Friday round-up

Friday round-upAt Reuters, Lawrence Hurley reports that during Wednesday’s argument in Maslenjak v. United States, an immigration case, Chief Justice John Roberts “took issue … with the Trump administration’s stance,” “saying it could make it too easy for the government to strip people of citizenship for lying about minor infractions.” Additional coverage of the argument in […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

At Reuters, Lawrence Hurley reports that during Wednesday’s argument in Maslenjak v. United States, an immigration case, Chief Justice John Roberts “took issue … with the Trump administration’s stance,” “saying it could make it too easy for the government to strip people of citizenship for lying about minor infractions.” Additional coverage of the argument in Maslenjak comes from Britain Eakin at Courthouse News Service, who reports that the justices offered “hypothetical examples from failing to disclose nicknames to lying about weight to walking into an immigration hearing with a pocket knife.”

 Briefly:

  • As the court heads “toward the home stretch of an eventful and unusual term,” Constitution Daily offers “a quick update of the major cases heard in Court since October.”
  • At Bloomberg BNA, Patrick Gregory reports on the court’s decision this week in Lewis v. Clarke, holding that a tribe’s sovereign immunity does not extend to a tribal employee sued in his individual capacity, noting that the court suggested that “personal immunity defenses may still be available for tribal employees in some cases.”
  • The World and Everything in It features a discussion of the oral argument inTrinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, a constitutional challenge to Missouri’s exclusion of a church-run preschool from a state program that provides grants to nonprofits to resurface playgrounds.
  • At his eponymous blog, Lyle Denniston reports that for “the fourth time in the past eight days, the Supreme Court on Thursday night refused to delay an execution in Arkansas,” acting with “no recorded dissents.”
  • Mark Walsh has this blog’s coverage of an event yesterday at Georgetown Law’s Supreme Court Institute honoring Jeffrey Minear, the counselor to Chief Justice John Roberts.

Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Thursday round-up

Thursday round-upYesterday the court heard oral argument in Maslenjak v. United States, which asks whether a naturalized U.S. citizen can be stripped of her citizenship in a criminal proceeding based on an immaterial false statement. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog. In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that several of the “justices seemed […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Yesterday the court heard oral argument in Maslenjak v. United States, which asks whether a naturalized U.S. citizen can be stripped of her citizenship in a criminal proceeding based on an immaterial false statement. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog. In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that several of the “justices seemed taken aback” by the idea “that the government may revoke the citizenship of Americans who made even trivial misstatements in their naturalization proceedings.” Additional coverage of the argument comes from Jess Bravin in The Wall Street Journal, who reports that “[s]kepticism over the Trump administration’s broad view of government power didn’t translate into sympathy for Divna Maslenjak, the Bosnian Serb immigrant who filed the appeal.” 

On Tuesday, the court heard argument in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, a civil procedure case involving a court’s specific jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants sued by out-of-state plaintiffs. Ronald Mann analyzes the argument for this blog. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.]

Briefly:

  • At the ACS blog, Brian Stull weighs in on Davila v. Davis, a case that was argued on Monday in which the justices will decide whether ineffective assistance of counsel in a state habeas proceeding excuses a defendant’s failure to raise an underlying claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; he draws on statistics and analysis to argue that a ruling for the inmate would not open the floodgates to additional litigation.
  • In a column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse discusses Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, a high-profile religion case, arguing that “the controversy in the case longer exists, because the state now agrees with Trinity Lutheran’s position,” and that “the court’s next move” will “tell us something important about the newly reconstituted Roberts court, specifically whether its commitment lies with consensus or with the regained power of five votes.”

Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upToday the court hears oral argument in two cases. The first is Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (consolidated with Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc.), a complex case involving rules for the licensing of biosimilars. John Duffy previewed the case for this blog. At Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute, Gerard Salvatore also provides a […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

Today the court hears oral argument in two cases. The first is Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (consolidated with Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc.), a complex case involving rules for the licensing of biosimilars. John Duffy previewed the case for this blog. At Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute, Gerard Salvatore also provides a preview. At Written Description, Katie Mladinich surveys the case, noting that the Federal Circuit quoted Churchill “in describing the statute as ‘a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma,’” and that the “Supreme Court is now faced with unraveling this riddle.” The second argument today of the day is in Maslenjak v. United States, which asks whether a naturalized U.S. citizen can be stripped of her citizenship in a criminal proceeding based on an immaterial false statement. Amy Howe had this blog’s preview.  Krsna Avila and Nicholas Halliburton preview the case for Cornell.  

Yesterday the court heard oral argument in BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, in which the justices considered the contours of personal jurisdiction for lawsuits brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog. In Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro reports that the argument “appeared inconclusive,” yielding “no clear sign that the high court would clarify the jumbled rules of jurisdiction.”

There was an unusual soundtrack to yesterday’s first argument: the chime of a cell phone, which turned out to belong to Justice Stephen Breyer. Mark Walsh reports on the unaccustomed interruption for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Robert Barnes in The Washington Post, who notes that “[e]lectronic devices are strictly forbidden in the courtroom, even for the lawyers who are arguing cases.” In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that the “78-year-old justice was clearly upset with himself, and later was seen holding his head and shaking it.”

Yesterday the justices issued a unanimous opinion in Lewis v. Clarke, holding that a tribe’s sovereign immunity does not extend to a tribal employee sued in his individual capacity. Todd Henderson analyzes the opinion for this blog. At Stanford Law School’s Legal Aggregate blog, Gregory Ablavsky observes that “the decision treats tribal sovereign immunity seriously and legitimately—a small but important accomplishment, given that in previous opinions the Court upheld precedent only while holding its nose, denigrating tribal sovereign immunity as an ‘accident’ and expressing ‘a fair bit of sympathy’ for critiques.”

On Monday, the court heard argument in Davila v. Davis, in which the justices will decide whether ineffective assistance of counsel in a state habeas proceeding excuses a defendant’s failure to raise an underlying claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Steve Vladeck analyzes the argument for this blog.

At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman discusses Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent from the court’s decision on Monday to deny review of a lower court’s ruling granting qualified immunity on summary judgment to a police officer who was sued for shooting a suspect, observing that the dissent “highlights the Court’s failure to intervene in this and similar cases in which summary judgment is (erroneously) granted against § 1983 plaintiffs, while frequently summarily reversing decisions denying summary judgment in favor of officers.” At Vox, German Lopez notes that, in Sotomayor’s view, a summary judgment ruling like this one is “one of the biases in the legal system that may let cops get away with excessive use of force — by slanting the system in favor of the police officer.”

Briefly:

  • At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger discusses Monday’s argument in McWilliams v. Dunn, in which the justices will decide whether an Arkansas defendant in a capital case whose mental health was at issue was entitled to assistance from a psychiatrist independent of the prosecution, concluding that “the Supreme Court may well decide that the Ake precedent is ambiguous, the Oklahoma court’s decision is not an unreasonable application of it, and that is all that Congress has authorized a federal habeas corpus court to decide.”
  • At the National Council of State Legislatures’ blog, Lisa Soronen looks at Nelson v. Colorado, in which the justices held last week that a state cannot require a defendant whose conviction is invalidated to prove actual innocence before recovering fines and fees imposed as a consequence of the conviction; she notes that this “is one of those rare cases where the Supreme Court invalidates a state law but no other states have anything identical or similar.”
  • A Heritage Foundation podcast features a discussion of Justice Neil Gorsuch’s arrival on the Supreme Court bench.
  • At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman examines data suggesting that the “recent consistency of Justice Thomas’ dissents harkens back to one of history’s strongest proponents (and one of the most regular writers) of the dissenting opinion, Justice William Orville Douglas.”

Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upToday the court hears oral argument in two cases. First up is BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, in which the justices will consider the contours of personal jurisdiction for lawsuits brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog. At Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute, Karen Smeda […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Today the court hears oral argument in two cases. First up is BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, in which the justices will consider the contours of personal jurisdiction for lawsuits brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog. At Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute, Karen Smeda and Natalia San Juan also preview the case. The second argument today of the day is in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, another civil procedure case involving a court’s specific jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants sued by out-of-state plaintiffs. Ronald Mann had this blog’s preview. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in this case.] Andrew Maury and Eugene Temchenko preview the case for Cornell. At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Walter Olson argues that today’s cases offer the court an opportunity to draw lines that will enable “the federal judiciary to police overreaching by state courts in their jurisdictional claims.”

Yesterday the justices released their orders from last Friday’s private conference; although they did not grant review in any cases, the order list included several statements related to the denial of certiorari. Amy Howe covers the order list for this blog. At the Cato Institute’s Police Misconduct.net project, Tim Lynch discusses Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent from the court’s decision to deny review to a lower court’s ruling granting qualified immunity to a police officer who was sued for shooting a suspect; he argues that at “the least, the jury should have decided whether the shot was truly justified.” In The Atlantic, Ian MacDougall points to “growing concern in the legal community that judges in police civil-rights lawsuits are usurping the jury’s role” and that by “twisting the ordinary procedure of summary judgment …, these judges prematurely shut down lawsuits by, in effect, crediting the officer over the plaintiff.” Another look at Sotomayor’s dissent, and at Justice Samuel Alito’s concurrence in the denial, comes from Will Baude at The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, who questions Alito’s “description of the court’s neutral principles of certiorari,” observes that “the broader pattern of qualified immunity cases … suggests a double standard for the court’s jurisdiction,” and notes that  “in the past 35 years, the overwhelming majority of the court’s qualified immunity decisions have been in favor of officers whose immunity was denied by the lower courts.” At ThinkProgress, Ian Millhiser agrees that the court “appears to be applying a double standard,” maintaining that a “majority of the justices are willing to step out of their usual role to protect cops caught up by a dubious lower court decision, but they are unwilling to do the same favor for a person shot by a cop.”

Yesterday the court heard argument in McWilliams v. Dunn, which asks whether an Arkansas defendant in a capital case whose mental health was at issue was entitled to assistance from a psychiatrist independent of the prosecution. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog. In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that the court’s “liberals and conservatives seemed to disagree Monday” and that, as “is often the case, it may be that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy holds the deciding vote.”

Briefly:

  • In The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog, David Post weighs in on Justice Clarence Thomas’ solo dissent last week in Nelson v. Colorado, in which the court held that a state cannot require a defendant whose conviction is invalidated to prove actual innocence before recovering fines and fees imposed as a consequence of the conviction; Post maintains that Thomas’ assertion that “the money that the petitioners seek is not ‘their money’ at all; it’s Colorado’s money” should be “enough to send chills down the spine of any right-thinking libertarian.”
  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and Thomas Berry urge the court to grant review in a case involving a challenge to a California law that requires family-planning clinics to inform their patients about state programs that provide free or low-cost access to family planning services that include abortions; they argue that “[c]ompelling licensed professionals to speak the government’s message is dangerous” because “it allows the government to impermissibly put its thumb on the scale in a social debate, by conscripting individuals to help spread a particular message.”
  • At ImmigrationProf Blog, Nancy Morawetz looks at Maslenjak v. United States, a case on tomorrow’s argument agenda that asks whether a naturalized U.S. citizen can be stripped of her citizenship in a criminal proceeding based on an immaterial false statement, noting that the “oral argument comes at a time when Trump administration officials have made it very clear that they will pursue maximal enforcement under the powers they have.”
  • In Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro provides “thumbnail sketches” of the four law clerks assisting Justice Neil Gorsuch during “his short transitional period at the high court until the current term winds down this summer.”
  • At Reuters, Andrew Chung reports that “General Motors Co’s bid to block hundreds of lawsuits, potentially worth billions of dollars, over a deadly ignition-switch defect broke down” when the court yesterday declined to consider “its appeal claiming the suits were barred by the No. 1 American automaker’s 2009 bankruptcy.”

Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upToday the court hears oral argument in two cases. The first is McWilliams v. Dunn, which asks whether an Arkansas defendant in a capital case whose mental health was at issue was entitled to assistance from a psychiatrist independent of the prosecution. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog. Emily Rector and Kimberly Petrick provide […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

Today the court hears oral argument in two cases. The first is McWilliams v. Dunn, which asks whether an Arkansas defendant in a capital case whose mental health was at issue was entitled to assistance from a psychiatrist independent of the prosecution. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog. Emily Rector and Kimberly Petrick provide a preview for Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute. At NPR, Nina Totenberg and Lauren Russell report on the case, noting that the argument comes at “a time of high drama over executions in Arkansas.” The second argument today is in Davila v. Davis, another capital case, in which the justices will decide whether ineffective assistance of counsel in a state habeas proceeding excuses a defendant’s failure to raise an underlying claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Steve Vladeck had this blog’s preview. Liza Carens and Scott Cohen preview the case for Cornell.

In The Washington Post, Robert Barnes reports that “Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch cast his first consequential vote Thursday night, siding with the court’s other four conservatives in denying a stay request from Arkansas death row inmates facing execution.” In USA Today, Richard Wolf reports that Arkansas’ “macabre timetable,” in which the state attempted to “execute eight convicted murderers in 11 days,” has “greeted the newest justice … with a dose of reality: The nation’s high court, deeply divided over the death penalty, isn’t likely to escape the controversial issue anytime soon.” German Lopez remarks on Gorsuch’s “first major decision” at Vox, as does Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress. At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger takes issue with the dissents from the decision to deny the stay by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor here and here, respectively.

Constitution Daily’s We the People podcast features a discussion of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, a constitutional challenge to Missouri’s exclusion of a church-run preschool from a state program that provides grants to nonprofits to resurface playgrounds. In a column for Bloomberg View, Noah Feldman weighs in on the case, arguing that “there’s no burden on the religious exercise of the church when it can’t get a direct government grant for its playground.” In an op-ed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, James Gottry argues that “Trinity Lutheran and other nonprofits seek parity, not preference.” In The Atlantic, Garrett Epps points out that although a recent policy change by the Missouri governor may not have rendered the case moot, the court could “dismiss the writ of certiorari as ‘improvidently granted,’” a course Epps deems advisable because the “unspoken claim that Missouri is a bastion of anti-religious bigotry” may be “an imaginary dragon, conjured for the purposes of litigation,” and “[p]rudent justices might choose not to slay it.”

In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that Justice Samuel Alito suggested last week in remarks at a judicial conference that “[m]ore sweeping decisions and less compromise with liberals may be in store for the Supreme Court’s restored conservative majority.” In another Wall Street Journal report on Alito’s remarks at the conference, Bravin notes that the justice also “put the kibosh on the notion of televising Supreme Court arguments,” “citing an advertisement the Republican National Committee produced using courtroom audio as ‘Exhibit A’ for the way he said political groups and broadcast media would twist snippets misleadingly.”

Briefly:

  • In The New York Times, Michael Wines reports that a partisan-gerrymandering case that the state of Wisconsin has appealed to the Supreme Court “could transform political maps from City Hall to Congress — often to Democrats’ benefit.”
  • At Free-cology, Jonathan Wood urges the court to review “a challenge to California’s suction dredge mining ban,” maintaining that although “the case challenges the state ban as preempted by federal law, it will protect the states’ proper role in environmental federalism in the long run.”
  • At The Hill, Lydia Wheeler reports that “[t]alk is already heating up that President Trump could have a chance to appoint a second person to the Supreme Court”; she surveys possible candidates for a nomination.

 Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Friday round-up

Friday round-upLast night the Supreme Court declined to block the executions of a group of Arkansas inmates, one of whom was executed shortly before midnight. Amy Howe covers the proceedings for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, who notes that “new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch cast his first votes as […]

The post Friday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Friday round-up

Last night the Supreme Court declined to block the executions of a group of Arkansas inmates, one of whom was executed shortly before midnight. Amy Howe covers the proceedings for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, who notes that “new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch cast his first votes as a member of the Supreme Court,” and that on “what appeared to be the main order in the Arkansas cases,” in which “the result was a 5-to-4 rejection of the inmates’ requests for postponement of execution and denial of review of their legal claims,” “Justice Gorsuch was in the majority with the court’s four most conservative members.”

On Wednesday, the court heard oral argument in Weaver v. Massachusetts, which asks whether a criminal defendant must show prejudice when his counsel’s deficient performance leads to “structural error” in his trial. Rory Little has this blog’s argument analysis.

In Nelson v. Colorado, the justices held on Wednesday that a state cannot require a defendant whose conviction is invalidated to prove actual innocence before recovering fines and fees imposed as a consequence of the conviction. Steve Vladeck analyzes the opinion for this blog. In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that critics described the Colorado law struck down by the justices as “part of a national trend to extract fees and fines from people who find themselves enmeshed in the criminal justice system.” At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Trevor Burrus discusses the decision, observing that although its effect is limited because Colorado is the only state with a law like the one invalidated here, “for many former criminal defendants in Colorado, the ruling can help them get their money back and, perhaps, a little dignity too.”

At Bloomberg BNA, Patrick Gregory reports on Wednesday’s oral argument in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, a constitutional challenge to Missouri’s exclusion of a church-run preschool from a state program that provides grants to nonprofits to resurface playgrounds, noting that “Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer joined the court’s more conservative bloc in questioning whether the state could exclude the church from its grant program because it’s a religious institution.” At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro discusses the argument, finding the apparent sympathy for the church across the ideological spectrum “surprising, because if indeed the case is headed to a 7-2 resolution, then it would’ve been 6-2 without Gorsuch and there was no need to hold it for so long.” At Rewire, Jessica Mason Pieklo weighs in on the case, arguing that the “church is asking to keep the significant benefits it already receives in the form of tax exemptions as a religious institution, while also having the state write checks directly to it so that the church can improve its property, which is part and parcel of its religious ministry.”

At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman examines Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first week on the bench, noting that over the course of all the week’s arguments, and excluding Justice Clarence Thomas who, as usual, was silent, “Gorsuch with 114 questions asked more than Justices Alito, Ginsburg, and Kennedy.” At Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), Tony Mauro looks ahead, noting that a “wider array of tricky cases argued by tough advocates faces Gorsuch next week.”

Briefly:

  • In Time, Justice Sonia Sotomayor lauds retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor for founding “iCivics, a nonprofit that uses video games to teach middle and high school students how America’s democracy works,” asserting that “[t]oday there could not be more pressing work.”
  • In the Muscatine Journal, Emily Wenger reports that at a recent event in Iowa, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) “said he expects a Supreme Court Justice resignation within the year.”
  • At Jost on Justice, Kenneth Jost observes that Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has repeatedly “spoken out against judge-imposed death sentences,” “can now take a bow for significant reforms in death penalty cases in two of the states with among the highest number of executions since capital punishment was reinstituted in 1976,” because Alabama and Florida have “enacted laws eliminating judges’ power to impose a death sentence except based on factual findings or recommendations from a jury.”
  • At In a Crowded Theater, Erica Goldberg looks at the court’s decision on Tuesday in Coventry Health Care of Missouri v. Nevils, in which the justices held that a federal law governing employee benefits pre-empts state laws barring subrogation and reimbursement, arguing that the court’s “Supremacy Clause analysis elides an interesting problem and unnecessarily disparages legal formalism in a troubling way.”

 Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

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 Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, a constitutional challenge to Missouri’s exclusion of a church-run preschool from a state program that provides grants to nonprofits to resurface playgrounds. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog. In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Supreme Court […]

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Thursday round-up

Yesterday the court heard argument in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, a constitutional challenge to Missouri’s exclusion of a church-run preschool from a state program that provides grants to nonprofits to resurface playgrounds. Amy Howe analyzes the argument for this blog. In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports that “Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum on Wednesday questioned Missouri’s exclusion of a church-run school from a state playground-funding program that has only been available to secular nonprofit institutions.” At NPR, Nina Totenberg notes that although “even some of the court’s liberals signaled that they are concerned by the grant denial,” “neither side had an easy time of it,” and concludes that “the quest for the Supreme Court may be how narrowly or broadly it writes its opinion.” Additional coverage comes from Robert Barnes in The Washington Post, Mark Walsh in Education Week, Steven Mazie in The Economist, Adam Liptak in The New York Times, and Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, who notes that “any thought that the case might simply go away — stirred up by recent developments in Missouri, where the case originated — seemed wholly fanciful.” At the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, Ruthann Robson discusses the argument.

Commentary on Trinity Lutheran comes from David Cortman in an op-ed in USA Today, who argues that when “the funding at issue is for a secular use (and installing a safer floor on a playground is undeniably a secular use), the state’s efforts to wall off religious groups serves no purpose other than to discriminate against people of faith,” and from James Gottry in the Federalist, who maintains that “[s]crap tire surface has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with children’s safety.” In a column in The Washington Post, Dana Milbank offers another view, calling the case “a manufactured controversy, cooked up by conservative interest groups that are hoping to chip away at constitutional provisions in 39 states restricting taxpayer money from going to churches.”

Yesterday the court also issued two opinions. In Nelson v. Colorado, the justices held 7-1 that a state cannot require a defendant whose conviction is invalidated to prove actual innocence before recovering fines and fees imposed as a consequence of the conviction. In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports on the majority’s ruling that “reversal of a conviction—even for procedural reasons—restores the ‘presumption of innocence’ to the defendant, and therefore the state no longer has the right to keep money the convicted paid upon sentencing.” Daniel Fisher discusses the decision in Forbes, noting that the Justice Clarence Thomas “wrote a dissent raising deep questions about the rights of citizens versus the government and the reach of the 14th Amendment.” Ruthann Robson analyzes the decision at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog. In Manrique v. United States, the court ruled 6-2 yesterday that in a case involving deferred restitution, a defendant must file a notice of appeal from the restitution order in order to challenge it. Steve Vladeck analyzes the opinion for this blog.

On Tuesday, the court heard argument in Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission, which asks whether a federal statute of limitations on civil penalties and forfeitures applies to disgorgements. Theresa Gabaldon has this blog’s argument analysis. Tuesday’s second argument was in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., in which the justices will decide whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to debt buyers. Ronald Mann analyzes the argument for this blog. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioners in this case.] At Reuters, Andrew Chung reports that the court “appeared skeptical of widening the scope of who can be subject to a federal law targeting debt collectors’ abusive practices by including those who buy debt, sometimes for pennies on the dollar.” Additional coverage of the argument in Henson comes from Lydia Wheeler in The Hill.

At his eponymous blog, Ross Runkel discusses the court’s decision on Tuesday in Coventry Health Care of Missouri v. Nevils, in which the justices held that a federal law governing employee benefits pre-empts state laws barring subrogation and reimbursement. Another look at the decision comes from Lisa Soronen at the National Conference of State Legislatures Blog, who notes that the “court did not reach the question of whether it should defer to the agency’s interpretation of FEHBA’s preemption clause because it completely ignored the agency’s interpretation, instead deciding the meaning of the statute looking only at its ‘text, context, and purpose.’”

In The Atlantic, Garrett Epps argues that “the cases of two Arkansas inmates, Don William Davis and Bruce Earl Ward, sentenced to death by courts in that state” have raised the stakes in Mc Williams v. Dunn, a case to be argued next week about whether a capital defendant whose mental health is at issue is entitled to an independent psychiatrist to assist with his defense; he points out that the Arkansas inmates have raised the same issue and that on Monday “the Arkansas Supreme Court ordered the executions stayed pending the resolution of McWilliams.” Another look at McWilliams comes from Robert Johnson at ACSblog, who maintains that an “independent mental health expert would have changed what the court heard about Mr. McWilliams.”

Briefly:

  • At the Cato Institute’s Cato at Liberty blog, Ilya Shapiro and David McDonald urge the court to review a takings-clause challenge to the City of West Hollywood’s attempt “to condition issuance of land-use permits on landowners’ surrendering property rights the government would otherwise have had to pay for” by enacting “a zoning ordinance that requires developers who build multi-unit housing to either (1) sell or rent a percentage of that housing at below-market prices or (2) pay an ‘in lieu’ fee that the city calculates using a formula created by statute.”
  • At Reuters, Alison Frankel weighs in on Monday’s argument in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., which involves the rules for timely filing of securities class actions, observing that “Chief Justice Roberts could well be the swing vote to extend time limits for class members who want to sue on their own” and that “if the chief justice sides with the liberal wing to preserve plaintiffs’ rights, we may have to start to revise conventional wisdom about the Roberts Court.” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.

Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Thursday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Wednesday round-up

Wednesday round-upToday the court hears argument in two cases. The first is Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, a constitutional challenge to Missouri’s exclusion of a church-run preschool from a state program that provides grants to nonprofits to resurface playgrounds. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog. Cassandra Desjourdy and Weiru Fang provide a […]

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Wednesday round-up

Today the court hears argument in two cases. The first is Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, a constitutional challenge to Missouri’s exclusion of a church-run preschool from a state program that provides grants to nonprofits to resurface playgrounds. Amy Howe previewed the case for this blog. Cassandra Desjourdy and Weiru Fang provide a preview for Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute. More coverage of Trinity Lutheran comes from Steven Mazie in The Economist, Nina Totenberg at NPR, and Mark Walsh in Education Week, who notes that the court’s decision “could weaken or eliminate one of the last legal barriers to vouchers and tax credits for use at private religious schools: state constitutional provisions that strictly bar government aid to religion.”

Last week Missouri’s governor reversed course on the policy at the center of the case, announcing that from now on religious groups will be eligible for grants similar to the one at issue in this case. At the court’s invitation, the parties filed letter briefs yesterday explaining how the governor’s announcement affects the case. Amy Howe focused on this development for this blog, noting that “the state and the church agreed that the case should go forward.” Additional coverage comes from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, who reports that the “court has made no announcement of a change in the previously released calendar for the day,” so the oral argument “will go forward at 10 a.m. Wednesday, but at least part of the focus of the discussion will be on whether it will proceed to a decision on the church’s claim, lawyers involved said,” and from Mark Walsh in Education Week. At Balkinization, Marty Lederman explains why he is “doubtful” about “the merits of the letters’ argument that the case is not moot.”

At the Lock Law Blog, Ryan Lockman weighs in on the case, observing that it “essentially presents two favorite conservative causes, state’s rights and religious liberty, and puts them at odds with one another.” Additional commentary comes from Alan Sears at Fox News, who argues that the case “brings to the forefront … government hostility disguised as neutrality,” James Gottry at CNSNews.com, who decries “the heavy-handed discrimination Missouri displayed toward religion and religious entities,” Christiana Holcomb at The Hill, who argues that the “religious should not be forced to choose between their religious identity and equal participation in public life,” and Nathaniel Bruno at Public Discourse.

Today’s second argument is in Weaver v. Massachusetts, which asks whether a criminal defendant must show prejudice when his counsel’s deficient performance leads to “structural error” in his trial.  Rory Little had this blog’s preview. Ally Khodykina and Rachael Hancock preview the case for Cornell.

Yesterday the court heard argument in Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission, which asks whether a federal statute of limitations on civil penalties and forfeitures applies to disgorgements. At Bloomberg, Greg Stohr reports that justices “from across the court’s ideological spectrum” “signaled they will scale back the power of the Securities and Exchange Commission to recoup money taken years earlier in violation of federal law.” In The National Law Journal (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro agrees that a “key U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement tool may soon be reined in by the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The justices also issued two opinions yesterday. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, they ruled unanimously that a court’s award of attorney’s fees as a sanction for bad-faith discovery misconduct must be limited to the fees incurred solely as a result of the misconduct. Howard Wasserman analyzes the opinion for this blog. The second opinion, also unanimous, came in Coventry Health Care of Missouri v. Nevils; the court held that a federal law governing employee benefits pre-empts state laws barring subrogation and reimbursement. Ronald Mann has this blog’s opinion analysis.

On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., which asks whether intervenors in a lawsuit must have standing. Howard Wasserman analyzes the argument for this blog. Another Monday argument was in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., which involves the rules for timely filing of securities class actions. Ronald Mann has this blog’s argument analysis. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.] At Mayer Brown’s Class Defense Blog, Joshua Yount observes that the argument “suggested the Court, too, may be divided about how to resolve this debate.” At Law.com (subscription or registration required), Tony Mauro reports that the case prompted “Justice Neil Gorsuch’s first foray into securities class action law on the U.S. Supreme Court” and that though “he did not tip his hand explicitly, he showed less sympathy for plaintiffs than for defendants.”

This argument session marks Justice Neil Gorsuch’s debut on the Supreme Court bench. In The Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin and Brent Kendall observe that while “the arrival of a new justice is a historic event, Monday’s arguments were a reminder that not every case before the Supreme Court is a landmark.”

In The Guardian, Ed Pilkington reports on the Supreme Court’s decision Monday night to decline “to lift a stay on the execution of Don Davis, 54, imposed earlier in the day by the supreme court of Arkansas,” noting that the “ruling brought to three the number of condemned prisoners who have now been spared the audacious execution schedule set by Republican governor Asa Hutchinson in a rush to use a batch of the lethal injection drug midazolam before it expires at the end of the month.” Additional coverage comes from Alan Blinder in The New York Times, who reports that the “canceled execution of a condemned prisoner … was a significant setback for the state.” At the Associated Press, Sean Murphy and Kelly Kissel report that “Arkansas officials are vowing to press ahead despite the setback to plans to resume capital punishment after a 12-year hiatus.”

 

Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Wednesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Tuesday round-up

Tuesday round-upToday the court hears argument in two cases. The first is Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission, which asks whether a federal statute of limitations on civil penalties and forfeitures applies to disgorgements. Theresa Gabaldon previewed the case for this blog. Kara Goad and Elizabeth Sullivan provide a preview for Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute. […]

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Tuesday round-up

Today the court hears argument in two cases. The first is Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission, which asks whether a federal statute of limitations on civil penalties and forfeitures applies to disgorgements. Theresa Gabaldon previewed the case for this blog. Kara Goad and Elizabeth Sullivan provide a preview for Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute. In the Santa Fe New Mexican, Bruce Krasnow reports that “the arguments against the SEC have drawn the attention of others who consider themselves wronged by the SEC and have filed supporting briefs in the case, including Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks of the NBA.” At Yahoo Finance, Erin Fuchs also remarks on Cuban’s interest in the case. Today’s second argument is in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc., in which the justices will decide whether the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to debt buyers. Ronald Mann had this blog’s preview. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.] Thomas Kim and Ben Rosales preview the case for Cornell.

Yesterday the court heard argument in Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, in which the justices will decide on the proper form for civil service review in mixed cases. Howard Wasserman analyzes the argument for this blog.

Yesterday also marked Justice Neil Gorsuch’s debut on the Supreme Court bench. Amy Howe covered Gorsuch’s first argument for this blog. Additional coverage of Gorsuch’s initial day on the bench comes from Greg Stohr and Katia Dmitrieva at Bloomberg, who report that “Gorsuch proved to be an aggressive questioner, one tightly focused on statutory wording and perhaps even willing to start what a fellow justice described as a ‘revolution’ in a given area of law”; Nina Totenberg at NPR, who observes that despite “his white hair, Gorsuch looked for all the world like a kid on his first day of high school”; Richard Wolf in USA Today, David Savage in the Los Angeles Times; Tony Mauro at Law.comThe Guardian; Lydia Wheeler at The Hill; Robert Barnes in The Washington Post; Adam Liptak in The New York Times; and Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, who reports that Gorsuch passed a “good test for a rookie on the Supreme Court” —  “how well a new Justice can handle a deeply complex case that only a professor of legal arcana could love.”

In The New York Times, Adam Liptak reports that two factors may help Gorsuch maintain his voice on the Supreme Court bench: “He is conservative, and he is male.” At Empirical SCOTUS, Adam Feldman examines historical data related to Supreme Court tenure and retirement age to assess how long Gorsuch is likely to remain on the court. At CNN, Steven Lubet remarks that with his accession to the court, Gorsuch “will no longer be subject to a written ethics code, as he was as a judge on the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals,” and notes that although “Supreme Court justices obviously face the same quandaries and dilemmas as all other judges, they alone have no set rules for resolving, or even addressing, ethics issues.”

At CNN, Ariane deVogue reports that yesterday the court declined to review “a lower court opinion rejecting claims by undocumented Central American women and children — who were apprehended immediately after arriving in the country without authorization — seeking asylum”; she notes that the “court’s action means the government can continue to deny asylum seekers placed in expedited removal a chance to have their cases heard by federal court.” Additional coverage comes from Andrew Chung at Yahoo News, who reports that with its ruling, the court “sidestepped a turbulent debate over illegal immigration.”

Briefly:

  • The World and Everything in It features discussions of the oral arguments in Lee v. United States, an ineffective assistance of counsel case involving mandatory deportation, TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC, a case about the venue rules for patent infringement lawsuits, and Honeycutt v. United States, which asks whether co-conspirators can be jointly and severally liable for forfeiture of the reasonably foreseeable proceeds of a drug conspiracy.
  • In The Washington Post, Mike Berman reports that the court early this morning declined to act on a request “by Arkansas officials hoping to carry out the state’s first execution in 12 years,” and that the court’s decision, “coming with just minutes to spare, leaves in place a stay preventing Arkansas from carrying out an execution that was originally set to be one of eight taking place this month.”

Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Tuesday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com

Monday round-up

Monday round-upAs they kick off the last session of October Term 2016, the justices will hear oral arguments in three cases today. First up is Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, in which the court will consider the proper form for civil service review in mixed cases. Howard Wasserman previewed the case for this blog. Dara […]

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

Monday round-up

As they kick off the last session of October Term 2016, the justices will hear oral arguments in three cases today. First up is Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, in which the court will consider the proper form for civil service review in mixed cases. Howard Wasserman previewed the case for this blog. Dara Brown and Jaeeun Shin also provide a preview for Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute. The second case of the day is Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., which asks whether intervenors in a lawsuit must have standing. This blog’s preview came from Howard Wasserman. Taneil George and Nicholas Velonis preview the case for Cornell.

After a lunch break, the justices will reconvene to hear argument in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., which involves the rules for timely filing of securities class actions. Ronald Mann previewed the case for this blog. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in this case.] Cornell’s preview comes from Anna Marienko and Michele Korkhov. The George Washington Law Review previews all the cases on the April argument calendar.

Last Friday, the court asked the parties in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, a constitutional challenge to Missouri’s exclusion of a church-run preschool from a state program that provides grants to nonprofits, to file letter briefs explaining how the Missouri governor’s recent announcement that the state has changed its policy and will now allow similar grants to religious groups affects the case. Amy Howe reports on the development for this blog. Additional coverage comes from Lyle Denniston at his eponymous blog, who notes that “the court could conclude that the case no longer presents a live controversy under Article III,” and from Mark Walsh at Education Week, who reports that the “justices could decide to scrap the case as moot or could proceed with the arguments, during which they could give further consideration of the governor’s action before moving to the merits.”

Briefly:

  • In USA Today, Richard Wolf reports on legal challenges to an attempt by Arkansas to execute seven death-row inmates within 11 days “because the shelf life of the state’s supply of the sedative expires at the end of the month,” noting that an effort by lawyers for the inmates “to seek Supreme Court reconsideration was moved off the justices’ private conference Thursday, which means it won’t be considered until execution dates for four of the prisoners have passed.”
  • At Vox, Ezra Klein proposes limiting Supreme Court“justices to a 10-year, nonrenewable term,” which “would lower the stakes of any individual Supreme Court nomination as well as make the timing of fights more predictable,” as “a step toward repairing and normalizing a process that is now dangerously broken and infuriatingly random.”
  • The Employment Law Group’s Whistleblower Law Blog looks at Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission, a case to be argued tomorrow that asks whether a federal statute of limitations on civil penalties and forfeitures applies to disgorgements, warning that a ruling against the SEC could “make it harder to maintain a pool of award money that’s been available to whistleblowers since the Dodd-Frank Act was implemented in 2011.”

 Remember, we rely exclusively 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, or op-ed relating to the Court that you’d like us to consider for inclusion in the round-up, please send it to roundup [at] scotusblog.com.

The post Monday round-up appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from http://www.scotusblog.com