proposed Supreme Court rules changesannounced on Nov. 1,” particularly the court’s proposal to reduce the word limits for merits briefs, “came as an unpleasant shock to many court advocates.”
  • At the Council of State Governments’ Knowledge Center blog, Lisa Soronen urges the justices “not to overrule the ‘separate sovereigns’ exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause,” which allows a defendant to be prosecuted for the same crime in both federal and state court, in Gamble v. United States.
  • A CBS News report features a conversation with “Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and fellow Justice Neil Gorsuch … about their work promoting civic education.”

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-upAs the second week of the November argument session begins, the justices have two cases on their agenda today. The first is Sturgeon v, Frost, in which the court will revisit the question of whether the National Park Service can regulate activities on navigable waters within the national park system in Alaska. Sandi Zellmer previewed […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

As the second week of the November argument session begins, the justices have two cases on their agenda today. The first is Sturgeon v, Frost, in which the court will revisit the question of whether the National Park Service can regulate activities on navigable waters within the national park system in Alaska. Sandi Zellmer previewed the case for this blog. Luis Lozada and Tyler Schmitt have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. At Greenwire (subscription or registration required), Ellen Gilmer reports that although the “details of John Sturgeon’s case are odd and Alaska-specific: amphibious vehicles, big game and federal laws tailored to the Last Frontier,” “it’s far from a novelty issue[:] Experts say a ruling could have a much further reach, affecting federal land managers’ ability to regulate navigable waters across the country.”

This morning’s second case is Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, which asks whether a Virginia moratorium on uranium mining is pre-empted by the Atomic Energy Act. Emily Hammond had this blog’s preview; Isaac Syed and Yuexin Anglea Zhu preview the case for Cornell. For The Washington Post, Gregory Schneider and Robert Barnes report that “[t]he legal dispute spins off into directions as unexpected as finding uranium on an old Virginia plantation”: “It pits a state’s right to regulate industry against the federal government’s power to oversee matters of national interest” and it “also hinges on trying to intuit the true motives of Virginia legislators more than 30 years ago when they enacted the moratorium.” In a Bloomberg Law podcast, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin look ahead at this week’s oral arguments.

On Friday, the justices added six cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument, to their docket for this term, including a high-profile establishment clause challenge to the placement of a World War I memorial shaped like a cross on public land in Maryland; they also ordered reargument in a Fifth Amendment takings case that was argued before Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the bench and they denied the government’s request to delay the trial in a dispute over a question regarding citizenship on the 2020 census. Amy Howe covers these developments for this blog. Additional coverage of the “peace cross” case comes from Greg Stohr at Bloomberg, Jess Bravin for The Wall Street Journal, David Savage for the Los Angeles Times, Adam Liptak for The New York Times, Richard Wolf for USA Today, and Tony Mauro at The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required). At SCOTUS OA, Matthew Sag discusses the reargument order in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, suggesting that it “basically confirms our prediction that the case was a 4:4 split, although it is possible that some of the justices were genuinely undecided and thought additional argument and briefing could clarify matters.”

Amy Howe reports for this blog that the justices on Friday also “declined to intervene to block the trial in a lawsuit filed by a group of children and teenagers who have asked a federal district court in Oregon to order the federal government to prepare and put in place a plan to phase out fossil-fuel emissions.” For The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall reports that “[t]he Supreme Court left open the possibility that the Trump administration could try again by filing a new request with a federal appeals court that seeks to stop the case.”

Briefly:

  • For The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that “[t]he Republican-led Senate Judiciary Committee issued a 414-page summary report Saturday night on its investigations into alleged sexual abuse by then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, concluding that none of the incidents alleged during his confirmation hearing had any merit.”
  • Greg Stohr reports at Bloomberg that “[a] formal ceremony next week at the U.S. Supreme Court for … Kavanaugh won’t include the traditional walk down the court’s front steps, the court’s spokeswoman said Friday, citing security concerns.”
  • At Bloomberg Law, Patrick Gregory reports on court-watchers’ reactions to proposed Supreme Court rule changes: Those intended “to help justices make decisions about recusals would be welcome,” while “proposals to reduce the maximum word count for briefs received mixed reviews from appellate practitioners.”
  • At The Hill, Lydia Wheeler reports that according to poll results released last week by Fix the Court, “[t]he majority of Americans support the idea of setting term limits or an age for retirement for Supreme Court justices.”
  • At Concurring Opinions, Marco Simon describes nine “misconceptions” pervading last Wednesday’s “argument in Jam v. International Finance Corporation(IFC), where the question is the degree of immunity that international organizations (IOs) enjoy in U.S. courts,” arguing that “[i]mmunity distorts market behavior; it creates classic moral hazard problems, where actors take unwarranted risks because they know they cannot be sued.”
  • At the Florida Court Review, John Cavaliere looks at Reynolds v. Florida, a cert petition in a Florida capital-sentencing case that the justices considered at last Friday’s conference.
  • A Daily Journal podcast focuses on “[a]micus filings at the Supreme Court[, which] are at record levels, … seem more influential than ever” and are “also increasingly submitted by a small coterie of often-coordinated SCOTUS veterans.”
  • Kenneth Jost reviews a recent biography of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “Ruth Bader Ginsburg: A Life,” for the Washington Independent Review of Books.
  • In the latest episode of First Mondays (podcast), Dan Epps and Steve Vladeck “take a deep dive into two cases at the intersection of federal courts and foreign relations that are being argued during the November sitting: Jam v. International Finance Corporation and Republic of Sudan v. Harrison.”

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-upYesterday the Supreme Court solicited public comment on several proposed revisions to its rules, including changes intended to make it easier for the justices to identify cases in which they may need to recuse themselves. Amy Howe covers the proposed changes for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court. […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Yesterday the Supreme Court solicited public comment on several proposed revisions to its rules, including changes intended to make it easier for the justices to identify cases in which they may need to recuse themselves. Amy Howe covers the proposed changes for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.

Ronald Mann analyzes Wednesday’s argument in 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,” for this blog. At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie observes that “[t]he heart of the conflict—whether it is feasible to distribute funds across so many millions of individuals—may not find a resolution,” because  “[s]everal justices—led by the ideologically incompatible but increasingly chummy Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch—wondered whether the plaintiffs have requisite standing to sue.”    Briefly:

  • At Mashable, Mark Kaufman looks at the climate-change lawsuit brought on behalf of teenagers, in which the Supreme Court “has temporarily halted the … trial after the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court … to put things on hold,” remarking that “allowing the trial to proceed is almost certainly a dangerous or uncomfortable proposition for the Trump-led government, which is candidly opposed to widely accepted climate science.”
  • In the latest episode of the Heritage Foundation’s Scotus 101 podcast, “John-Michael Seibler joins Elizabeth Slattery to talk about a secret SCOTUS marriage proposal and recent arguments,” and Elizabeth “chats with SCOTUSblog founder and Supreme Court superstar lawyer Tom Goldstein.”
  • At Education Week, Mark Walsh interviews Justice Sonia Sotomayor about Sotomayor’s “off-the-bench role promoting education, as author of two new books for young people and in assuming the mantle of a national leader in efforts to improve civics education and engagement among youth.” 

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 justices heard oral argument in 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.” Richard Wolf reports for USA Today that the court “appeared divided along ideological lines,” […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Yesterday the justices heard oral argument in 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.” Richard Wolf reports for USA Today that the court “appeared divided along ideological lines,” with “[t]he more conservative justices … hostile to plaintiffs and defendants devising their own settlements and leaving potential beneficiaries penniless,” and “liberal justices … more sympathetic to lower court judges who recognize the difficulties in spreading money around huge classes and instead seek out nonprofits.” For The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that “[m]uch of the argument concerned whether paying the plaintiffs was practicable.” Additional coverage comes from Greg Stohr at Bloomberg and Robert Barnes for The Washington Post, who reports that “[w]ith all the debate about the issue, several justices seemed to have problems with the case that might keep them from addressing the merits.”

Amy Howe has this blog’s analysis, which first appeared at Howe on the Court, of the argument in yesterday’s second case, Jam v. International Finance Corporation, in which the court will decide whether international organizations have the same immunity as foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which contains an exception for commercial activities. At Law360 (subscription required), Jimmy Hoover reports that the justices grappled with whether the 73-year-old statute granting immunity to the organizations “provides the same immunity ‘as is enjoyed’ by foreign states today, or at the time when the statute was passed.”

Bethany Berger analyzes Tuesday’s argument in Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc., which asks whether an 1855 treaty created a right for members of an Indian tribe to avoid taxes on off-reservation commercial activities that involve travel on public highways, for this blog. At Bloomberg Law, Jordan Rubin and Emma Beyer report that “Yakama Nation Tribal Council Chairman JoDe Goudy was barred from [the] argument … because he insisted on wearing the full complement of his traditional tribal regalia, which he said left him feeling ‘very dehumanized.’” This blog’s argument analysis in Tuesday’s second case, Garza v. Idaho, in which the justices considered whether a criminal lawyer can refuse to file an appeal from a guilty plea because of a plea waiver, comes from Evan Lee.

Briefly:

  • For Fox News, Shannon Bream and Bill Mears report that “[d]espite the explosive political fight surrounding [Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s] confirmation, the 114th justice has been fitting nicely inside these marbled hallways, where most of the court’s work is done in private.”
  • At The Employment Law Group, R. Scott Oswald writes that “the justices heard arguments in two separate cases under the Federal Arbitration Act [on Monday] and seemed likely to deliver a business-friendly outcome in both — even though this will require them to treat the FAA’s blind enforcement of arbitration agreements as sacrosanct in one instance, while undermining it in the other.”
  • For Capitol Media Services (via the Arizona Capitol Times), Howard Fischer reports that “[t]he nation’s high court wants the views of the Trump administration on whether a Border Patrol agent can be held liable for shooting and killing a teen through the border fence in Nogales,” Mexico.
  • At The WLF Legal Pulse, Richard Samp describes recent developments on remand in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, a First Amendment challenge to a New York regulation that regulates credit-card surcharges, indicating “that the Expressions case is likely to make its way back to the Supreme Court within the next several years.”
  • For The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse reviews a new biography of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, noting that readers “are left to wonder what it was, beyond obvious dismay at the court’s conservative turn, that transformed a judge known for singing the virtues of minimalism and consensus-building into a famous dissenter.”
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman “looks at the Court’s citations to academic scholarship over the past two terms.”

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 wind up the first week of the November sitting with two oral arguments. In the first case, Frank v. Gaos, 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.” Ronald Mann […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

This morning the justices wind up the first week of the November sitting with two oral arguments. In the first case, Frank v. Gaos, 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.” Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog. Clotilde LeRoy and Jarrett Field have a preview for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Subscript Law offers a graphic explainer. For the ABA Journal, Erwin Chemerinsky writes that the case “will matter greatly to nonprofit organizations and educational institutions that have benefited from cy pres awards.”

Today’s second case is Jam v. International Finance Corporation, in which the court will consider whether international organizations have the same immunity as foreign governments have under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which contains an exception for commercial activities. Amy Howe had this blog’s preview, which first appeared at Howe on the Court, and Garion Liberti and Tayler Woelcke preview the case for Cornell. At Just Security, Harold Hongju Koh and Patrick Pearsall maintain that if the employees of international organizations “commit egregious crimes, cheat local businesspeople, or commit mass environmental torts or human rights violations, justice and fairness demand that they be held as accountable as foreign states.”

Ronald Mann analyzes Monday’s argument in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., in which the justices considered whether a judge or an arbitrator should decide if a particular dispute should be resolved in arbitration rather than in court, for this blog. This blog’s argument analysis in Monday’s second case, Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, which asks whether the Federal Arbitration Act precludes state-law interpretations of arbitration contracts that would allow class-wide arbitration, comes from Charlotte Garden. This week’s episode of First Mondays (podcast) focuses on the court’s arbitration docket this term.

Briefly:

  • At NPR, Nina Totenberg tells a newly revealed story about the personal relationship between two Stanford law students with impressive futures: In the early 1950s, “[t]he future chief justice of the United States … propos[ed] to the woman who years later would become the first woman to serve on the nation’s highest court.”
  • For the San Francisco Chronicle, Bob Egelko reports that in a recent talk at Stanford, retired Justice Anthony Kennedy lamented that “[b]itterly divided Americans have reached ‘a low point in our civic dialogue.’”
  • At The Daily Signal, Elizabeth Slattery and Ashley Vaughan highlight “three cases to watch closely in the coming weeks.”
  • At Law360 (subscription required), Kelcee Griffis reports that the court “has delayed announcing whether it will hear the closely watched net neutrality appeal and has indicated that the earliest it will say whether certiorari has been granted is after a conference scheduled for Friday.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.]
  • In an op-ed for The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Ria Tabacco Mar weighs in on a cert petition stemming from a sex discrimination suit filed by a transgender funeral-home employee, arguing that “[i]f the funeral home succeeds and the Supreme Court strips LGBTQ people of sex discrimination protections that have been recognized by a growing number of courts, the immediate blow would be to LGBTQ people,” but “the permanent damage would be to the court 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 Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upThis morning, the justices will hear oral argument in two cases. First up is Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc., which asks whether an 1855 treaty created a right for members of an Indian tribe to avoid taxes on off-reservation commercial activities that involve travel on public highways. Bethany Berger previewed the […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

This morning, the justices will hear oral argument in two cases. First up is Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc., which asks whether an 1855 treaty created a right for members of an Indian tribe to avoid taxes on off-reservation commercial activities that involve travel on public highways. Bethany Berger previewed the case for this blog. Matt Farnum and Trevor O’Bryan have a preview for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. At Greenwire (subscription required), Ellen Gilmer reports that this is “one of several cases the high court has accepted this term that wade into complex and contentious questions of American Indian law.” This morning’s second case is Garza v. Idaho, in which the justices will decide whether a criminal lawyer can refuse to file an appeal from a guilty plea because of a plea waiver. Evan Lee had this blog’s preview; Basem Besada and Luis Lozada preview the case for Cornell.

In Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., the justices considered yesterday whether a judge or an arbitrator should decide if a particular dispute should be resolved in arbitration rather than in court. At Law360 (subscription required), Bryan Koenig reports that the court’s “liberal minority dominated oral arguments … as they searched for possible off-ramps to arbitration proceedings like the one nixed by the Fifth Circuit after several dental equipment companies used a contractual clause to force a distributor’s antitrust case to arbitration.” Yesterday’s second case was Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, which asks whether the Federal Arbitration Act precludes state-law interpretations of arbitration contracts that would allow class-wide arbitration. Adam Liptak reports for The New York Times that the court “seemed prepared … to rule that workers at a California business could not band together in an arbitration proceeding to seek compensation for what they said was their employer’s failure to protect their data.”

Yesterday the justices also issued orders from last Friday’s conference; as expected, they did not agree to review any additional cases, but they did ask for the views of the solicitor general in a patent case and a case involving a lawsuit arising from a cross-border shooting by a Border Patrol agent. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog, in a post that first appeared at Howe on the Court.

For the ABA Journal, Mark Walsh previews Frank v. Gaos, a challenge to the “use of a particular type of remedy in class actions known as cy pres,” which “emerged in the 1970s as a solution to class actions with large and diffuse memberships for whom individual cash awards might be paltry,” and which “typically involve contributions to charities or nonprofit organizations that advance the goals pursued in the class action.” For USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that if the challengers to the cy pres practice prevail, “[t]he justices aren’t likely to go beyond setting broad standards for lower court judges to follow.”

Briefly:

  • Amy Howe reports for this blog that the federal government yesterday asked “the justices to intervene once again in a dispute over the Trump administration’s decision to reinstate a question about citizenship on the 2020 census[:] The government asked the court to block a trial in the case, which is currently scheduled for November 5, until the court can rule on the government’s petition seeking to limit the scope of the trial.”
  • At The World and Everything In It (podcast), Mary Reichard discusses the oral arguments in maritime-law product-liability case Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries, arbitration case in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, and age-discrimination case Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondent in Air and Liquid Systems.]
  • At E&E News, Ellen Gilmer previews Jam v. International Finance Corporation, “[a] long-running battle over a coal-fired power plant in India lands at the Supreme Court this week … that could have big implications for international environmental law.
  • In an episode of Bloomberg Law’s Cases & Controversies podcast, Perry Cooper, Kimberly Robinson and Jordan Rubin “preview the action in the latest cases involving the Federal Arbitration Act, sovereign immunity, and more.”
  • At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger observes that United States v. Haymond, a constitutional challenge to a statute requiring a judge to send back to prison a sex offender found to have violated the conditions of supervised release, which the court agreed last Friday to review, involves “an area where the Supreme Court does not divide on 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-upThis morning the Supreme Court will kick off its November argument session with two arbitration cases. In Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., the justices will consider whether a judge or an arbitrator should decide if a particular dispute should be resolved in arbitration rather than in court. Ronald Mann previewed the […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

This morning the Supreme Court will kick off its November argument session with two arbitration cases. In Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., the justices will consider whether a judge or an arbitrator should decide if a particular dispute should be resolved in arbitration rather than in court. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog. Clotilde Le Roy and Grace Brosofsky have a preview at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. The second case of the morning is Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, which asks whether the Federal Arbitration Act precludes state-law interpretations of arbitration contracts that would allow class-wide arbitration. Charlotte Garden had this blog’s preview, and Lauren Kloss and Nayanthika Ramakrishnan preview the case for Cornell. For CNBC, Tucker Higgins reports that the Supreme Court’s arbitration cases this term may make it “harder for American workers to bring lawsuits against their employers.”

On Friday the court added three cases 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 Law360 (subscription required), Bill Donahue reports that in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, the justices will consider “what happens to a trademark license when the brand owner goes bankrupt, a question that has quietly led to a deep circuit split.” Also at Law360, Ryan Davis reports that another of the newly granted cases, Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service, “will determine whether the federal government can challenge patents under the America Invents Act.”

Briefly:

  • A Daily Journal podcast featuring law professor Michael Allan Wolf and Philip Gregory, co-counsel in Juliana v. United States, the climate-change lawsuit brought on behalf of teenagers that the Supreme Court has put on a temporary hold, explores the prospects for environmental litigation before a “firmly conservative, pro-business Supreme Court.”
  • At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost explains why “the smorgasbord of ideas discussed at a program sponsored by the liberal American Constitution Society (ACS) last week seem unlikely to be adopted or, even if adopted, to reduce the level of political conflict currently surrounding the Court.”
  • In a podcast at Howe on the Court, Amy Howe covers last week’s Supreme Court news, including retired justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s announcement that “she has been diagnosed with dementia and will no longer participate in public life.”

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